Maybe so, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors at work.  Digging deeper into the statistics show declines in driving and significant increases in transit usage even among high wage earners who haven't had troubles with the economy. 

 

The most compelling statistic to me is that miles-driven has dropped among Millennials by some 23 percent compared to the prior, smaller generation. And they aren't out there with their noses pressed against the windows of car dealerships, crying that they cannot afford what's inside. Frankly, they are car-apathetic. And this is the largest generation in American history!

 

The second largest is the Baby Boomers who started hitting 65 years of age in 2011 and began retiring even before that. Increasingly, they are leaving the workforce which mean no more commuting, more downsizing their lifestyles to conform to their fixed incomes, and that includes less driving.

 

So the two largest generations, comprising half of this nation's population, are or will soon be driving a lot less. The impacts of this could be eased if the next generation following the Millennials isn't as car-apathetic. Instead, they appear to be every bit of car-apathetic as the Millennials are.

 

 

The most compelling statistic to me is that miles-driven has dropped among Millennials by some 23 percent compared to the prior, smaller generation. And they aren't out there with their noses pressed against the windows of car dealerships, crying that they cannot afford what's inside. Frankly, they are car-apathetic. And this is the largest generation in American history!

 

 

Kids used to be able to walk or ride their bikes to car dealerships. Now they can't because of sprawl. Hmmmm...

Certainly the high costs of a new vehicle are a major factor, considering the lack of disposable income. What college grad can spend over $20g for a car when he's working part time in retail to pay off $50g in college/grad school debt.

Combine the recession, school loans, priority interest in smart phones/software, environmental awareness with sharply higher costs for driving, I'm surprised miles-driven have fallen ONLY 23 percent compared to the prior, smaller generation of 20-somethings.

 

How much have the costs of driving and vehicle financing gone up?

 

In 2000, the IRS allowed business travelers to deduct 32.5 cents per mile on their tax returns for business-related trips.

 

In 2012, the IRS allowed a business travel deduction of 55.5 cents per mile driven.

 

That's a rise of 71 percent in just a dozen years.

A couple of interesting stories from the UK about the decline of driving there....

 

http://snipelondon.com/scoop/the-evening-standard-campaigning-for-the-2

 

http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/oops-what-is-happening-to-the-american-dream-are-cars-on-the-way-out/

A couple of interesting stories from the UK about the decline of driving there....

 

http://snipelondon.com/scoop/the-evening-standard-campaigning-for-the-2

 

http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/oops-what-is-happening-to-the-american-dream-are-cars-on-the-way-out/

 

And a very good piece on the benefits when local transportation policy lowers vehicle miles traveled.....

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/11/portland_planners_take_cars_in.html#incart_river

If you can't beat 'em, build 'em......

 

December 23, 2012 2:58 pm

US Big Three look to auto alternatives

By Robert Wright in New York

 

The big three US carmakers are eyeing increasing involvement in alternatives to private car ownership such as e-bikes and buses, amid a dip in car use and ownership.

 

The three – General Motors, Ford and Chrysler – are reacting to figures that show young people are delaying learning to drive and more young professionals are moving to city centres.

 

The vehicle manufacturers are increasingly involved in local car-sharing services intended to serve urban professionals who occasionally need a car but prefer to avoid full-time ownership.

 

The new thinking marks a significant change for companies that once encouraged the US’s steady shift in many areas towards almost total reliance on the private car.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d702ec12-4bb1-11e2-b821-00144feab49a.html#axzz2FuUQ2RHd

Start of a trend.....

 

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/15/citing-lack-of-funds-tennessee-calls-off-1-5-billion-highway-project/

If Car Commercials Were Based on Fact not Fiction

 

It's no secret that car commercials are, by and large, fiction. Shiny cars roaring along empty streets devoid of traffic jams or driving their way through impressive landscapes. Selling the dream. With the emphasis on dream. So, what if car commercials reflected the reality of life on the roads? What if they had to - or were even forced to by laws regarding advertising standards - highlight the carnage that motorists cause on the roads of the world.  Something like the warnings of the hazards of cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol we see on packaging labels.  A European group that promotes cycling takes a stab at the resulting "truthful" car commercial.

 

Full Story: What if Car Commercials Reflected Reality?

Published on Monday, July 8, 2013 in Copenhagenize

 

If Car Commercials Were Based on Fact not Fiction - 001 on Vimeo

Young Americans Are Abandoning Car Ownership and Driving

Record numbers of young Americans don’t own a car or hold a driver’s license, and people are beginning to take notice.

by William O'Connor Jul 5, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

 

Why do young people hate America so much?

 

Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary for President George W. Bush, famously described the propensity of our countrymen to drive around in gas-guzzling vehicles part of the “blessed” American life.

 

But recent studies have shown a significant drop-off in the number of Americans, particularly young people, who engage in that most iconic American pursuit: owning and driving cars. So much so that The New York Times recently declared “The End of Car Culture.”

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/05/young-americans-are-abandoning-car-ownership-and-driving.html

I'll be in Boston next week.......

 

Car-free future? Not for families

By Lawrence Harmon |  GLOBE COLUMNIST    JULY 13, 2013

 

THIS CAR-FREE city thing is getting out of hand. Whoever is driving this movement probably doesn’t spend much time shuttling elderly relatives to medical appointments or picking up the kids from their friends’ houses across town. Before Boston officials give the green light to developers to build housing with little or no off-street parking, they should remember that many of the city’s residents are already driving around in an endless loop looking for a place to park.

 

Planners from the Boston Redevelopment Authority and city Transportation Department are mesmerized by the growing number of residents in the 20-to-35 age range who shun car ownership.

 

City officials posit that Boston’s future rests with these devotees of walking, biking, and Zipcar membership. So why require developers to build one or more parking spaces per housing unit as they did in the past?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2013/07/12/parking-tough-enough-without-loosening-requirements-developers/g1c14Dh7KfV6UuAJpNDfYI/story.html

More and more elderly drivers are behind the wheel, but screening for at-risk seniors still not occurring

 

Ten Years After Tragic Crash, States No Closer To Solving Elderly Driving Problems

More and more elderly drivers are behind the wheel, but screening for at-risk seniors still not occurring

AOL Original Content Posted: Jul 15, 2013

By: Michael Zak and Sharon Silke Carty | AOL Autos

 

The first comment left on George Russell Weller's online obituary reads: "Let us not forget the grief that he caused."

 

Weller was 86 years old when he got behind the wheel of his 1992 Buick LeSabre and became responsible for one of the worst traffic accidents in U.S. history. Ten years ago, on July 16, 2003, Weller plowed through 2 ½ blocks of the Santa Monica, Calif., farmer's market, killing 10 people and seriously injuring 63 others. Witnesses testified that he stared straight ahead with both hands on the steering wheel while bodies flew over the hood of his car.

 

The accident took less than a minute, but left a mangled mess of bodies amongst the strawberries, raspberries and citrus fruits for sale that day. Among the dead included a married couple, a 3-year-old, a baby and a homeless man.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://autos.aol.com/article/tragic-crash-elderly-driver-laws/

I'll be in Boston next week.......

 

Then you'll also enjoy this piece (which the Harmon column you posted ties into):

 

Boston limiting new parking as number of residences soars

City encourages public transit; dense areas decry policy

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/07/04/boston-limiting-new-parking-number-residences-soars/kYMnkSr6l55wBMgH4d7VKP/story.html

 

The expansion of new options is critical as the city’s population continues to increase. About 19,000 people flocked to the city between 2010 and 2012, boosting the headcount to 636,479. That growth is fueling more residential development, with about 5,350 units under construction citywide.

 

Meade cited figures showing, however, that the 20- to 35-year-olds who account for much of that growth are shunning the automobile: 58 percent of people in that generation bike, walk, or use public transportation to get to work, according to a BRA analysis of census data.

 

 

Parking is a great issue for distinguishing libertarians from conservatives.  Libertarians tends to agree with the density advocates that private parking supplies should be more market-oriented (i.e., government regulation should be less onerous).  Conservatives hate that they might have to share underpriced public parking supplies with new residents and worry not about the market deformation caused by the regulations.

I'll be in Boston next week.......

 

Parking is a great issue for distinguishing libertarians from conservatives.  Libertarians tends to agree with the density advocates that private parking supplies should be more market-oriented (i.e., government regulation should be less onerous).  Conservatives hate that they might have to share underpriced public parking supplies with new residents and worry not about the market deformation caused by the regulations.

 

I guess I'd agree it's good for distinguishing libertarians from social conservatives or perhaps "lifestyle conservatives," to make a faint attempt at coining a phrase.  But libertarians are by and large economic conservatives (at least using the current usages of those terms), so I could see some more economically-minded conservatives marching with the libertarians on this issue.

 

The article you linked, however, includes phrasing that should make a libertarian cringe, even if we approve of the policy if it's actually substantively as reported:

 

In a city where people can spend hours searching for parking, Boston officials are pursuing a strategy that seems as galling as it is counterintuitive: They are deliberately discouraging construction of new spaces.

 

The policy shift — which comes even as thousands of new residents flock into its neighborhoods — is being implemented across the city, with officials relaxing once inflexible requirements that parking be built with every new residence. The goal is to encourage the use of public transportation, and to devote more land and money to affordable housing, open spaces, and other amenities. Officials also say the city’s youthful population is becoming more accustomed to life without a car.

 

(Emphases added.)

 

At least in libertarian terms (and, I would hope, as a matter of plain English), "relaxing requirements" is not "deliberately discouraging" those things that had previously been required.  Of course, relaxing the requirements is entirely consistent with both libertarian and urbanist principles, so I see much to cheer about there.  Where the two might differ is if a measure were proposed to deliberately restrict parking.  But simply allowing builders to build a residence without parking if they think that someone would want to live there makes a tremendous amount of sense.  Not only does it allow for greater density (i.e., more value to developers and more tax revenue to the city), but it also reduces the size of the overlarge checklist of hoops that urban developers need to jump through to make any urban development happen.  All steps in the right direction in my book.

Right, I should have been more precise: relaxing or reducing minimum parking requirements is where there is common ground. Some cities, including NYC and Boston, also restrict the development of new parking facilities in some areas (e.g., the CBD) because of the air quality and congestion externalities. In the absence of congestion pricing, I think that too is a pretty defensible policy on purely practical grounds, but recognize there's going to be less common ground for those measures.

 

By the way, I sort of buried the lede in my link to that Boston article.  It also included this nifty graph showing the reduction in registered cars in the city:

 

At least in libertarian terms (and, I would hope, as a matter of plain English), "relaxing requirements" is not "deliberately discouraging" those things that had previously been required.  Of course, relaxing the requirements is entirely consistent with both libertarian and urbanist principles, so I see much to cheer about there.  Where the two might differ is if a measure were proposed to deliberately restrict parking.  But simply allowing builders to build a residence without parking if they think that someone would want to live there makes a tremendous amount of sense.  Not only does it allow for greater density (i.e., more value to developers and more tax revenue to the city), but it also reduces the size of the overlarge checklist of hoops that urban developers need to jump through to make any urban development happen.  All steps in the right direction in my book.

 

One of the reasons some people advocate for parking maximums is because, while a developer may wish to build with less parking once minimums are relaxed or lifted, banks are often reluctant to lend in such cases. Putting the maximum in place takes the fear away for banks worrying a competing project with more parking will fare better on the market.

 

I realize this probably doesn't ease the minds of many libertarians regarding parking maximums. However, I think it's usually overlooked that these can be an aid to developers and consumers, by bypassing the length of time it takes banks to get used to the new reality free from the (artificial, government-mandated) old reality of plentiful parking. One could view it as an attempt to correct a previous market distortion, but I realize many/most libertarians would take the "two wrongs don't make a right" tact.

How many dead malls, empty big-box stores, half-empty suburban apartment complexes from the '90s, and single-family houses in sprawl have the banks have to foreclose upon and how many urban, mixed use buildings have to fully rent out halfway through project completion before banks wake up to what's actually successful today and is going to be in the future?

 

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

How many dead malls, empty big-box stores, half-empty suburban apartment complexes from the '90s, and single-family houses in sprawl have the banks have to foreclose upon and how many urban, mixed use buildings have to fully rent out halfway through project completion before banks wake up to what's actually successful today and is going to be in the future?

 

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

 

I just tweeted that. Excellent question!

How many dead malls, empty big-box stores, half-empty suburban apartment complexes from the '90s, and single-family houses in sprawl have the banks have to foreclose upon and how many urban, mixed use buildings have to fully rent out halfway through project completion before banks wake up to what's actually successful today and is going to be in the future?

 

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

 

The leadership will have to turn over.  I don't see any other way, because they refuse to see any other way.

How many dead malls, empty big-box stores, half-empty suburban apartment complexes from the '90s, and single-family houses in sprawl have the banks have to foreclose upon and how many urban, mixed use buildings have to fully rent out halfway through project completion before banks wake up to what's actually successful today and is going to be in the future?

 

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

 

I just tweeted that. Excellent question!

 

Sweet, I made tweeter!

How many dead malls, empty big-box stores, half-empty suburban apartment complexes from the '90s, and single-family houses in sprawl have the banks have to foreclose upon and how many urban, mixed use buildings have to fully rent out halfway through project completion before banks wake up to what's actually successful today and is going to be in the future?

 

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

 

More accurately, it remains a question with a questionable premise.  We're there in some areas, yes.  And more than many major lenders may appreciate, at that.  But suburban development is far from extinct, and urban development is nowhere near a sure-fire moneymaker.  There is a major, upscale mixed-use development in Downtown Akron that has been almost devoid of retail tenants, entirely devoid of non-anchor retail tenants, and well below 75% occupied in its residential units for many years now, and is an albatross around one of our most prominent local developers (one that would have the resources to pursue further mixed use urban projects if it had the inclination, but which has likely lost its appetite for such construction for a while).

Aside from the extremes (ie: "extinct" or "sure-fire moneymaker" etc), there is a clear and sharp change from the trends of the past 60 years. That cannot be denied.

How many dead malls, empty big-box stores, half-empty suburban apartment complexes from the '90s, and single-family houses in sprawl have the banks have to foreclose upon and how many urban, mixed use buildings have to fully rent out halfway through project completion before banks wake up to what's actually successful today and is going to be in the future?

 

I suppose that's a rhetorical question.

 

More accurately, it remains a question with a questionable premise.  We're there in some areas, yes.  And more than many major lenders may appreciate, at that.  But suburban development is far from extinct, and urban development is nowhere near a sure-fire moneymaker.  There is a major, upscale mixed-use development in Downtown Akron that has been almost devoid of retail tenants, entirely devoid of non-anchor retail tenants, and well below 75% occupied in its residential units for many years now, and is an albatross around one of our most prominent local developers (one that would have the resources to pursue further mixed use urban projects if it had the inclination, but which has likely lost its appetite for such construction for a while).

 

Seems like an overwhelming amount of this new development in downtown Akron is limited to student housing.  Students have considerably less spending power than young professionals, who are de facto banned from utilizing these housing units that are practically tailor made for them.  Rule #1 for attracting desirable tenants-- don't ban them.

An overwhelming amount of the new development in Downtown Akron is definitely student housing at the moment, to the point where City Council put a moratorium on further approvals for new student housing pending further study.  The flagging major development I was referring to, however, was Northside Lofts, a luxury mixed-use development substantially farther away from the campus, aimed at established professionals.

 

Unfortunately, even with respect to the student developments in Downtown, I think they're definitely still designed around the plentiful-parking model.

You also have to look at the macro situation of the city or region. Akron's not in terrible shape or anything, but it's status as one of Ohio's fairly stagnant mid-majors doesn't lend itself to comparisons to a similar development in a fast-growing city.

The results of a recent survey indicate the primary reasons for the steady decline in the number of young Americans getting drivers' licenses. Hint: the top reason isn't that it costs too much to own a car.

A new survey [PDF] published by Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute, found that about 15.3 percent of the U.S. population aged 18 to 39 now gets by without a license, a big increase from past years. The top three reasons given for not owning a car were:

 

 

 

·        37 percent said they were either too busy or didn’t have the time to get a license.

 

·        32 percent said that owning and maintaining a vehicle was just too expensive.

 

·        31 percent said they could hitch a ride with someone else if needed.

 

 

 

Though the percentage of young Americans without a drivers’ license is still relatively small (15%), the number of young non-drivers in the United States has been rising steadily, a trend that has implications for everything from transportation policy to future auto sales, which as the automakers concerned.  This survey offers some clues as to why — owning a car seems to be more of a hassle, while alternatives (from biking to public transit to telecommuting) are becoming more popular.

 

 

 

Full Story: Why aren’t young people getting drivers’ licenses? Too much hassle!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/07/why-arent-young-people-getting-drivers-licenses-too-much-hassle/?wprss=rss_social-postbusinessonly&Post_generic=?tid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost&clsrd

 

Published on Wednesday, August 7, 2013 in The Washington Post

Leaving aside the obvious comment that anyone who uses “in the public interest” in their title or group name is inevitably an holier than thou advocate for the opposite of what the actual public individually prefers…

 

Young people are driving less because:

 

~It’s no longer a major waypoint on the road to independence to get a license and better yet your own car.  Cell phones and the internet have taken kids’ lives out from under the thumbs of their parents and schools. 

 

~The “fun” cars are too expensive for them, and recognizing this the automakers target them towards the people who grew up (or wish they did) driving Chargers, Challengers, Mustangs, and Camaros.  Dodge’s  latest project is the Barracuda, and don’t be surprised to see another Firebird.

 

~Environmentalist propaganda in the schools combined with a lack of education vis a vis job skills, technical skills, and work ethic.  Kids are making less money out of school.

 

~Once they live on their own, going out is less of a big deal.

 

~The price of gas.

 

~Having kids later in life.

 

>~It’s no longer a major waypoint on the road to independence to get a license and better yet your own car.  Cell phones and the internet have taken kids’ lives out from under the thumbs of their parents and schools. 

 

Not so long ago any and all phone correspondences risked the mom or dad picking up the phone first.  Was the caller male or female?  Other people in the family had some idea what you were up to, if they didn't outright listen to the whole conversation.

>~It’s no longer a major waypoint on the road to independence to get a license and better yet your own car.  Cell phones and the internet have taken kids’ lives out from under the thumbs of their parents and schools. 

 

Not so long ago any and all phone correspondences risked the mom or dad picking up the phone first.  Was the caller male or female?  Other people in the family had some idea what you were up to, if they didn't outright listen to the whole conversation.

 

Bingeaux.  Parents might intentionally keep the phone in the living room for that precise reason.

·        37 percent said they were either too busy or didn’t have the time to get a license.

 

·        32 percent said that owning and maintaining a vehicle was just too expensive.

 

·        31 percent said they could hitch a ride with someone else if needed.

 

That tells me there are a bunch of reasons, all relatively equal, that explain why cars are becoming less popular. The country just doesn't have the same car culture it did in the 50's and 60's. Part of that is cars have gotten considerably more complex and expensive.

 

E-rocc, Pontiac has been dead for 5 years. I wouldn't expect a Firebird any time soon.

Think about also what went on in the '70s and '80s too, where guys would drive around looking for girls trying to get them in the sack. That would get you arrested in seconds today.

 

Another thing to think about is that most young people today demand constant visual stimulation. Driving past the same Applebee's 10 times a week isn't good enough, while cities provide the constant visual rewards they seek. And now Cincinnati and Cleveand have these sound walls all over the freeways (we'd have a lot more of 'em in Columbus too if most of our freeways didn't run through industrial parks) removing nearly all visual stimulation. You might as well be in a subway then anyway. Except you gotta pilot your own vehicle through the soundwall "subway tunnel" so they can't use their phone safely. Maybe if driving was actually interesting like it was in the '50s and '60s instead of wretchedly boring kids would still want to do it.

Let's face it, the car culture has succumbed to the digital revolution, and other aspects (popularity of urban living, biking, rising oil prices, a serious economic crisis, environmentalism, etc) have enabled this shift to occur more rapidly and dramatically.

 

Ironically, the automakers have sought to convert cars into smart phones to make them more appealing to young people. In doing so, the cost of cars has skyrocketed in the past decade and put them out of reach of many young people. In 2001, I bought a brand-new loaded Hyundai Tiburon sports coup for $15,900. In 2010, I leased the successor, a Genesis, with all the same features (adding Bluetooth, etc) for $28,000. If I wanted to buy the 2013 model, it would cost me in the low-30s which is near the average sale price of a new car today.

Ah yes, cruising around with a trio of crown air fresheners on the rear dash.  Or, if you went to a Catholic high school, you made fun of the public high schools by putting Burger King crowns on your rear dash.  Those were the days!

^^Another thing is that the car companies that are trying to appeal to these young buyers just aren't cool enough and come across as silly when they advertise to young people. I think the only company to really begin to potentially get it right is Hyundai/Kia, but even then their cars are starting to go up in price as their quality has increased to beyond the realm of possibility for most young buyers.

 

Cars just aren't cool anymore. They're a hassle. An incredibly expensive, fuel wasting hassle. Are they more convenient most of the time? Yeah. Does that matter that much to young buyers? Not if it means saving hundreds of dollars a month to not own one. I know that's my thinking.

Let's face it, the car culture has succumbed to the digital revolution, and other aspects (popularity of urban living, biking, rising oil prices, a serious economic crisis, environmentalism, etc) have enabled this shift to occur more rapidly and dramatically.

 

Ironically, the automakers have sought to convert cars into smart phones to make them more appealing to young people. In doing so, the cost of cars has skyrocketed in the past decade and put them out of reach of many young people. In 2001, I bought a brand-new loaded Hyundai Tiburon sports coup for $15,900. In 2010, I leased the successor, a Genesis, with all the same features (adding Bluetooth, etc) for $28,000. If I wanted to buy the 2013 model, it would cost me in the low-30s which is near the average sale price of a new car today.

 

And it will all be obsolete in 5 years but the car will still run. All that proprietary in-car tech costs 10 times as much but still isn't as good as the phone which they all own anyway! Even K.I.T.T. is obsolete now. He's been reduced to just another app.

Ah yes, cruising around with a trio of crown air fresheners on the rear dash.  Or, if you went to a Catholic high school, you made fun of the public high schools by putting Burger King crowns on your rear dash.  Those were the days!

 

Up here people thought those crowns meant you were in a gang.

·        37 percent said they were either too busy or didn’t have the time to get a license.

 

·        32 percent said that owning and maintaining a vehicle was just too expensive.

 

·        31 percent said they could hitch a ride with someone else if needed.

 

That tells me there are a bunch of reasons, all relatively equal, that explain why cars are becoming less popular. The country just doesn't have the same car culture it did in the 50's and 60's. Part of that is cars have gotten considerably more complex and expensive.

 

E-rocc, Pontiac has been dead for 5 years. I wouldn't expect a Firebird any time soon.

 

So is Plymouth.  Dodge is working on a Barracuda and has been for awhile.

Think about also what went on in the '70s and '80s too, where guys would drive around looking for girls trying to get them in the sack. That would get you arrested in seconds today.

 

Another thing to think about is that most young people today demand constant visual stimulation. Driving past the same Applebee's 10 times a week isn't good enough, while cities provide the constant visual rewards they seek. And now Cincinnati and Cleveand have these sound walls all over the freeways (we'd have a lot more of 'em in Columbus too if most of our freeways didn't run through industrial parks) removing nearly all visual stimulation. You might as well be in a subway then anyway. Except you gotta pilot your own vehicle through the soundwall "subway tunnel" so they can't use their phone safely. Maybe if driving was actually interesting like it was in the '50s and '60s instead of wretchedly boring kids would still want to do it.

 

The Metroparks was our cruise route.  Partly due to other means of connecting, partly due to rules changes.  I was there on a summer Sunday afternoon lately and it was empty.

Motorcycle cruising appears to still be happening in Cincinnati.  The gathering point of late is the Shell station at Ohio & Calhoun.  I have seen crowds there in excess of 100 in recent weeks.  However, this in no way compares to 1990s-vintage Short Vine and Eden Park cruising, where crowds swelled to 500 or more, all without the help of cell phones/social media.  And I think there's the answer for why it doesn't happen anymore. 

The Metroparks was our cruise route.  Partly due to other means of connecting, partly due to rules changes.  I was there on a summer Sunday afternoon lately and it was empty.

 

It sure was.... South Chagrin Reservation for me and my friends in the early 80s. Got nailed by Bentleyville police too many times while in my mother's 1983 Mazda RX7! I loved that little car.... So did certain friends. We also managed to squeeze seven people into it to go to McDonald's in Solon -- the closest one back then. We also cruised the Tanglewood Mall, as tiny as it was, but it had a second-run movie theater, a great video game room, and a decent pizza parlor. That's all any teenager in the early 80s needed!

And a big bag of gunj to clambake in the car before going into the theater to watch Excalibur.

Motorcycle cruising appears to still be happening in Cincinnati.  The gathering point of late is the Shell station at Ohio & Calhoun.  I have seen crowds there in excess of 100 in recent weeks.  However, this in no way compares to 1990s-vintage Short Vine and Eden Park cruising, where crowds swelled to 500 or more, all without the help of cell phones/social media.  And I think there's the answer for why it doesn't happen anymore. 

 

It sure is.

 

There's still plenty of "bike night" events around here, and major cruise-ins sponsored by Mr. Chicken in Willoughby and Mentor.  But it's mostly older people. 

 

The same is true about bands playing out, both the audience and the musicians.

Motorcycle cruising appears to still be happening in Cincinnati.  The gathering point of late is the Shell station at Ohio & Calhoun.  I have seen crowds there in excess of 100 in recent weeks.  However, this in no way compares to 1990s-vintage Short Vine and Eden Park cruising, where crowds swelled to 500 or more, all without the help of cell phones/social media.  And I think there's the answer for why it doesn't happen anymore. 

 

When I lived in Cincinnati during the late 2000s I rarely saw anybody riding unless I was up by Fairfield. It was really strange. I didn't like riding in the city; the cagers were too selfish. I moslty rode in Kentucky, Clarmont County, in Indiana and out toward Rumpke Mountain.

 

When I got back to Columbus I'd immediately see all the gatherings of Hayabusas and ZX-14s with chrome wheels, extended swingarms and poorly re-done paint and body work I was used to.

The Metroparks was our cruise route.  Partly due to other means of connecting, partly due to rules changes.  I was there on a summer Sunday afternoon lately and it was empty.

 

It sure was.... South Chagrin Reservation for me and my friends in the early 80s. Got nailed by Bentleyville police too many times while in my mother's 1983 Mazda RX7! I loved that little car.... So did certain friends. We also managed to squeeze seven people into it to go to McDonald's in Solon -- the closest one back then. We also cruised the Tanglewood Mall, as tiny as it was, but it had a second-run movie theater, a great video game room, and a decent pizza parlor. That's all any teenager in the early 80s needed!

 

Bedford Reservation, late 70s and early 80s for me.  Dad had a 1967 Firebird 400 that I semi-inherited until he got rid of it, later on was my Mustang and my Fiero GT (dad had one too and it was fun to sometimes take both down by getting a ride back home lol).  The lawns were fair game for parking, and the lot down by the "petri dish" fountain would get quite full.

[quote author=E Rocc link=topic=26848.msg668751#msg668751

 

The same is true about bands playing out, both the audience and the musicians.[/color]

 

Besides the ridiculous work schedules people in their 20-30s often face, I've noticed that the reason most bands you see out today are either under 25 or over 40 is that the business skills of the over 40 set are simply better. Meanwhile, the under 25 bands have someone's parent(s) doing most of the business for them. So even with all the behavioral problems that musicians that age display, their folks are still able to pull them together at least for a while.

So basically, the point of the last few posts is that young people are driving less because uncool old people reminisce too much about driving back in the day. :-P

So basically, the point of the last few posts is that young people are driving less because uncool old people reminisce too much about driving back in the day. :-P

 

Everything except the "uncool" part. And the cost. And the arrival of new technologies. And changing attitudes.... So yes, that's all. :)

[quote author=E Rocc link=topic=26848.msg668751#msg668751

 

The same is true about bands playing out, both the audience and the musicians.[/color]

 

Besides the ridiculous work schedules people in their 20-30s often face, I've noticed that the reason most bands you see out today are either under 25 or over 40 is that the business skills of the over 40 set are simply better. Meanwhile, the under 25 bands have someone's parent(s) doing most of the business for them. So even with all the behavioral problems that musicians that age display, their folks are still able to pull them together at least for a while.

 

It's also because the over 40 set isn't trying to accomplish anything other than doing what they wish. 

 

It use to be necessary to play out, a lot, to *maybe* catch that break.  Unless you knew someone.  That's not in the least bit true anymore.

 

Likewise, if you wanted to hear/discover a new band, you had to go out.  Also no longer true.  Which impacts the original point.

Yeah. I don't like how the internet has to dominate nearly everything today. Sometimes that's why I envy old people. They're about the only ones around whose brains haven't been rewired by computers. There's one lady in her 40s who comes into work and has Aspberger's who has never used the internet. It's like talking to someone from 1990.