I think it's probably a lot easier to coordinate car pooling today since every kid has a cell phone. 

The child abduction fears are paranoia (or at least substantially amplified by paranoia), but the concern about plain old car accidents is legitimate and always has been.  Of course, it's fair to ask "compared to what," and I'm willing to accept that cars are safer for everyone, including young people, now than they were 20 years ago--but still, high schoolers are much more likely to get into car accidents than 30-year-olds or 50-year-olds.  If we have better transportation options for kids now, good.

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.....

 

 

Maple (hardly a "rich" district)  had a permit system for the student lot, which was almost always full.  Maple also taught driver's ed as a for credit, during the school day class.  That doesn't happen anymore.

 

I also think those parents who are afraid of accidents also fear teen independence more than ours did.  But today's teens have ways not involving cars to get around that, so they don't fight that battle as hard.

GATW ‏@Transit_GATW  3m3 minutes ago

86% of #millenials say it is important for a city to have #publictransportation so they don't need a #car

https://businessjournalism.org/2015/04/millennials-and-money-give-us-more-transit-options/ …

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.....

 

 

Maple (hardly a "rich" district)  had a permit system for the student lot, which was almost always full.  Maple also taught driver's ed as a for credit, during the school day class.  That doesn't happen anymore.

 

I also think those parents who are afraid of accidents also fear teen independence more than ours did.  But today's teens have ways not involving cars to get around that, so they don't fight that battle as hard.

 

My cousin is 17 and just getting going with the drivers ed stuff, probably because of his parents watching too much Dateline. Drives me bonkers.

 

I can't understand what planet these parents live on where they think they are doing their kids any favors by sheltering them from reality. They think if their kids just get good grades and live in a bubble, they'll be all set for success, when in reality they are preparing themselves for a world of hardship when the kid turns 18, can't handle basic social interaction, has no assertiveness, and then they wonder "why won't this kid move out of my house? stupid millenials!!!"

 

I think I was a little too sheltered and my parents would've been better off throwing me to the wolves a bit more, but nothing compared to some of the sheltering I see/hear about elsewhere.

 

This lady is my hero: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/why-i-let-my-9-year-old-ride-subway-alone/73976/ This article went viral and was super controversial a few years ago.

 

Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone

...

No, I did not give him a cell phone. Didn't want to lose it. And no, I didn't trail him, like a mommy private eye. I trusted him to figure out that he should take the Lexington Avenue subway down, and the 34th Street crosstown bus home. If he couldn't do that, I trusted him to ask a stranger. And then I even trusted that stranger not to think, "Gee, I was about to catch my train home, but now I think I'll abduct this adorable child instead."

...

In 5th grade my dad stopped driving me to baseball practice, to friends' houses, and to my grandmother's store where I cut the grass.  I biked to all of that stuff on the hilly, bike-hostile west side of Cincinnati from that point onward and that's why I still bike as much as I can now, on any kind of street.  I and the handful of other kids who were allowed to roam free roamed vast distances and built up a lot of self-confidence getting around town on our own.  I immediately recognized that all of the crap on the news about "stranger danger" was totally made up, and that's back in the late 80s, when the prevailing crime rate was MUCH higher than it is now. 

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.....

 

 

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.....

 

 

Maple (hardly a "rich" district)  had a permit system for the student lot, which was almost always full.  Maple also taught driver's ed as a for credit, during the school day class.  That doesn't happen anymore.

 

I also think those parents who are afraid of accidents also fear teen independence more than ours did.  But today's teens have ways not involving cars to get around that, so they don't fight that battle as hard.

I have a grandnephew (btw my sister, his grandmother, is much, much older than me--lol) who is now in high school (in the suburbs of Toronto) and he has no interest in learning to drive. Unlike "PARENTS...fearing their kids driving and possibly getting hurt.", my nephew and his wife are really pissed that he's taking this attitude, and fears if he doesn't learn to drive now, he's never going to do it.

Neither one of my folks drove until their 20s. Early in my dad's driving career he caused a horrible accident where two people died at Rathmill Rd. and US-23 on Columbus' South Side. Around the same time my mother totaled a Triumph in Cincinnati. Both of them had to reflect on if driving was really worth it -- and this was in the car-crazy '60s.

Neither one of my folks drove until their 20s. Early in my dad's driving career he caused a horrible accident where two people died at Rathmill Rd. and US-23 on Columbus' South Side. Around the same time my mother totaled a Triumph in Cincinnati. Both of them had to reflect on if driving was really worth it -- and this was in the car-crazy '60s.

 

Wow, that's rough. Sorry to hear.

I have a grandnephew (btw my sister, his grandmother, is much, much older than me--lol) who is now in high school (in the suburbs of Toronto) and he has no interest in learning to drive. Unlike "PARENTS...fearing their kids driving and possibly getting hurt.", my nephew and his wife are really pissed that he's taking this attitude, and fears if he doesn't learn to drive now, he's never going to do it.

 

There may be some context here where he expects them to drive him everywhere, sometimes at little to no notice.

I have a grandnephew (btw my sister, his grandmother, is much, much older than me--lol) who is now in high school (in the suburbs of Toronto) and he has no interest in learning to drive. Unlike "PARENTS...fearing their kids driving and possibly getting hurt.", my nephew and his wife are really pissed that he's taking this attitude, and fears if he doesn't learn to drive now, he's never going to do it.

 

There may be some context here where he expects them to drive him everywhere, sometimes at little to no notice.

this may be, but then again he lives in an area with good regional public transportation, and as of now, he has an easy walk to school. His parents are well aware there's a trend of non-driving among his peers, but are still concerned that he's going to end up cloistered in his bedroom glued to his computer 24/7--like his uncle (no, not me! his father's brother :laugh:)

Drivers licenses prove increasingly less necessary among Millennials http://t.co/0RzCRJKcIp @tanaz_a http://t.co/SNMNXO2Vm9

Somehow I get the feeling that even if young people do eventually start buying more cars and driving more as they grow older they will still carry the "scars" of their youth like people who lived through The Depression did.

^It's already happening. My peers are now at that age where we're getting married, starting families, buying our first places, etc. Many of us have purchased a vehicle, but still choose to live close to work and close to the places they frequent. We might now have cars, but we've gotten so used to, and prefer, driving less that we're making large life decisions as a direct result of our previous experiences.

^It's already happening. My peers are now at that age where we're getting married, starting families, buying our first places, etc. Many of us have purchased a vehicle, but still choose to live close to work and close to the places they frequent. We might now have cars, but we've gotten so used to, and prefer, driving less that we're making large life decisions as a direct result of our previous experiences.

 

I grew up in Cincinnati's far eastern burbs and all of my friends from high school that I still talk to have moved to more urban areas. The ones still in the Cincinnati area have moved to places like Pleasant Ridge and Norwood where you can actually walk or take transit, and when you do need to drive, it's a much shorter distance.

My problem is that my occupation is by nature suburban. Bars and restaurants make money in cities, not video game stores. I'm not cut out for the hospitality industry.

^It's already happening. My peers are now at that age where we're getting married, starting families, buying our first places, etc. Many of us have purchased a vehicle, but still choose to live close to work and close to the places they frequent. We might now have cars, but we've gotten so used to, and prefer, driving less that we're making large life decisions as a direct result of our previous experiences.

 

I grew up in Cincinnati's far eastern burbs and all of my friends from high school that I still talk to have moved to more urban areas. The ones still in the Cincinnati area have moved to places like Pleasant Ridge and Norwood where you can actually walk or take transit, and when you do need to drive, it's a much shorter distance.

 

Same with basically all my peers. A handful stuck around suburban Cleveland, but basically everyone that I talk to left for school, graduated, and either moved to Cleveland proper or some other city. But almost all are within the city proper in a more urban environment. Of my college peers I can only think of a handful who chose to move to suburbia. Most of us drive in some manner, but it's a heck of a lot less than before we matured and began our adult lives.

My problem is that my occupation is by nature suburban. Bars and restaurants make money in cities, not video game stores. I'm not cut out for the hospitality industry.

 

In bigger cities there are plenty of places to buy video games in the city.  I'm hoping that more diverse urban shopping starts appearing in more cities as more money moves back into them.

My problem is that my occupation is by nature suburban. Bars and restaurants make money in cities, not video game stores. I'm not cut out for the hospitality industry.

 

What about near college campuses? There's a GameStop near UC's campus that is always pretty crowded and in an urban location.

God no. No Christmas, few trade ins, what trade ins do come in will be the same 2 -7 year old games, they only want n64 games. Never again. Game stops only there to maintain a presence. Every independent that has tried at osu failed miserably. High rents. You need children and families or you're screwed.

 

Nearly All retail is about middle aged women, even video games.

We're in a different time and place.  You don't have to go out to get items, more items are delivered to homes (via various channels) then every before.

 

I started to drive in 1981, the same year my older brother earned a license.  We learned to drive so my parents didn't have to run errands.  Period.

 

My two older nephews, niece and cousin all started driving at 14.  They learned how to drive to move cars when we had family events.  My brother would let his kids drive back and forth between his house and my parents.

 

I think kids today don't value the independence of driving like I did.

We're in a different time and place.  You don't have to go out to get items, more items are delivered to homes (via various channels) then every before.

 

I started to drive in 1981, the same year my older brother earned a license.  We learned to drive so my parents didn't have to run errands.  Period.

 

My two older nephews, niece and cousin all started driving at 14.  They learned how to drive to move cars when we had family events.  My brother would let his kids drive back and forth between his house and my parents.

 

I think kids today don't value the independence of driving like I did.

 

They don't need to drive to gain that independence any more.  Their parents, who fear their independence as much as they craved their own, don't realize it.

 

It carries over past 18 as well, as long as the kids are at home.  I reconnected with a cousin a couple years younger than me after mom's funeral.  He used to have to do all kinds of extra chores to get the car, and my uncle was a bit of a bully.  Along comes Eric with his own car and an attitude of "my father doesn't talk to me that way so you're not going to either".  Major difference.

 

Today stuff gets planned online, instead of when people are randomly out and about.  Plus DUI laws are a lot tougher.  So driving is targetted and one person is doing it more often than not.

I think your assessment that things are more planned these days is so far off from the truth. The baby boomer generation thrives on routine and monotony. Everything that they built and supported was mindless, the same regardless of what part of the country you're in, and is safe. Sprawl construction allows for you to know exactly what you'll get regardless of where you are.

 

The quick change in how millennials want to live reflects a disdain for that type of existence. There's a reason cities are more attractive to young people. They allow spontaneity. They allow for unique experiences that can't be found in other places. They allow for new connections to be made easily. The places the last two generations built and chose to live do not.

Every generation

Blames the one before

And all of their frustrations

Come beating on your door

 

-Mike and the Mechanics

I think your assessment that things are more planned these days is so far off from the truth. The baby boomer generation thrives on routine and monotony. Everything that they built and supported was mindless, the same regardless of what part of the country you're in, and is safe. Sprawl construction allows for you to know exactly what you'll get regardless of where you are.

 

The quick change in how millennials want to live reflects a disdain for that type of existence. There's a reason cities are more attractive to young people. They allow spontaneity. They allow for unique experiences that can't be found in other places. They allow for new connections to be made easily. The places the last two generations built and chose to live do not.

 

Looks like you may have jumped on the word "planned" and missed its meaning.  Have you been to the Metroparks lately on a sunny weekend afternoon?  During the 70s and 80s you used to have trouble finding a parking space.  Now, you can find a whole lot just for yourself.  You got there in a car or motorcycle, and for guys your status was determined in large part by whether or not it was yours and how nice it was.

 

This was where connections were made, and more organized activities such as parties, road trips, club meetups, etc. were planned and promoted.  Today, that's done on the social media du juor.

No, we're speaking of the same thing. You're stating that things weren't preconceived and instead you arrived somewhere and then things happened and connections were made. And I'm saying that type of thing still happens, just in very different locations from when it used to happen. Instead of a suburban location facilitating that type of unplanned activity, those things happen in urban areas. The way suburbia has changed over the decades no longer allows for what you're speaking of.

No, we're speaking of the same thing. You're stating that things weren't preconceived and instead you arrived somewhere and then things happened. And I'm saying that type of thing still happens, just in very different locations from when it used to happen. Instead of a suburban location facilitating that type of unplanned activity, those things happen in urban areas. The way suburbia has changed over the decades no longer allows for what you're speaking of.

 

In cities they do, and always have.    In the suburbs they now happen as I described.

 

In either case, the car is less essential.  Or perhaps more accurately, essential less often.

Yes, I know that's how they happen in the suburbs now. And that's why I'm saying it's far less desirable for young people to exist there. Because young people don't want that. You're agreeing with what my point was. That's a huge part of why young people are leaving the suburbs. Everything is sterile and lacks any excitement or adventure when you live that type of existence. In exchange you find young people moving to places where you can walk to places to experience this. Therefore less driving. The car is a symbol of suburban sprawl and suburban sprawl is precisely what has caused such a mundane existence for so many people. Ergo, less desire to have a car dictate life's excitement.

And as they age, and their families (if they choose to have them) grow, the openness of the suburbs will beckon them and they will realize that they don't need to live on top of one another, listening to the street noise, or the ships horns, or trains.  They will move for more room.

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same......

Except that's not what's happening. They might not choose to live in the center of the city, but they're not moving out to places like Strongsville, Broadview Heights, etc. They're moving to places like Tremont or Ohio City. Places where you can have a single family home, a quieter neighborhood, a yard, etc. without having to live 20 miles from work or civilization. And that's what essentially every single study about the movement patterns of millennials is showing.

 

You're also operating on the assumption that all humans equally desire large, open spaces where your neighbors are far away and you're completely disconnected from the rest of the world when you're in your residence. An assumption that recent trends questions harshly.

 

You seem to like the "black and white" types of arguments. Not every urban location is skyscrapers and in the CBD where people are "on top of each other," there's constant noise, etc. There are plenty of urban areas in city limits that offer exactly what you just described and there's a reason those places are also seeing such a resurgence. Because young people still want the ease of living nearby Downtown without spreading all the way out to endless suburbia when they start a family.

I'm always amazed about how much better behaved the children are in the inner ring 'burbs than in the further out ones here. Sure kids behave in Dublin, Worthington, Westerville are fine, but some of those eastern, southern and western ones are pretty bad. If you see a roving pack of teens in Grandview or Bexely, you're looking at a bunch of little adults. But out in the vinyl...

Yes, I know that's how they happen in the suburbs now. And that's why I'm saying it's far less desirable for young people to exist there. Because young people don't want that. You're agreeing with what my point was. That's a huge part of why young people are leaving the suburbs. Everything is sterile and lacks any excitement or adventure when you live that type of existence. In exchange you find young people moving to places where you can walk to places to experience this. Therefore less driving. The car is a symbol of suburban sprawl and suburban sprawl is precisely what has caused such a mundane existence for so many people. Ergo, less desire to have a car dictate life's excitement.

 

Younger people have always done that, and moved out the suburbs when they get married and have kids. The trend may seem away from that, but that's because marriage and kids are being delayed.

 

Sprawl isn't abating, let alone reversing.  In 2000, 56% of Cuyahoga County residents lived in one of the ten densest cities.  In 2010, it was 52%

Nobody said it was reversing. But it's also not growing anywhere near as fast as it once was.

 

The whole, "they're holding off and that's the reason" argument has been disproven time and time again. People move when they have kids and start a family, sure. But it's not as far as it used to be. And that's the major difference. And it's the cause of places like Cincinnati finally seeing a population gain again. It's the reason neighborhoods like Oakley and Mt. Lookout are doing so well. It's the reason places like Ohio City and Tremont have seen population increases and an increase in children.

 

The "young people have always done that" argument is also very incorrect. Urban areas in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s were not full of thriving businesses, new residents, new condos and apartments, and huge influxes of new residents. They were falling, and fast. What's happening now is not even close to being a continuation of what has happened in the past.

Except that's not what's happening. They might not choose to live in the center of the city, but they're not moving out to places like Strongsville, Broadview Heights, etc. They're moving to places like Tremont or Ohio City.

 

I said it will come around again.  You haven't experienced it yet.  You haven't been around long.  Gather some life experiences and you will see.

How young do you think I am? I own a condo. I have a career. I've lived in five different states. My friends are married and several have kids (and moved to places like I mentioned). My parents and their friends are retired or quickly approaching retirement. I'm not some 20 year old kid who hasn't seen the world. I also studied this exact topic heavily and how movement patterns have changed over time.

 

Maybe you need to realize things have actually changed and that the world is changing around you and your "experience" is blinding the fact that things do change. Only two generations in the history of earth have sprawled out like you think will just suddenly happen for young people despite the evidence proving otherwise. If we're going to talk about normalcy, urban living is the way humans have always lived during civilized history.

 

And how long does a trend need to continue before you realize it's not just more of the same? Because it has been over 20 years now that the number of young people/families moving to city propers has been increasing. Unless you think they've all just been "holding off" on starting families. Though that would mean there's a glut of children under 10 years old in the country. Which is not the case. The average American city is now growing faster than its suburbs. How do you explain that in your scenario?

 

Look at census estimates for second+ ring suburbs in Ohio. You'll find many are losing population. Broadview Heights, Strongsville, North Royalton, Hinckley, Brecksville, etc. are all estimated to be losing population yet Cleveland's downward slide is leveling off and many neighborhoods are reversing a decades long trend. How does your scenario explain this?

I'm guessing you are in your late 20's, because you sound like it.  I'm guessing while you complain about baby boomers, you have benefited greatly from what they have done.  I'm sure you have a lot of life experiences. 

 

What part of "things change back and forth" don't you understand?  II understand what you are saying now about people moving to the cities, one day that may change.  Its probably much easier for singles.  I like cities.  I live in one.  I can't imagine how my parents and grandparents did it for as long as they did, because Cleveland wasn't a comfortable place to live 70 years ago.  That's why they moved to the suburbs.

 

 

 

 

Sprawl isn't abating, let alone reversing.  In 2000, 56% of Cuyahoga County residents lived in one of the ten densest cities.  In 2010, it was 52%[/color]

 

Most of that movement took place before 2007. In the first half of the 2000s the sprawl machine was really wheeling all over the U.S.

Except cities now ARE comfortable places to live. The reasons our grandparents left don't exist anymore. There isn't sewage running in the streets. There aren't entire neighborhoods with no plumbing or electricity. These things have changed.

 

One day it might change, sure, but not anytime soon. And that's what I'm saying. There has been a reversal for a quarter of a century towards the way things were for all time before WWII. We're returning to the way things have basically always been.

 

I'm not "complaining" about baby boomers, I'm pointing out the downfalls of what they built. There were reasons for why they built what they did, but the end result is awful, soulless, cultureless, and lacks any sense of adventure, something human beings as animals thrive on. They didn't know that's what would happen, but it is. I can point that out without it being referred to as "complaining about baby boomers" because I'm not. I'm stating a fact about the qualitative aspects of suburbia and why a generation that differs greatly from its parents' do not desire it. And all evidence for several decades supports that.

What part of "things change back and forth" don't you understand?

 

True. Things change back and forth. But we're not talking about changes in a couple of years now. These are trends over the next couple of generations that will have a dramatic impact on real-estate markets, future development patterns, and future transportation patterns. Look at the demographics. Look at reports on future trends: http://getinsight2050.org/

 

Less than 20 percent of Ohio households are made up of a married couple with kids, and 70 percent of Ohio households have no kids under 18. The biggest growth in housing demand over the next generation or two will be for one-person households. The demographic groups with the biggest growth are millennials aging boomers -- the young people and empty nesters who are flocking to urban or urbanized areas, looking for housing in places where they are going to be less reliant on a car. This doesn't mean that Cleveland, for example, will again have 900,000 people and the suburbs will wither; it means Cleveland's decline is stopping and the city will see growth and improvement, and that the suburbs will have to urbanize and strengthen their downtowns and provide more housing options and walkability if they want to attract young families with kids. Growth will continue to be in the suburbs, but the suburbs will change. And all the changes, urban and suburban, will be less reliant on the automobile. The children of millennials will probably be even less inclined to drive.

I'm guessing you are in your late 20's, because you sound like it.  I'm guessing while you complain about baby boomers, you have benefited greatly from what they have done.  I'm sure you have a lot of life experiences. 

 

 

A sign that I was starting to get old was when I started finding city noise irritating.  Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, horns, the brakes on metro buses, etc.  Without intending to I bought a house in a surprisingly quiet spot and I'm not sure that I could go back to the noise now. 

'

What part of "things change back and forth" don't you understand?  II understand what you are saying now about people moving to the cities, one day that may change.  Its probably much easier for singles.  I like cities.  I live in one.  I can't imagine how my parents and grandparents did it for as long as they did, because Cleveland wasn't a comfortable place to live 70 years ago.  That's why they moved to the suburbs.

 

For the vast majority of human existence, there was no such things as suburbs. For thousands of years, people either lived in cities or in rural areas. It's only within the past century that suburbs rose in popularity, largely due to the government stepping in to build highways and subsidize home ownership. Now, things are swinging back towards cities.

 

I believe that hundreds of years from now, we will look back on the suburban era as a blip in history. They will not go away completely, but suburbs will not be considered the "default" way to live like it is today.

 

I completely disagree that we are going to go back and forth between cities and suburbs for the rest of human existence.

"I completely disagree that we are going to go back and forth between cities and suburbs for the rest of human existence."

 

That's okay, you are entitled to your opinion.  One of the reasons I think differently, is the ease at which people can travel.  Imagine how easy it will be once we all have jetpacks or Jetson cars!  Seriously, when my parents first moved to the Parma area, it seemed like out in the middle of nowhere to the rest of the family. Now its nothing to get downtown.

 

Not only are cities expanding, but the suburbs are growing considerably.  Are you really speaking of Medina County, or Summit County areas or Warren County, Butler county?

 

 

I didn't say that suburbs were going to lose mainstream popularity overnight. Look at how much the pendulum has swung back towards cities in the past 10 years. Then consider all of the trends -- more people preferring walkable neighborhoods, wanting to be closer to cultural amenities, young people being more concerned about their carbon footprint, etc. -- and I think we are just seeing the beginning of that trend right now.

 

Also, I agree that a lot of people will chose to move to less dense neighborhoods when they have kids. But more of them are choosing neighborhoods like Pleasant Ridge in Cincinnati rather than living all the way out in West Chester or Clermont County.

I'm guessing you are in your late 20's, because you sound like it.  I'm guessing while you complain about baby boomers, you have benefited greatly from what they have done.  I'm sure you have a lot of life experiences. 

 

 

A sign that I was starting to get old was when I started finding city noise irritating.  Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, horns, the brakes on metro buses, etc.  Without intending to I bought a house in a surprisingly quiet spot and I'm not sure that I could go back to the noise now. 

 

One thing I've noticed as compared to say the '80s is that people really mash the throttle today. This despite the fact that the average car is probably twice as powerful as it was then. They want to be wherever they're going NOW.

Part of the reason young people (and old people) are likely to continue a downward trend in driving is that we can't keep making it as easy for drivers today as we did 50 years ago; the road infrastructure simply isn't sustainable, not without a major economic boom that refills government coffers to levels that we haven't seen in, well, ever.

 

I was an an AMATS working group meeting last week about local transportation funding.  The mayor of one of Akron's exurbs laid out some numbers: He budgets $300,000 per lane-mile for road construction and maintenance and can commit about $1,000,000 per year to it (which includes his town's share of federal and state tax-sharing as well as municipal taxes that he allocates on top of that), which equates to about 3.3 miles of work every year.  He has about 250 lane-miles of road.  I didn't do the life-cycle math for him right there in front of the committee, but at 250 lane-miles times $300k per mile, that's $75,000,000 per life-cycle, which means that at $1M per year, the useful life of a given road construction job must be 75 years just to maintain what he has now.  The actual number is closer to 10-15 (aggregated average), and trending lower because we've increasingly built roads on surfaces that really aren't cut out for them, and there has been no evolutionary advance in road-surfacing technology allowing for longer life-cycles and worse foundations.  In other words, even if new taxes, fees, assessments, and other revenue sources doubled his budget, it wouldn't be enough.  He needs to quintuple his take just to stay sustainable.  I think that even the Democrats who will spend money on anything and the Republicans who will spend money on suburbia won't be able to go that far, even if every state-level municipal revenue sharing cut of the Kasich administration were reversed and the state and federal gas taxes were both doubled.

 

That's still the in the realm of policy wonks for the moment because the suburbs, for the moment, still generally have passable infrastructure (of course there are some exceptions, but it doesn't look like a world of 80% deferred maintenance out there).  But as the old expression goes, if something cannot continue indefinitely, it won't.

Here's the thing, suburbs can't keep sprawling outward forever.  Eventually they become just too far-flung to have any meaningful relationship with their parent city.  Rural sprawl or suburbs that aren't attached to any major city are a thing, but they're economic and cultural backwaters by comparison.  It's the same reason that VMT can't keep increasing per capita, because nobody can drive 24 hours a day 7 days a week. 

I'm guessing you are in your late 20's, because you sound like it.  I'm guessing while you complain about baby boomers, you have benefited greatly from what they have done.  I'm sure you have a lot of life experiences. 

 

 

A sign that I was starting to get old was when I started finding city noise irritating.  Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, horns, the brakes on metro buses, etc.  Without intending to I bought a house in a surprisingly quiet spot and I'm not sure that I could go back to the noise now. 

 

One thing I've noticed as compared to say the '80s is that people really mash the throttle today. This despite the fact that the average car is probably twice as powerful as it was then. They want to be wherever they're going NOW.

 

Today's cars can also take a lot more abuse under the hood.  While some diehard car buffs can keep an old Pontiac Catalina running for decades (and would think the 454cu" under the hood would make doing so worth it), Pontiac would not be offering 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranties on those things.  My little 2001 Altima is still hanging in there with 169k on the engine (though the strut replacement at 125k wasn't cheap), and while I don't drive it as many miles as most people (it has so many miles on it because it already had about 105k on it when I bought it), most of my miles are city.

Imagine how easy it will be once we all have jetpacks or Jetson cars!

 

The difference between Boomers an Millennials

 

 

Boomers grew up with this vision and still firmly believe it will happen someday.

Millennials do not.

Millennials realize how much fricking waste this would produce and hope for nothing more than this will never happen.

 

Millennials champion reducing waste, reducing impact and sustainability. Boomers champion..... NASA.

 

 

*Whoever said Millennials were the liberal ones and Boomers were conservative was sorely mistaken*

Anybody who knows anything about flight knows that 98% of the population isn't cut out for it.

I'd be terrified of an existence where everyone and their mother had something that could travel in all three coordinates. One small mistake in the air is far worse than one small mistake on the ground.