I suspect that graduated licences are a factor these days, as well.  My old (40) brain does not bother keeping up with all of the ins and outs of them but there are a lot of restrictions on drivers under the age of 18.  In some states you cannot legally have your peers in the car with you and woe be unto you if you are caught driving after a certain hour! 

 

There is also not the need to physically be in the same space with someone in order to spend time with them.  With skype and and live chat there are plenty of options for being social with peers that simply didn't exist in the '80s, when I was a kid.

 

The comment above about the drag of driving in a bigger city, like Cleveland, as opposed to Athens rings true but that is only discovered through experience.  A young kid who only really knows one or the other wouldn't know any better (or worse).

Really, paper schedules for buses and trains are a joke, they never work in the real world.  Knowing exactly when it will come using technology changes everything.  You have the power to use it efficiently and make decisions based on your time.  Should I wait or just take a cab or drive...used to be the quandry.  Myself and many and my friends now base our decision on how to go based on those new apps.  You might be at a bar or Downtown late at a show and the default was a cab.  Now just check your phone and make an informed decision.  25 minutes till the next bus...lets share a cab or have another drink and wait.  4 minutes...ok see you guys later the bus is coming and I want to catch it!

 

I personally have 3 bus lines in front of my apartment building during morning rush.  One that is express and runs right by my office in the loop, one that is express and goes slowly once it is on Michigan Ave and one that is just slow and local.  If I'm running late there is no question about what to take or which one might be still running because I know, and I am always leaving my house and only waiting a few minutes for which one I want...not standing in the cold forever wondering when the bus will come or if the express is still running.  It becomes a "smart" way to travel...instead of a last resort because I'm just broke and have no means to use any other form of transportation except a bus or train. 

 

That bus one block over from your house used to be kind of a mystery machine that you knew was there but didn't use...now it's on your phone or computer and telling you when it will arrive.  Changes the whole dynamic.

Ctaplanner.com

Google maps

Transit tracks app

CTABUS text messages

 

Every city and town should have some version of those.

 

 

 

 

There is also not the need to physically be in the same space with someone in order to spend time with them.  With skype and and live chat there are plenty of options for being social with peers that simply didn't exist in the '80s, when I was a kid.

 

 

There's a flaw in your logic, though. People haven't needed to share physical space with others to spend time with them, for a really long time. People share physical space to share an experience in the Real World. Skyping, e-mailing, texting and facebooking are only mildly more sophisticated forms of communication vs. conversing via telephone or letter-writing. We will always crave the sharing of real experiences, with others and I don't see how that has declined. Yes, people share their experiences on Facebook and Skype but if it weren't for real-world experiences, there would be nothing to communicate or share in the first place. You are never going to hear someone say, "We hung out the other day on Facebook." "We had a Skype Date". Social networking, video conferencing, and hell, talking on ones cell phone or primitive forms of communication such as writing a letter have always has been and always will be a superficial form of communication to substitute a real exprience.

 

I would contend that the more that superficial communication replaces real-life experiences, the bigger the backlash and yearning for the sharing of physical space and so that conflict would have us resolve to balance the two realms out. Personally, I'm burned out on facebook (and to an extent, even UrbanOhio, hehe.)

Ctaplanner.com

Google maps

Transit tracks app

CTABUS text messages

 

Every city and town should have some version of those.

 

+1 to this.

 

This would be one of my highest urban planning priorities in Akron; sadly, I'm only tangentially connected to the transit authorities here, but hopefully there will be some movement on that front sooner rather than later.  I'm not holding my breath, though.  It was apparently all they could do to update their Web site last year into something that at least looked somewhat modern.  (It still isn't good, sadly, but it's better than it had been.)

The links this article makes annoys me:

 

The Go-Nowhere Generation

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-go-nowhere-generation.html?_r=2&hp

The links this article makes annoys me:

 

The Go-Nowhere Generation

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-go-nowhere-generation.html?_r=2&hp

 

"Generation Y is becoming Generation Why Bother" HAHAHAHA. Well, it's true.

The links this article makes annoys me:

 

The Go-Nowhere Generation

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-go-nowhere-generation.html?_r=2&hp

 

Me too. How does having young people staying in their hometown, being close to family, and not driving automatically mean bad things? There are positive and negative sides to everything, and the author found only the bad things. Perhaps he not aware that young people can and do start businesses in their hometown using the incredible computing power and telecommunication links at their disposal? Perhaps he did not think that there would be a change in culture by replacing our highways with information super-highways? And yes, there is a replacement going on -- by conducting commerce over the web, it means less money for the highway system. Relocalization does have some potential drawbacks (economic transitions, balkanization, etc), but it also has some positives in terms of environmental impacts, causing people to build stronger and more stable relationships with their communities and families, etc.

 

But if your values are to be more nomadic and less stable, then I can see how the recent cultural shift would cause some concern.

I think lack of nomadic tendencies latlely is simply due to the economic downturn. When the economy gets better, people will be more comfortable with traveling away from their hometown/friends/family.

Reading between the lines, it seems that economic success for young Americans is only achieved by leaving your rust belt hometown for the sunbelt or coastal oasis. Perhaps, rather, the success of those areas are achieved by draining youth from the heartland. Come on young adults, the path to a prosperous and successful life is by buying a car and driving from Columbus, Ohio for a new life as a teacher in the Phoenix suburbs! It just bothers me that the authors tried to link one's personal success as a function of if they crossed a state line for work.

 

And the last line really irks me. Why do youth need to hit the road again? Oh wait, because hitting the road is some traditional American value that must be preserved and not die out with this generation.

What a strange and contradictory article.  What is it trying to say really

One thing he didn't bring up - kids tend to rebel. Maybe it's just a form of rebellion.

I was unaware that transit ridership had grown so fast as to be a primary cause of depressed driving rates for 16 year olds. I think it's probably due more to economics.

 

Child poverty has held pretty steady since the 80's at 22% or so. What this doesn't clarify is whether or not families above that line have shifted expenditures away from their teenage kids to patch other budget holes, like their own increasing transportation, housing and healthcare costs.

 

It also became more difficult to get a driver's license at 16, at least in Ohio, in the 2000's due to some new requirements.

 

There's also just the general sense that America is "slowing down." It's getting older, it's purchasing power is reduced, it's facing more international competition, it's shifting its focus somewhat back towards existing places rather than paving new ones, it's not even as physically active (even among children, with scary obesity rates.)

The oil field example is about the only job worth leaving home for for most people and you have to live in the middle of nowhere North Dakota.  Young people either have to be highly educated and specialized which makes finding a job somewhat difficult and moving to a random city difficult, or they have to work a minimum wage wal-mart type job.  The economy also adds to the problem.  In the 1990's it was easy to move somewhere you wanted to and then get a job.  Now young people might have a lot more difficulty doing that.

 

One other thing that I thought of when reading the article was that the helicopter parents of the 1990's and 2000's are needier and want their kids around more.  A lot of them had children when they were older which might keep their children from leaving them all by themselves in their mid or late 50's.  It is a lot easier to move away from your parents when they are 45 than when they are 60.

What's a helicopter parent?

What's a helicopter parent?

Over-involved in kids' lives -- always hovering.

 

I'd say they're pretty common for kids who graduated HS from 2005 through the present... though the trend is dropping off a bit. (Speaking from completely anecdotal experience. I worked with a lot of recent HS grads/new college students whose parents insisted on doing everything for them and got pissed with us when we told them that since their son/daughter was 18+, we couldn't tell them things.)

What's a helicopter parent?

Over-involved in kids' lives -- always hovering.

 

 

Wow. People are just so creative with their new adjectives.

Parents have probably always been like that. I've never heard of a helicopter parent. That's a dumb-sounding term. Sounds like you made it up while you were high!

The oil field example is about the only job worth leaving home for for most people and you have to live in the middle of nowhere North Dakota.  Young people either have to be highly educated and specialized which makes finding a job somewhat difficult and moving to a random city difficult, or they have to work a minimum wage wal-mart type job.  The economy also adds to the problem.  In the 1990's it was easy to move somewhere you wanted to and then get a job.  Now young people might have a lot more difficulty doing that.

 

One other thing that I thought of when reading the article was that the helicopter parents of the 1990's and 2000's are needier and want their kids around more.  A lot of them had children when they were older which might keep their children from leaving them all by themselves in their mid or late 50's.  It is a lot easier to move away from your parents when they are 45 than when they are 60.

 

Gen Y prizes time with friends and family over money. Even if they could make more money by moving to Charlotte or Atlanta or whatever, they don't know anybody in those towns and are scared of winding up sitting on the couch every night alone drinking vodka and bored out of their minds. "Wow, I've got all this money. Now I've got to spend it all on plane tickets just to be normal." I mean, people make friends at work, but what if everyone else at work spends nights and weekends with their families or their high school/college pals? That's why young people are demanding rail transit in their own cities rather than just saying screw it and moving to NYC or Portland.

 

Where's the tire factory in Columbus?

The oil field example is about the only job worth leaving home for for most people and you have to live in the middle of nowhere North Dakota.  Young people either have to be highly educated and specialized which makes finding a job somewhat difficult and moving to a random city difficult, or they have to work a minimum wage wal-mart type job.  The economy also adds to the problem.  In the 1990's it was easy to move somewhere you wanted to and then get a job.  Now young people might have a lot more difficulty doing that.

 

One other thing that I thought of when reading the article was that the helicopter parents of the 1990's and 2000's are needier and want their kids around more.  A lot of them had children when they were older which might keep their children from leaving them all by themselves in their mid or late 50's.  It is a lot easier to move away from your parents when they are 45 than when they are 60.

 

Gen Y prizes time with friends and family over money. Even if they could make more money by moving to Charlotte or Atlanta or whatever, they don't know anybody in those towns and are scared of winding up sitting on the couch every night alone drinking vodka and bored out of their minds. I mean, people make friends at work, but what if everyone else at work spends nights and weekends with their families or their high school/college pals? That's why young people are demanding rail transit in their own cities rather than just saying screw it and moving to NYC or Portland.

 

This is a major reason why my girlfriend and I have stayed in Cincinnati. It would certainly be a hell of a lot easier finding better jobs in other cities, but all of our friends are here and our families live within a reasonable travel distance. We have also been active in pushing for better transit options here.

Ah yes, those helicopter moms who call their daughters 3 times during the day, then recap everything with a 90 minute conversation at night.  The dads can be just as bad, with the daughters especially. 

 

As for driving, such parents are always there with the cash to get that car back on the road and little Judy back to the mall and her friends in no time.  I would love to see someone compile a statistics on the spending habits of (white) parents on the vehicles of their children.  I don't doubt that the percentage of (white) parents who subsidize the driving of their children to the tune of $25,000 or more by age 30 is about 25%.  Then break it down between boys and girls. 

 

A big reason why I got into so-called "urbanism" is because my parents never paid a dime toward my driving.  Not for driver's ed, insurance, car, or gas.  Except the time my dad gave me $20 to go pick up my brother when he was expelled from school.  So I'm up to $20 at this point. 

 

Also, my dad refused to drive me around to sports practices and to friends when I was a kid.  That's how I got into bicycling as real transportation, at age 11 or 12, riding on all the dangerous suburban roads that you never see anyone of any age bike on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Millennials are smart, sustainability-minded and savvy consumers. They want to do their part to save the planet, but don’t want to spend more money to do it. At least, that’s what I’ve heard from college students from every region in the U.S. They are unhappy about the problems associated with vehicles, from big ones like pollution from cars and trucks to the smaller pains like finding parking. They hate waiting in traffic and don’t love the cost of maintaining vehicles. They dislike the amount of land used for parking lots, roads and highways, and they loath the alternatives car companies are offering..,..

 

Read more at:

How Millennials Feel about Cars, Public Transit and Electric Vehicles

http://www.treehugger.com/public-transportation/how-millennials-feel-about-cars-public-transit-and-electric-vehicles.html

^That article's "facts" on public transit are largely inaccurate. I generally don't like articles about transportation written by environmentalists and the far Left because they turn out like that one.

 

^That article's "facts" on public transit are largely inaccurate. I generally don't like articles about transportation written by environmentalists and the far Left because they turn out like that one.

 

Which facts are you disputing?

^

In New Orleans, it’s streetcars, which are incredibly slow. Places like Atlanta and Los Angeles have plans underway for light rail systems, but right now only have buses.

^

In New Orleans, it’s streetcars, which are incredibly slow. Places like Atlanta and Los Angeles have plans underway for light rail systems, but right now only have buses.

 

I doubt those mistakes are due to them being environmentalists. I've read plenty of accurate transit articles by environmental publications.

In the 1950s, the railroads were hampered by marketing myopia, thinking that their customers wanted trains. GM and other automakers seem similarly afflicted that customers want cars. Stop trying to get your customers to adapt to you and start following them.....

 

As Young Lose Interest in Cars, G.M. Turns to MTV for Help

By AMY CHOZICK

Published: March 22, 2012

 

DETROIT — Ross Martin, 37, is a published poet and a former drummer in an alternative rock band. Wearing Nike high tops and loosefitting jeans, he is the kind of figure who wouldn’t attract a second glance on the streets of Brooklyn, where he lives.

 

But on a chilly afternoon here last month he managed to attract a few odd looks as he walked across the 24th floor of General Motors’ global headquarters. Mr. Martin is the executive vice president of MTV Scratch, a unit of the giant media company Viacom that consults with brands about connecting with consumers.

 

He and his team are trying to help General Motors solve one of the most vexing problems facing the car industry: many young consumers today just do not care that much about cars.

 

READ MORE AT:

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

A woefully idiotic approach to a changed society by a completely out-of-touch former economic juggernaut. It reminds me of that rap video that some conservative produced to attract himself to the black vote. Get the f-ck out of here!

 

Many of the article's comments and discussion are completely correct - frankly I have nothing new to add to the discussion that isn't already brought up.

 

 

 

My wife drives around a couple of Cadillacs!

 

Maybe GM should work on doing a better job with those who ARE interested in buying cars instead of disinterested youth.

In the 1950s, the railroads were hampered by marketing myopia, thinking that their customers wanted trains. GM and other automakers seem similarly afflicted that customers want cars. Stop trying to get your customers to adapt to you and start following them.....

 

As Young Lose Interest in Cars, G.M. Turns to MTV for Help

By AMY CHOZICK

Published: March 22, 2012

 

DETROIT — Ross Martin, 37, is a published poet and a former drummer in an alternative rock band. Wearing Nike high tops and loosefitting jeans, he is the kind of figure who wouldn’t attract a second glance on the streets of Brooklyn, where he lives.

 

But on a chilly afternoon here last month he managed to attract a few odd looks as he walked across the 24th floor of General Motors’ global headquarters. Mr. Martin is the executive vice president of MTV Scratch, a unit of the giant media company Viacom that consults with brands about connecting with consumers.

 

He and his team are trying to help General Motors solve one of the most vexing problems facing the car industry: many young consumers today just do not care that much about cars.

 

READ MORE AT:

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

 

If you can stomach more than a minute or two of MTVs "reality"-based programming, you'll barely see any cars. It's black luxury American SUVs everywhere, and its been like that for 10 years. GM has already been doing product placement all over the network. Frankly, MTV shows are just long SUV commercials. And they're saying they need to do more? How can they?

The US carmakers know the end is near.  The unexpected popularity of the SUV in the 1990s saved them from bankruptcy during the Clinton years, and as new vehicle sales inevitably shift to more fuel efficient small cars, they are doomed to less profitability per unit. 

Yesterday evening, I sat in a room at the offices of consumer/public opinion trends company, behind a one-way glass with environmental and transportation advocates from around the country watching and listening to men's and women's focus groups expressing their opinions on transportation, reducing their driving, and public policies involving transportation. This was done in five cities -- Cleveland, Charlotte, Raleigh, Philadelphia and Chicago. Each person was randomly selected and represented a broad range of ages and political beliefs.

 

So what did they have to say? Each person was given $100 in phony $10 bills and then asked to place those bills next to pieces of paper that said things like "Fix existing roads" and "Add lanes to roads" and "Build new roads" and "Improve existing public transportation" and "Build new public transportation services" and "Add safer walking/biking routes" etc. They couldn't not spend any money. In every city, among all gender groups, the options that attracted the most $10 bills was either "Improve" or "Build new" public transportation and the the option that attracted fewest $10 bills was "Build new roads." Fixing or widening roads, and safer bike/walking typically attracted $10 bills in a middle range between the least and most.

 

Many of the comments were very surprising. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in every city said they wanted to reduce their amount of driving. Most felt they couldn't because they didn't have options to do so. Nearly all recoiled in horror at the suggesting of raising the gas tax. There was some support for increase license and registration fees, especially at the local or regional levels because they thought most of Northeast Ohio's transportation money wasn't being spent here. The Cleveland women thought 30% of ODOT's budget went to transit. The guys thought it was more like 10-20%. All were shocked to hear it was just 1%. And when told there was a constitutional prohibition on gas taxes, 80-100% said they would vote to eliminate the prohibition. The few that didn't support it changed their mind if state gas taxes for transit were matched up to the max amount of federal gas taxes that went to transit (15%) to bring more federal dollars to Ohio.

 

There were many more ideas, pictures of different types of development patterns, wording for campaigns, concepts and more tested. It was a very enlightening evening.

One of my buddies told me, "Sure, I'd take public transit, even if it took 10 minutes longer, if it came to my street and had a stop at my job."

 

The typical commute today is from suburb to suburb. Only a small proportion of drivers could switch to transit if they wanted to.

 

Sure, every driver wishes that he drove less. Driving is no fun anymore. But just because someone says that he wants more transit doesn't mean that he will actually use it.

 

I think that drivers will drive as long as they can. When drivers can't afford to drive anymore, then they will stop driving. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will take transit, either. They may just stop travelling altogether.

 

 

 

 

Even in the greater NYC area, there are still multitudes of cars on the roads.  The public transportation infrastructure is good for those who live in the outer boroughs and work in Manhattan (or who both live and work in Manhattan), but if you look at the greater metro area, you still find plenty of driving.  The highway and the automobile are still going to be an important part of our transportation ecosystem even under the best of worlds.  In Sim City, you can make a city of nothing but railroads, but that won't happen in the real world.

 

I think the lesson of those focus groups is not necessarily that so many people think that they'd switch from driving to public transit, but that they realize that, given the current status quo, it is the public transportation infrastructure and services that need the most work.  The situation might well have been very different if ODOT actually had been spending the 20-30% of its budget on transit over the past however-many-years that those people believed it was, because something else might well have presented itself as the more pressing priority.

One of my buddies told me, "Sure, I'd take public transit, even if it took 10 minutes longer, if it came to my street and had a stop at my job."

 

The typical commute today is from suburb to suburb. Only a small proportion of drivers could switch to transit if they wanted to.

 

 

Well, what ends up happening is that rail cleans up and destigmatizes the urban core. Over time, businesses move from the suburbs back into the city because the suburbs become uncool as compared to the city. The same way the city became uncool when the rail transit was removed the first time.

The US carmakers know the end is near.  The unexpected popularity of the SUV in the 1990s saved them from bankruptcy during the Clinton years, and as new vehicle sales inevitably shift to more fuel efficient small cars, they are doomed to less profitability per unit. 

 

I disagree completely.  I have a lot of friends in the automotive industry back in Detroit as well as Honda & Toyota.  They are all extremely optimistic about where the industry is headed.  The auto industry is definitely going through a shift which began during gas price spikes in 2007, but everyone has hybrids and high efficiency 40+mpg cars in the showroom or in development.  New product lines have new profit margins and the race to be first to market with a new car which will be desired by consumers.  There is a ton of pent up demand for new cars - average age of vehicles on the road is higher than it's been in decades.  It doesn't take long before maintaining and putting gas in an older car becomes more expensive than a payment on a new or clean used vehicle, especially with interest rates as low as they are now.

I didn't read this entire thread but I'm going to say Insurance rates are a big reason.  If you cannot afford to pay a mortgage, or put food on the table, adding your kid to your auto insurance policy is going to fall, way down, on a family priority list.

Another article highlighting much of what's already been discussed in this thread

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-dont-young-americans-buy-cars/255001/

There is a ton of pent up demand for new cars - average age of vehicles on the road is higher than it's been in decades.  It doesn't take long before maintaining and putting gas in an older car becomes more expensive than a payment on a new or clean used vehicle, especially with interest rates as low as they are now.

 

Is it possible that the quality of cars has been going up over the past few decades, allowing cars to stay on the road longer, explaining the higher average age of vehicles?

 

I have a hard time believing that there is a "pent up" demand for new cars. When people want/need a new car, they will buy one. Saying that there's a "pent up" demand implies that we're all waiting to buy new cars and then there will be a car-buying boom.

There is a ton of pent up demand for new cars - average age of vehicles on the road is higher than it's been in decades.  It doesn't take long before maintaining and putting gas in an older car becomes more expensive than a payment on a new or clean used vehicle, especially with interest rates as low as they are now.

 

Is it possible that the quality of cars has been going up over the past few decades, allowing cars to stay on the road longer, explaining the higher average age of vehicles?

 

I have a hard time believing that there is a "pent up" demand for new cars. When people want/need a new car, they will buy one. Saying that there's a "pent up" demand implies that we're all waiting to buy new cars and then there will be a car-buying boom.

 

Maybe not a "boom" but facts clearly indicate people are hanging on to their cars longer.  Normal replacement rate was about 30% of the cars were replaced per year.  Now it's down in the teens.  Normal vehicle age on the road is about 7 yrs, now it's 11.  Quality of new cars is a factor, but it's the same with building & construction - there is a significant amount of "deferred maintenance".  Owners have put off getting a tune-up, new tires, new muffler, etc.  When the economy finally gets better for the average joe, he will see that a new car is just as affordable as making all these repairs.

Younger people are driving less because they can't afford to drive. The unemployment rate of thsoe under 25 is significantly higher than the general population. Add to that the staggering cost of student loans for degrees in worthless fileds with no demand, 3.99 a gallon gas and high insurance costs. It all boils down to simple economics, They can't afford a car, and all the over regulation means you can't build an affordale car any more.

 

Let the economy improve, unemployment goes down and many "urbanists" who claim to love public transportation, can finally afford a car? Watch how fast they will buy one.

I also don't think "the end is near" for automakers. But I do think a very interesting, if not astonishing cultural shift is happening. For people like me who find it highly entertaining to observe the various reactions to cultural change, these are indeed wonderful times. The older I get, the more I can see and appreciate them before they get too far away in the rearview mirror. Life is too short to fear or deny such changes until they are past and can see them for what they were. I regretted not enjoying the ride more while they were happening. Some example? The last gasps of Big Steel and other heavy industries in NE Ohio in the 1970s. The rise of America's computer pioneers in the 1980s and the new consumer goods we now take for granted. Or the fall of Soviet and Eastern European governments circa 1990 -- although that was one of the first times I able to appreciate a big shift while it was happening. And for those who have financial and marketing skills, you can make a shitload of money if you can get your head around each cultural shift.

 

There's a big one happening right now with the natural gas economic boom. It will change our region in ways not seen since oil, coal and ore were discovered in eastern Ohio and western PA 150 years ago. We were able to ride that wave for 100 years, even after local resources waned because the infrastructure was still here for processing/utilizing resources from other places was here.

 

The cultural shift with young people's attitudes about cars may be temporary and fade, or it may last and deepen. Who knows? Who cares? Just go with it.

I see financial and cultural reasons behind the shift, too.  On the financial side, I'm largely in line with RestorationConsultant, above.  Young people who don't go to college have an unemployment rate significantly above the national average, and those who do get jobs are not getting paid (particularly in real inflation-adjusted terms) what their parents made at a similar age.  Young people who do go to college may earn more (and even that isn't a guarantee), but they also have student loan payments that may well have a principal balance at graduation equal to or greater than the price of a decent new car.

 

On the cultural side, it isn't just that young people are seeking out areas where there is better public transportation, better biking infrastructure, more walkable communities, and so on--I'm guessing that even those who still live in pedestrian-unfriendly suburbs are driving less.  The last few decades have significantly increased the quantity and quality of entertainment options available for the home--and the size of an average home has also significantly increased.  I've been house-hunting recently with my fiancee and have seen a fair number of suburban homes that have multiple spaces (e.g., finished basement, den, etc.) that could become a TV room, game room (for pool, table tennis, etc.), home gym, and so on.

 

On the technological side, I do think that existing vehicles are lasting longer, which overall is a good thing.  That should not actually hamper new car sales, unless quality was actually declining rather than continuing to improve.  The economic prediction that would arise from that fact would be an increased number of cars per household (because you're getting a more valuable good at an equivalent price, which, on the margin, would encourage consumers to shift spending from other spending categories to cars).  Of course, that's assuming a constant price point, and prices have also been increasing, though I ascribe that as much to the falling value of the dollar as to increases in quality.

I keep pushing back my need to get a new car.  I obviously don't need it for short trips since I live downtown.  But even for the longer trips, I just rent a car from enterprise.  It's far more affordable...even for several days a month and you usually get a newer car.  I can also choose a car based on my needs.  An SUV if I'm taking my bike someplace or a Prius for very long drives when I don't have much cargo and I really need to save on gas.

In the Public Interest :

Led by Youth Americans Are Driving Less, But When Will Lawmakers Notice?

 

In the years after World War II, Americans' love affair with the car reached full flower.

 

To the post-war generation, cars were a symbol of maturity, prosperity and freedom. Acquiring a driver's license was a "rite of passage" for young people -- something that was ideally done as close to one's sixteenth birthday as possible. Having access to a car was a young person's ticket to freedom, friends and adventure. For American families, a car was also a ticket to the "good life" in the suburbs, away from crowded and increasingly troubled cities.

 

America's post-war leaders -- and those in the generations that followed -- satisfied Americans' demand for mobility by car by engaging in the greatest road-building endeavor the world had ever seen, at great public expense. They embarked on the largest public works project in human history up until that point, the construction of more than 40,000 miles of Interstate highways. And that grand road-building project has continued even up to the present day; since 1980, American road builders have constructed an average of more than 22,000 new lane-miles every year.

Read full story at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phineas-baxandall/in-the-public-interest-le_b_1422141.html

Car Exhaustion: Young America's Love of Driving Has Cooled

By Jeremy Bowman, The Motley Fool

Posted 3:35PM 04/19/12   

 

In the 1950s, a winged convertible was the ride of choice for the young American greaser. The flower children of the late 1960s and 1970s preferred Volkswagen's Beetles. But more recent generations might be turning their backs on cars altogether. According to recent trends, the hipster era might be swapping an automobile for other means of transportation -- a bicycle, perhaps?

 

While many think a driver's license is an all-American birthright, this ticket to the open road has been increasingly absent from the dreams of American teens and 20-somethings alike. With the rise of smartphones and the resurgence of our cities, young people have been gradually passing up on getting behind the wheel:

 

+ Fewer than half of eligible teens 19 or younger have driver's licenses, down from almost two-thirds in 1998.

+ Annual vehicle miles driven by Americans ages 16 to 34 have dropped 23% from 2001 to 2009.

+ Biking and walking as alternative forms of transportation have increased by 24% and 16%, respectively, among the same age group.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/19/cars-young-americans-drive-less-fewer-licenses/

That's from Seattle Craigslist.

Oh.  I thought it was the Pontiac Transport that was a chick magnet.  I mean...picture yourself driving to the club in this!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pontiac_trans_sport_concept.jpg