24 ms·

Driving has lost its cool for young Americans

59 points by robg 15y ago

TechNewb 15y ago
We Americans often think we have a well developed public infrastructure until we visit almost any other developed nation in the world, from Korea to France, to even China, they all have 'expected' rail systems. Why is America so far behind in a developed transit and public infrastructure?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Density. And the perception of funding public transportation in the same realm as alternative energy, global warming, etc.
  - MichaelSalib 15y ago
    In most of the US, building densely is illegal. We have massive public subsidies and implicit taxes to support car ownership (in the form of mandatory parking requirements and absurdly underpriced municipal parking just for starters). Public transportation cost effectiveness is highly dependent on density which we've outlawed.
    - TechNewb 15y ago
      Would love to read a paper on this. If its not already written maybe we can build a google doc with a list if related resources so that one of u could write a paper.
      - MichaelSalib 15y ago
        Ed Glaeser at Harvard has written extensively about this, including in his recent book. Ryan Avent also covers this on his blog and I think in his book The Gated City as well.
        TechNewb 15y ago
        Thanks! I'll check out those resources.
- rilindo 15y ago
  The growth of the suburbs in the middle of the last century and the subsequent flight from the inner city. These two factors contributed to the death of railway transit systems in all but a few of the large and medium-sized cities. From that point one, most of the transportation investment is in expanding highways from the suburbs to the city and maybe bus services as well. It is only in the last 10-15 years that serious efforts are being made to rebuild the inner system rail ways system. In the face of public apathy (and sometimes outright opposition) as well as interests depended heavily in highway transportation, it is been slow going.
  - ams6110 15y ago
    It's really a myth that public transit is cheaper, more convenient, and more efficient than people driving their own cars when and where they want to go. Public transit appears to be cheaper only because of massive government subsidies. If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive.
    - TechNewb 15y ago
      There are many factors at play, other than just generalizing 'public transit'. In many American cities you may be correct. But have you ever been to Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, etc? Do you really think driving would be more practical and cost effective in those cities? One of America's greatest problems is the lack of any development into great city infrastructure. Our American society lacks the idea of planning for the future since post WWII, and only focuses on the 'now'. Where are the great cities in America? NYC, Boston, DC, maybe San Fran, rather a few for a country as large as ours, with a population of 300 million. We need to start thinking about our infrastructure more. And thinking of the future, with integrated design through out our public systems.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        It's hard to take seriously an argument that the only great US cities are NYC, Boston, DC, and SF. NYC is the most populous city in the US, and the spread between it and the next most populous city on your list includes the twelve next largest cities in the US. Seattle, one of our greatest cities, is all the way down at #23, meaning you have to disqualify almost 20 other bigger cities to add it-and-only-it to that list. Sure, I'm no fan of Houston, and that list includes Detroit, but dismissing Austin? San Diego? Philly? Come on.
- sc68cal 15y ago
  Because we haven't made it a priority. We've spent our resources fighting abroad and cutting taxes at home, leaving little money left over to repair our current infrastructure, let alone fund any ambitious public works projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the nation faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. One of every eight bridges is "structurally deficient," and 85 percent of public transit systems are struggling to carry the growing number of riders. As ASCE President Blaine D. Leonard puts it, "We are still driving on Eisenhower's roads and sending our kids to Roosevelt's schools." http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Looming-Infrastructure-Crisis.html http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Loomi... We also have one half of our two-party democracy steadfastly against public transit. Despite the fact that trains and rail were a central theme in their cultural touchstone, Atlas Shrugged. Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"? "You need to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives and libertarians when you look at this," says William Lind, the director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. "It's the libertarians who push this crap." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/03/off_the_rails.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.
    - MichaelSalib 15y ago
      Would Amtrak be cost effective if Congress didn't force it to run lots of unprofitable routes that it was desperately trying to shed? This is a fun game! Congress forces Amtrak to lose money and then lambastes it for not being profitable.
- tptacek 15y ago
  First, I think it's easy to ignore the fact that the US Interstate System is a monumental public infrastructure achievement. You can learn this the way I did: cross over from rural Montana to Alberta. Even the bleakest, most desolate part of the US has roads better than the TCH, and you don't get to the TCH for several hours from the southern border of Alberta. Second, for its core purpose --- not moving people from home to vacation, but for moving products between manufacturing centers, ports, and consumers --- the US has a powerful and reasonably effective rail infrastructure. Read Buffett's shareholder note after buying Burlington Northern. Third, if (say) 80-90% of public transit is commuter transit, keep in mind that most US major metros have tolerably effective public transit, and many (NYC, Chicago, DC, &c) have extremely good public transit. While you think about that remember also that the real estate bubble and artificially low commuter costs (cheap gas, &c) distorted public transit in our metro areas by encouraging the development of exurb suburbs that can't cost-effectively be addressed by rail. It's possible that within the next 20 years, they won't be cost-effective for cars either, and that problem will self-correct as housing values in exurbs plummet and families move back into the public transit rings around the cities. Put differently, because maybe that point seems banal ("suburbs bad!"), consider that in complaining about transit, we may effectively be complaining that it is hard to link a city with what should be a corn field in the middle of nowhere. Well, yeah? Then read everything everyone else writes about long distance high speed rail. I'd love to have it. People made fun of STL->CHI high speed rail, hoping instead for coast-to-coast or Chicago->Detroit->Cleveland->NYC, but STL->CHI would link two major metros and allow companies to expand between the cities; for instance, it would allow us to hire out of STL and serve STL companies as house accounts. But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. It's easy for Europe to have effective rail, because Europe is comparatively tiny; the distance from Berlin to Rome is just a little more than twice the distance the Acela runs; Acela's got nowhere to go north of Boston, and extending it to Atlanta would make Acela longer than Berlin-Rome.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    I agree with your insights. >>But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. I say we should act now and swift. Instead of bailing out failing financial systems, we should have solely put that money to our infrastructure. That would have put deserving people to real work. Imagine how much harder it will become in another 20 years, and this is the future of America we are talking about. Also, I believe cities ordinances should start outlawing the development of the traditional suburb. It should not be legal for these developers to build suburbs with out having a library, hospital, and school in walking distance. Having grown up in a suburb, and traveled the world a bit, I want nothing to do with suburbs. The reason why many in our government likes suburbs is because it encourages consumerism. Some have even argued that the reason why we solely have an almost auto based public transit system is because of auto lobbyist in congress during the 20th century. Although of course there have been many other social economic factors as well, such as 'white flight', as you touched upon.
- notatoad 15y ago
  America doesn't have a well developed public transportation infrastructure because of the auto lobby. You can't build a train without annoying GM and ford.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    Agreed, do we have any documentation on this? (I know the lobby industry conveniently has little documentation in general, but I'd love to see any papers written on the subject)
    - natesm 15y ago
      GM bought and destroyed almost all sustainable transportation in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
      - tptacek 15y ago
        That Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim, and normalized by GDP actually contradicts it by pointing out that 5 of the top 10 of those cities actually have well-developed rail (I'd add DC and Atlanta to that list, bringing us up to 7 --- in other words, leaving out only LA, Houston, and Dallas).
        rilindo 15y ago
        I disagree about Atlanta. Atlanta does not have a well-developed rail. I should know - I live there. :)
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The top 10 cities in the US by GDP: * NYC * LA * Chicago * DC * Houston * Dallas * Philly * SF * Boston * Atlanta Most of these cities have effective public transit. LA is the notable exception (and the one the "auto lobby" narrative seems to pick out).
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
  Some of it has to do with the sheer size and low population density of most of the United States. Oregon (a medium-sized western state) is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe. You mention South Korea. It's slightly larger than Indiana, but has close to 49 million people, while Indiana has only about 6.5 million. Overall, the population density of the United States is 1/7 that of Germany and 1/15 that of South Korea. Canada is in a similar situation, only more so. Lots of land, not many people living on it. Just as in the U.S., you find public transit in large, dense cities like Toronto, not so much in the smaller and more rural areas. Same with Russia -- good subways in Moscow, etc. by all reports, but you aren't going to find subways or buses in the middle of Siberia.
- Zak 15y ago
  II think it's actually pretty easy to understand just by comparing the US to a country with a useful passenger rail system. I'll use Germany because I've spent some time there and taken a few trips by train. Two things are required for a regional or national train service to be useful enough that it can be self-sustaining: population density and local public transportation. Local public transportation also requires population density to be effective; someone considering taking a train to Tallahassee FL might decide to drive instead after looking up the bus schedules online. Busses run about once an hour during the hours people normally commute to day jobs and do not go to many useful locations, like the airport. Germany has a population of about 80 million people. Germany is smaller than Montana. The US as a whole has 26 times the land area but less than 4 times the population. There are useful train services in population-dense areas of the US such as the SF bay area and the NYC/northern New Jersey region. The population density of these areas is such that it's often easier to travel by train, subway and bus than by car. The same is not true of Billings, MT, the largest city in a state bigger than Germany. The population of Billings is about 100,000, and the closest city in the state with a population over 10,000 is Bozeman, about 150 miles away. The population of the whole state is about the same as the city I live in, Jacksonville FL, and that city can barely sustain a barely useful bus system. If the US is to have a decent nationwide public transportation system, it needs about a billion more people. I'm not sure we actually want that.
jgn 15y ago
This sums it up for me: "The decline in driving by younger Americans is fed by many factors: the high cost of gas and insurance at a time of economic insecurity; tighter restrictions on teen drivers in many states; and roads that are more congested than ever, making driving less fun than ever." But I'd add that cars used to be cool, and right now there aren't any cars I seriously want to drive. My dad and his brothers could afford muscle cars and they loved driving them, it was cool as hell. I can't relate to that at all.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  If you buy used and can handle doing maintenance yourself, you can buy an older e.g. BMW convertible for less than $10k. That's somewhat cool, if you're into the whole drop top thing.
  - ams6110 15y ago
    My main daily driver is a 1983 Mercedes diesel. It's likely not a car many people would consider to be "cool" but I paid less than $2000 for it, maintain it myself, enjoy doing so, and it's the most reliable car I've ever owned. I understand that not everyone likes working on their own cars. I don't enjoy gardening. It's a diversion, a hobby for me. Like anything else, it's not "scary" once you start to understand it. It's just a machine, and in particular the older Mercedes are very overbuilt, designed to be repairable, and are generally easy to work on.
- phil 15y ago
  Not within reach for most of us mortals, anyway: http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/
  - natesm 15y ago
    Honestly, while it's "cool" conceptually (because of the electric thing), I find the Tesla styling pretty repulsive compared to a Mini or Smart Car, both of which I consider pretty adorable (and I hate cars).
YoungEnt 15y ago
"Furthermore, some young people feel that driving interferes with texting and other electronic communication." I totally don't understand this. I am 17, and a normal teenager. But I know for a fact that TV and the stereotypical "teen" doesn't walk around texting 24/7 nor do we fashion our day around whether or not we will be able to text. I.e. a car.
natesm 15y ago
I associate cars with constant paranoia. Will I run out of gas, will my tire explode because I forgot to put enough air in it (or put too much), will I lose focus for a second and kill a family of four? If I leave my car somewhere, will it still be there when I come back? If it isn't, was it stolen? Was it towed? How will I find out, and what will I do if I'm able to find out? Will it disappear when I am sleeping, or will parts of it disappear along with a broken window? Or... I could put a card in my wallet. I could tap my wallet on a turnstile[1], a gate slides open, a train arrives every 5 minutes or so, and I ride anywhere in the city for a flat rate. This seems a lot "cooler" than dealing with maintaining my own personal transport pod. [1] in Boston, in New York you still have to take it out and swipe.
- ams6110 15y ago
  I associate cars with constant paranoia Now you know how many people feel about their computers...
  - Zirro 15y ago
    Is this really the case? Most non-technical people I talk to don't seem to care about security or maintenance, unless it prevents them from performing their daily computer-activities.
    - seanp2k2 15y ago
      haha, this is interesting because I feel like I'm much more paranoid now that I'm pretty deep into security. I run a ton of Firefox privacy extensions and it still freaks me out. For the curious: - AdBlock+, because public Wi-Fi is slow and I don't like using more bandwidth than necessary - NoScript in "allow global" mode (still catches some XSS and other nastiness) - RequestPolicy (like noscript but for cross-site requests; also great for only looking at text as most big sites now host CSS/JS/images on a CDN) - Priv3 (blocks most opt-in social media integration while still letting it function if you want) - Ghostery (blocks tracking cookies/pixels/other methods) - Certificate Patrol (alerts you to any changes to SSL certs on sites -- it's surprising how often many sites change SSL up. Protects you from spoofing if you pay attention) - HTTPS Everywhere - MAFIAAFire (Gee! No Evil! to un-filter Google autocomplete, Pirate Bay Dancing, and Redirector to circumvent Department of Homeland Security DNS hijacking) - Header Spy because I do lots of debugging web apps and it lets me quickly robtex a server. - Wappalyzer to see what CMS or common software the site is running on I'm pretty tinfoil'd up and still paranoid.
LeafStorm 15y ago
Driving has definitely "lost its cool" for me. My permanent residence is in a small suburb of a small city that is right on the border of Randolph County (i.e. Redneck Central), and before I went to university, I drove everywhere. But I didn't take my car with me to university. Instead, I use the thrice-daily Piedmont train to get back and forth from Raleigh and home every couple of weeks, and while I'm in Raleigh I either walk or ride the bus to get around. And now that I'm at home on Christmas break, I have realized how much of a bother driving really is. Sure, you can just get up and go whenever and wherever you want, but you have to deal with traffic, buy gas, pay for maintenance on your car... It's a pain even in High Point (a small city of only about 100,000), and I have no doubt that it would be even more of a pain in Raleigh, to say nothing of Charlotte, Atlanta, or New York.
andyl 15y ago
Driving sure has lost its cool for me. The traffic and wasted time. The fuel and insurance costs. Making time for car services, oil changes, smog checks. Dealing with the DMV. Yuck. I hope our relationship with the car changes. Self driving cars. Cars-as-a-service. Improved public transit. Bike-friendly cities. Remote work. Etc. I'll be watching with interest.
tptacek 15y ago
I live on the western edge of Oak Park and our office is on top of the Jackson blue line stop; that stretch of the blue line is one of the better, faster public transit runs in the US. Meanwhile, my driving connection to my office is I-290, the Ike, one of the most congested highways in the US. I'm pretty optimally situated to take advantage of public transit. And yet a commute on the blue line, in addition to being much less pleasant than the freeway (the trains at peak time are packed) takes roughly an hour. Even in rush hour, driving to the office is so much faster it makes a meaningful difference in my morning logistics. After hours, the train still carves an hour out of my life, and the drive is practically like teleportation. I've done the blue line for months at a time (car trouble, &c) and I don't mind it and I'm happy I have the option, but there's a litany of car unpleasantness on this thread, and I want to contribute an honest counterpoint.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  The overall cost of car ownership and driving (gas, insurance, maintenance/repairs, YOUR TIME to wash/re-fuel/maintain your car, parking fees, stress, environmental factors that not many seem to care about) vs. some of those same factors in public transit do it for me. A bike is also a small fraction of the cost of a car, and great for pretty much everything if you live in a city. I'm moving to SF in a few months and I'll only take a job within a few miles of where I'll be living (SOMA area) because I'd like to commute via bike year-round (and ideally telecommute at least some of the time.) Really, with how much "work from outside the office" tech we have, it's crazy to me that millions of Americans are risking their lives every day /just to get to work/. Can we stop this unnecessary, costly, dangerous, polluting madness please?
- ams6110 15y ago
  You also have to deal with the segment of the homeless population that seeks shelter on the trains, and the ones that aggressively panhandle. I have rarely ridden a CTA train without being accosted with demands for money from people who "just got out of prison and am trying to get on the right path" etc.
  - xinjiang 15y ago
nlawalker 15y ago
American youth may have fallen out of love with automobiles, but they are as hopelessly attracted as ever to convenience and the ability to change their minds at a whim, neither of which jive well with public transportation in its current state.
joshuaxls 15y ago
I recommend stick shifts to everyone. It should take all four limbs to drive a car. When "driving a car" means turning a key and then pointing it in the right direction, it's no surprise the experience has lost its luster. If your life is about constantly being online, then I see the article's point—public transit is your best option. If you enjoy driving, then get a car that's fun to drive. Unfortunately the appeal of manuals is lost on most Americans.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Stick sucks in stop-and-go traffic. I wouldn't say it's impractical for commute drives (I drove a stick in a daily commute from SF to Santa Clara for a year and a half), but it's not particularly pleasant.
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    I've found that a manual forces you to pay more attention to the task of driving. I wasn't the most responsible and focused driver before, because automatics make it easy to be distracted. When someone gets in the car with you, you have a moral and ethical responsibility to /protect their life/, which is in your hands. That's about the best argument I can make in favour of manuals. If I end up having kids, they won't have their own cars until they are proficient with a stick.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - rdl 15y ago
    Sticks suck even more in stop and go traffic on hills, i.e. San Francisco, especially blind hills and parking garage ramps. Dual-clutch automatic for me.
- RobAtticus 15y ago
  For me, the luster is lost because driving is typically high stress. Having to drive a manual would only increase the number of things I need to concern myself with and make it more stressful. I realize I'm probably in the minority. Particularly because about the only place I don't mind driving is on the highway, probably because I usually just cruise in one lane without having to make many decisions except when I need to exit or the occasional lane change.
BadassFractal 15y ago
Cars are expensive, maintenance is expensive, insurance is expensive, traffic is a pain and giant waste of time, tolls on bridges add to the costs. There are maybe a couple of activities that I still cannot do without a car, such as getting tons of groceries (say, going to Costco), transporting anything heavy, and doing road trips. Something like ZipCar already addresses most of those. Also, I always feel bad for driving, it feels lazy from both a physical exertion standpoint (I live in a highly urbanized area, it's not like I have miles of cornfields to cross), and burning gas does nobody a favor. Can't wait for some sort of personal automated pods to be developed.
michaelcampbell 15y ago
> When we worry about driving and texting, we assume that the most important thing the person is doing is piloting the car. But what if the most important thing they're doing is texting? I can't even imagine the thought process that would even consider this question.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  I don't see it myself, but I just looked at my cell phone bill a few weeks ago, and my sibling (junior to me) had sent some 5,000 text messages that month. Seeing that makes me understand just a little bit better.
  - michaelcampbell 15y ago
    I can only HOPE that the author meant, "What if the most important thing TO THE DRIVER is texting?" Then it's a matter of readjusting said driver's priorities.
sliverstorm 15y ago
Good heavens. I had no idea. So many replies here on HN so far seem to concur as well! I am young, and I love motoring. I guess I am out of touch. But, I suppose it wouldn't be the first time. Though there is one major problem encroaching on my enjoyment- the decline of the sports car. The number of true-blue sports cars coming out of car makers is steadily declining. I can only pray it does not grow worse in the future.
devs1010 15y ago
I have felt this way myself, currently I live in a city with terrible public transportation where you have to drive everywhere, I drive pretty far to and from work and it just wears on me. I'd like to move somewhere where I don't have to drive as much, however I also don't much like living in really high density areas so its a bit of a dilemma.
barrkel 15y ago
I'm 32. I've never been interested in driving; I didn't get a driving license until I was about 28. I used to cycle everywhere in my small town, and take buses after that. For a year, I used to commute by train to college; a distance of about 54 miles took about 1 hour total. Now that I can drive, I still have no interest in a car. Mind you, I live in London, where driving a car is very expensive; just congestion charges and parking alone would make it more expensive than public transport, never mind fuel costs, insurance and depreciation. But scooters in the city: that's another game altogether, almost literally. In the UK, filtering / lane splitting is legal, and nowhere is it as gleefully taken advantage of as in London. Getting from A to B is such a joy I frequently go out into the evening rush hour (I work from home) merely to entertain myself, cutting through the traffic. Two wheels: no congestion charge, much better fuel consumption, significantly cheaper insurance, parking is cheap or usually free outside of Westminster, and the weather is almost always mild. It's very hard to beat. And overall, the cost is less than public transportation if you're not living in central London (where you'll take the hit in rent prices or living circumstances instead).
cantbecool 15y ago
I think the decline of younger Americans driving is because of the overall economic climate in the US, not because it's uncool. Talk to any 18-25 year old and ask if they would like to have a car if they could financially swing it, and the majority of the time they would say yes. As a young adult myself I'd love to own a car, but it's almost impossible to have enough capital to pay for insurance, maintenance, petrol, the auto, and my student loans. I'd be digging myself into a financial ditch I wouldn't be able to get out for over 20 years.
- TheFuture 15y ago
  I agree with you. All the evidence shows that the lack of young people driving is economic. All Americans are driving less right now.
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    It's a great situation for the millions of young people living in suburbs, where the lack of a car basically means that they need to bum rides or stay home. Sprawl sucks.
- BadassFractal 15y ago
  I completely agree. I own a 12yo car which is good enough for buying groceries with, occasionally, and use public transportation for everything else. I'd love a fancy car, but I will never finance something that's not a real necessity. I'd much rather sleep well at night, than have to pay off debt for the next decade.
szopa 15y ago
I am 26, and when I was living in Europe (Poland) I didn't even bother to get a driver's license - getting around by public transportation was cheaper and faster (especially if you take in account the time you need to find a parking spot and walk from it to your destination). However, moving to the Bay Area made me reconsider. Not being able to drive is a serious handicap. Not only there's no public transportation, but also everything seems to be optimized for cars (no sidewalks in some places, traffic lights giving a low priority to pedestrians, highways all over the place). I tried biking, but the cars seem unfriendly in a way that scares me.
rmason 15y ago
I think its for two reasons - cars are way more expensive and less exciting. Growing up I knew two kids with paper routes that bought Corvettes by their 18th birthday. Try spend six years working at the mall and doing that today. My first car in college a '69 Mustang fastback is by far the most exciting ride I've ever had. http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/4/282/941/38202970001_large.jpg http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/4/282/941/3820297... Cars under $50K today are mostly boring. Most of my younger friends see cars as transportation and nothing more.
- Zak 15y ago
  > Cars under $50K today are mostly boring. I too lament that fact, but there are a few non-boring cars under $30k. The Subaru WRX, Mazda Miata and (soon) the Toyota GT-86/Subaru BRZ strike me as not boring, but it seems to me that the market for these cars has shrunk. People actually seem to want boring cars now.
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    Yup, everyone in Michigan here has SUVs and trucks and these new "crossover" things which are secretly just station wagons designed by the people who did art direction for TRON. Seriously, look at this thing: http://www.dieselstation.com/pics/Ford-Edge-Sport-2011-car-pics.jpg http://www.dieselstation.com/pics/Ford-Edge-Sport-2011-car-p... I am way more excited about bikes than I am about fancy cars. Nice bikes are within the financial reach of almost anyone, and cycling skill makes a big difference because you can actually push yourself and your machine to the limits in the city. Save the sports cars for the track.
yason 15y ago
Depends. I'm European and I'm not that young anymore so I'm not exactly the subject demography here but I think driving is tremendously enjoyable and cars can have an unexplainable personal connection to some people, including myself. However, what isn't and what certainly isn't cool is if I had to spend a half an hour on the road, driving to/from work each day. Going to the office, I just take the tram if weather doesn't suit cycling. I'd never move to a place where I'd need a car to go to work or do my chores. A few times a year I end up driving in rush hour traffic and each time just enforces that opinion of mine. I think that as soon as the car becomes a commodity, it loses much of its appeal. For me, it's still somewhat of a luxury: I could do without it. I keep a car because I love to go on long trips driving myself, instead of taking the train or bus. And I love to occasionally drive to some place where I have chores to do but I can't easily reach by public transit, such as shops and spare parts stores in industrial zones, or picking somebody up in downtown or airport. Or just drive to go swim in a neighbouring city where I know they have an especially nice pool. I clock maybe 15,000km per year doing that. And there are weeks I don't start my car once. But then again, I don't text much either. I don't even always take my mobile phone with me when I go out. So, go figure.
wes-exp 15y ago
Well, on the bright side there is no "car piracy" that can be blamed for the decline. (Since you can't download a car) Seriously, though, I think there are just a lot of things competing for people's attention, young or otherwise. There are many activities you can do at home / online nowadays, and these naturally displace some activities that would have involved driving somewhere.
jmspring 15y ago
Born and raised in the Bay Area, mostly living in the suburbs until I went to college in Santa Cruz. Biking and the bus, there are pretty optimal. The rest of the suburban Bay Area, not so much -- unless you are near BART and want to get to the city or Berkeley. I have driven since I was 16. Over 20 years later, I still enjoy it. What I don't like? Commuting. Unfortunately, if one wants to rely on public transit in Silicon Valley, you will either make compromises in time or cost of living (or location to live). Bay Area roads and freeways are pretty bad. Thankfully, for me, I commute off hours twice a week and am at home other times. Back to the joy of driving though -- the road trip is quintiscential Americana. The open road, radio blasting, and just letting the miles go by. If one can get out of the major metro areas (or vacation time traffic routes), you can just go...Highway 395 from the Canadian border, down through the high desert and into the Sierras; or getting out during the low season and driving down the Pacific Coast Highway; or taking it a bit slower and experiencing the gold country with Highway 49 and Highway 20...I could go on... Unfortunately, this enjoyment means getting away from people, density, and traffic...
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  This really makes me miss California. What a privilege to have the scenic views AND the world centre for tech innovation in the same place (bay area). I seriously cannot wait to move there.
cafard 15y ago
I can say that driving was vastly cooler 40 years ago, where I lived then, than it is here and now. There were limited access highways and even side roads where one could drive recklessly (usually) without fatal consequences. Some of the things I saw done during the commute to and from high school would lead to a wreck in a block or two under the conditions of traffic now. But really it is pointless to compare the US to Denmark. Does New Jersey have a population density comparable to Denmark's? New Jersey north of the Raritan, even?

59 points by robg 15y ago

We Americans often think we have a well developed public infrastructure until we visit almost any other developed nation in the world, from Korea to France, to even China, they all have 'expected' rail systems. Why is America so far behind in a developed transit and public infrastructure?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Density. And the perception of funding public transportation in the same realm as alternative energy, global warming, etc.
- MichaelSalib 15y ago
  In most of the US, building densely is illegal. We have massive public subsidies and implicit taxes to support car ownership (in the form of mandatory parking requirements and absurdly underpriced municipal parking just for starters). Public transportation cost effectiveness is highly dependent on density which we've outlawed.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    Would love to read a paper on this. If its not already written maybe we can build a google doc with a list if related resources so that one of u could write a paper.
    - MichaelSalib 15y ago
      Ed Glaeser at Harvard has written extensively about this, including in his recent book. Ryan Avent also covers this on his blog and I think in his book The Gated City as well.
      - TechNewb 15y ago
        Thanks! I'll check out those resources.
rilindo 15y ago
The growth of the suburbs in the middle of the last century and the subsequent flight from the inner city. These two factors contributed to the death of railway transit systems in all but a few of the large and medium-sized cities. From that point one, most of the transportation investment is in expanding highways from the suburbs to the city and maybe bus services as well. It is only in the last 10-15 years that serious efforts are being made to rebuild the inner system rail ways system. In the face of public apathy (and sometimes outright opposition) as well as interests depended heavily in highway transportation, it is been slow going.
- ams6110 15y ago
  It's really a myth that public transit is cheaper, more convenient, and more efficient than people driving their own cars when and where they want to go. Public transit appears to be cheaper only because of massive government subsidies. If passengers had to pay fares commensurate with the true cost of the service, it would not be competitive.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    There are many factors at play, other than just generalizing 'public transit'. In many American cities you may be correct. But have you ever been to Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, etc? Do you really think driving would be more practical and cost effective in those cities? One of America's greatest problems is the lack of any development into great city infrastructure. Our American society lacks the idea of planning for the future since post WWII, and only focuses on the 'now'. Where are the great cities in America? NYC, Boston, DC, maybe San Fran, rather a few for a country as large as ours, with a population of 300 million. We need to start thinking about our infrastructure more. And thinking of the future, with integrated design through out our public systems.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      It's hard to take seriously an argument that the only great US cities are NYC, Boston, DC, and SF. NYC is the most populous city in the US, and the spread between it and the next most populous city on your list includes the twelve next largest cities in the US. Seattle, one of our greatest cities, is all the way down at #23, meaning you have to disqualify almost 20 other bigger cities to add it-and-only-it to that list. Sure, I'm no fan of Houston, and that list includes Detroit, but dismissing Austin? San Diego? Philly? Come on.
sc68cal 15y ago
Because we haven't made it a priority. We've spent our resources fighting abroad and cutting taxes at home, leaving little money left over to repair our current infrastructure, let alone fund any ambitious public works projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that the nation faces a $2.2 trillion infrastructure backlog. One of every eight bridges is "structurally deficient," and 85 percent of public transit systems are struggling to carry the growing number of riders. As ASCE President Blaine D. Leonard puts it, "We are still driving on Eisenhower's roads and sending our kids to Roosevelt's schools." http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Looming-Infrastructure-Crisis.html http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/The-Loomi... We also have one half of our two-party democracy steadfastly against public transit. Despite the fact that trains and rail were a central theme in their cultural touchstone, Atlas Shrugged. Why did President George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak funding in 2005? Why is the conservative Republican Study Committee suggesting that we do so now? Why does George Will think "the real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism"? "You need to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives and libertarians when you look at this," says William Lind, the director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. "It's the libertarians who push this crap." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/03/off_the_rails.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- tptacek 15y ago
  The GOP wants to zero out Amtrak because it isn't cost-effective; it would have been bankrupt but for tens of billions of subsidies. I like the Acela, a lot, and I disagree philosophically with the GOP's take on public infrastructure, but I think it's a bad idea to pretend that they don't have a valid point regarding Amtrak.
  - MichaelSalib 15y ago
    Would Amtrak be cost effective if Congress didn't force it to run lots of unprofitable routes that it was desperately trying to shed? This is a fun game! Congress forces Amtrak to lose money and then lambastes it for not being profitable.
tptacek 15y ago
First, I think it's easy to ignore the fact that the US Interstate System is a monumental public infrastructure achievement. You can learn this the way I did: cross over from rural Montana to Alberta. Even the bleakest, most desolate part of the US has roads better than the TCH, and you don't get to the TCH for several hours from the southern border of Alberta. Second, for its core purpose --- not moving people from home to vacation, but for moving products between manufacturing centers, ports, and consumers --- the US has a powerful and reasonably effective rail infrastructure. Read Buffett's shareholder note after buying Burlington Northern. Third, if (say) 80-90% of public transit is commuter transit, keep in mind that most US major metros have tolerably effective public transit, and many (NYC, Chicago, DC, &c) have extremely good public transit. While you think about that remember also that the real estate bubble and artificially low commuter costs (cheap gas, &c) distorted public transit in our metro areas by encouraging the development of exurb suburbs that can't cost-effectively be addressed by rail. It's possible that within the next 20 years, they won't be cost-effective for cars either, and that problem will self-correct as housing values in exurbs plummet and families move back into the public transit rings around the cities. Put differently, because maybe that point seems banal ("suburbs bad!"), consider that in complaining about transit, we may effectively be complaining that it is hard to link a city with what should be a corn field in the middle of nowhere. Well, yeah? Then read everything everyone else writes about long distance high speed rail. I'd love to have it. People made fun of STL->CHI high speed rail, hoping instead for coast-to-coast or Chicago->Detroit->Cleveland->NYC, but STL->CHI would link two major metros and allow companies to expand between the cities; for instance, it would allow us to hire out of STL and serve STL companies as house accounts. But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. It's easy for Europe to have effective rail, because Europe is comparatively tiny; the distance from Berlin to Rome is just a little more than twice the distance the Acela runs; Acela's got nowhere to go north of Boston, and extending it to Atlanta would make Acela longer than Berlin-Rome.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  I agree with your insights. >>But the flip side of high-speed rail is that it's simply not cost-competitive over the distances we're dealing with, especially once you factor the cost of deploying it, which is spectacular. Just look at the problems California had with secure rights of way. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. I say we should act now and swift. Instead of bailing out failing financial systems, we should have solely put that money to our infrastructure. That would have put deserving people to real work. Imagine how much harder it will become in another 20 years, and this is the future of America we are talking about. Also, I believe cities ordinances should start outlawing the development of the traditional suburb. It should not be legal for these developers to build suburbs with out having a library, hospital, and school in walking distance. Having grown up in a suburb, and traveled the world a bit, I want nothing to do with suburbs. The reason why many in our government likes suburbs is because it encourages consumerism. Some have even argued that the reason why we solely have an almost auto based public transit system is because of auto lobbyist in congress during the 20th century. Although of course there have been many other social economic factors as well, such as 'white flight', as you touched upon.
notatoad 15y ago
America doesn't have a well developed public transportation infrastructure because of the auto lobby. You can't build a train without annoying GM and ford.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  Agreed, do we have any documentation on this? (I know the lobby industry conveniently has little documentation in general, but I'd love to see any papers written on the subject)
  - natesm 15y ago
    GM bought and destroyed almost all sustainable transportation in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
    - tptacek 15y ago
      That Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim, and normalized by GDP actually contradicts it by pointing out that 5 of the top 10 of those cities actually have well-developed rail (I'd add DC and Atlanta to that list, bringing us up to 7 --- in other words, leaving out only LA, Houston, and Dallas).
      - rilindo 15y ago
        I disagree about Atlanta. Atlanta does not have a well-developed rail. I should know - I live there. :)
- tptacek 15y ago
  The top 10 cities in the US by GDP: * NYC * LA * Chicago * DC * Houston * Dallas * Philly * SF * Boston * Atlanta Most of these cities have effective public transit. LA is the notable exception (and the one the "auto lobby" narrative seems to pick out).
Turing_Machine 15y ago
Some of it has to do with the sheer size and low population density of most of the United States. Oregon (a medium-sized western state) is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe. You mention South Korea. It's slightly larger than Indiana, but has close to 49 million people, while Indiana has only about 6.5 million. Overall, the population density of the United States is 1/7 that of Germany and 1/15 that of South Korea. Canada is in a similar situation, only more so. Lots of land, not many people living on it. Just as in the U.S., you find public transit in large, dense cities like Toronto, not so much in the smaller and more rural areas. Same with Russia -- good subways in Moscow, etc. by all reports, but you aren't going to find subways or buses in the middle of Siberia.
Zak 15y ago
II think it's actually pretty easy to understand just by comparing the US to a country with a useful passenger rail system. I'll use Germany because I've spent some time there and taken a few trips by train. Two things are required for a regional or national train service to be useful enough that it can be self-sustaining: population density and local public transportation. Local public transportation also requires population density to be effective; someone considering taking a train to Tallahassee FL might decide to drive instead after looking up the bus schedules online. Busses run about once an hour during the hours people normally commute to day jobs and do not go to many useful locations, like the airport. Germany has a population of about 80 million people. Germany is smaller than Montana. The US as a whole has 26 times the land area but less than 4 times the population. There are useful train services in population-dense areas of the US such as the SF bay area and the NYC/northern New Jersey region. The population density of these areas is such that it's often easier to travel by train, subway and bus than by car. The same is not true of Billings, MT, the largest city in a state bigger than Germany. The population of Billings is about 100,000, and the closest city in the state with a population over 10,000 is Bozeman, about 150 miles away. The population of the whole state is about the same as the city I live in, Jacksonville FL, and that city can barely sustain a barely useful bus system. If the US is to have a decent nationwide public transportation system, it needs about a billion more people. I'm not sure we actually want that.

jgn 15y ago

This sums it up for me: "The decline in driving by younger Americans is fed by many factors: the high cost of gas and insurance at a time of economic insecurity; tighter restrictions on teen drivers in many states; and roads that are more congested than ever, making driving less fun than ever." But I'd add that cars used to be cool, and right now there aren't any cars I seriously want to drive. My dad and his brothers could afford muscle cars and they loved driving them, it was cool as hell. I can't relate to that at all.

nitrogen 15y ago
If you buy used and can handle doing maintenance yourself, you can buy an older e.g. BMW convertible for less than $10k. That's somewhat cool, if you're into the whole drop top thing.
- ams6110 15y ago
  My main daily driver is a 1983 Mercedes diesel. It's likely not a car many people would consider to be "cool" but I paid less than $2000 for it, maintain it myself, enjoy doing so, and it's the most reliable car I've ever owned. I understand that not everyone likes working on their own cars. I don't enjoy gardening. It's a diversion, a hobby for me. Like anything else, it's not "scary" once you start to understand it. It's just a machine, and in particular the older Mercedes are very overbuilt, designed to be repairable, and are generally easy to work on.
phil 15y ago
Not within reach for most of us mortals, anyway: http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/
- natesm 15y ago
  Honestly, while it's "cool" conceptually (because of the electric thing), I find the Tesla styling pretty repulsive compared to a Mini or Smart Car, both of which I consider pretty adorable (and I hate cars).

YoungEnt 15y ago

"Furthermore, some young people feel that driving interferes with texting and other electronic communication." I totally don't understand this. I am 17, and a normal teenager. But I know for a fact that TV and the stereotypical "teen" doesn't walk around texting 24/7 nor do we fashion our day around whether or not we will be able to text. I.e. a car.

natesm 15y ago

I associate cars with constant paranoia. Will I run out of gas, will my tire explode because I forgot to put enough air in it (or put too much), will I lose focus for a second and kill a family of four? If I leave my car somewhere, will it still be there when I come back? If it isn't, was it stolen? Was it towed? How will I find out, and what will I do if I'm able to find out? Will it disappear when I am sleeping, or will parts of it disappear along with a broken window? Or... I could put a card in my wallet. I could tap my wallet on a turnstile[1], a gate slides open, a train arrives every 5 minutes or so, and I ride anywhere in the city for a flat rate. This seems a lot "cooler" than dealing with maintaining my own personal transport pod. [1] in Boston, in New York you still have to take it out and swipe.

ams6110 15y ago
I associate cars with constant paranoia Now you know how many people feel about their computers...
- Zirro 15y ago
  Is this really the case? Most non-technical people I talk to don't seem to care about security or maintenance, unless it prevents them from performing their daily computer-activities.
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    haha, this is interesting because I feel like I'm much more paranoid now that I'm pretty deep into security. I run a ton of Firefox privacy extensions and it still freaks me out. For the curious: - AdBlock+, because public Wi-Fi is slow and I don't like using more bandwidth than necessary - NoScript in "allow global" mode (still catches some XSS and other nastiness) - RequestPolicy (like noscript but for cross-site requests; also great for only looking at text as most big sites now host CSS/JS/images on a CDN) - Priv3 (blocks most opt-in social media integration while still letting it function if you want) - Ghostery (blocks tracking cookies/pixels/other methods) - Certificate Patrol (alerts you to any changes to SSL certs on sites -- it's surprising how often many sites change SSL up. Protects you from spoofing if you pay attention) - HTTPS Everywhere - MAFIAAFire (Gee! No Evil! to un-filter Google autocomplete, Pirate Bay Dancing, and Redirector to circumvent Department of Homeland Security DNS hijacking) - Header Spy because I do lots of debugging web apps and it lets me quickly robtex a server. - Wappalyzer to see what CMS or common software the site is running on I'm pretty tinfoil'd up and still paranoid.

LeafStorm 15y ago

Driving has definitely "lost its cool" for me. My permanent residence is in a small suburb of a small city that is right on the border of Randolph County (i.e. Redneck Central), and before I went to university, I drove everywhere. But I didn't take my car with me to university. Instead, I use the thrice-daily Piedmont train to get back and forth from Raleigh and home every couple of weeks, and while I'm in Raleigh I either walk or ride the bus to get around. And now that I'm at home on Christmas break, I have realized how much of a bother driving really is. Sure, you can just get up and go whenever and wherever you want, but you have to deal with traffic, buy gas, pay for maintenance on your car... It's a pain even in High Point (a small city of only about 100,000), and I have no doubt that it would be even more of a pain in Raleigh, to say nothing of Charlotte, Atlanta, or New York.

andyl 15y ago

Driving sure has lost its cool for me. The traffic and wasted time. The fuel and insurance costs. Making time for car services, oil changes, smog checks. Dealing with the DMV. Yuck. I hope our relationship with the car changes. Self driving cars. Cars-as-a-service. Improved public transit. Bike-friendly cities. Remote work. Etc. I'll be watching with interest.

tptacek 15y ago

I live on the western edge of Oak Park and our office is on top of the Jackson blue line stop; that stretch of the blue line is one of the better, faster public transit runs in the US. Meanwhile, my driving connection to my office is I-290, the Ike, one of the most congested highways in the US. I'm pretty optimally situated to take advantage of public transit. And yet a commute on the blue line, in addition to being much less pleasant than the freeway (the trains at peak time are packed) takes roughly an hour. Even in rush hour, driving to the office is so much faster it makes a meaningful difference in my morning logistics. After hours, the train still carves an hour out of my life, and the drive is practically like teleportation. I've done the blue line for months at a time (car trouble, &c) and I don't mind it and I'm happy I have the option, but there's a litany of car unpleasantness on this thread, and I want to contribute an honest counterpoint.

seanp2k2 15y ago
The overall cost of car ownership and driving (gas, insurance, maintenance/repairs, YOUR TIME to wash/re-fuel/maintain your car, parking fees, stress, environmental factors that not many seem to care about) vs. some of those same factors in public transit do it for me. A bike is also a small fraction of the cost of a car, and great for pretty much everything if you live in a city. I'm moving to SF in a few months and I'll only take a job within a few miles of where I'll be living (SOMA area) because I'd like to commute via bike year-round (and ideally telecommute at least some of the time.) Really, with how much "work from outside the office" tech we have, it's crazy to me that millions of Americans are risking their lives every day /just to get to work/. Can we stop this unnecessary, costly, dangerous, polluting madness please?
ams6110 15y ago
You also have to deal with the segment of the homeless population that seeks shelter on the trains, and the ones that aggressively panhandle. I have rarely ridden a CTA train without being accosted with demands for money from people who "just got out of prison and am trying to get on the right path" etc.
- xinjiang 15y ago

nlawalker 15y ago

American youth may have fallen out of love with automobiles, but they are as hopelessly attracted as ever to convenience and the ability to change their minds at a whim, neither of which jive well with public transportation in its current state.

joshuaxls 15y ago

I recommend stick shifts to everyone. It should take all four limbs to drive a car. When "driving a car" means turning a key and then pointing it in the right direction, it's no surprise the experience has lost its luster. If your life is about constantly being online, then I see the article's point—public transit is your best option. If you enjoy driving, then get a car that's fun to drive. Unfortunately the appeal of manuals is lost on most Americans.

tptacek 15y ago
Stick sucks in stop-and-go traffic. I wouldn't say it's impractical for commute drives (I drove a stick in a daily commute from SF to Santa Clara for a year and a half), but it's not particularly pleasant.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  I've found that a manual forces you to pay more attention to the task of driving. I wasn't the most responsible and focused driver before, because automatics make it easy to be distracted. When someone gets in the car with you, you have a moral and ethical responsibility to /protect their life/, which is in your hands. That's about the best argument I can make in favour of manuals. If I end up having kids, they won't have their own cars until they are proficient with a stick.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- rdl 15y ago
  Sticks suck even more in stop and go traffic on hills, i.e. San Francisco, especially blind hills and parking garage ramps. Dual-clutch automatic for me.
RobAtticus 15y ago
For me, the luster is lost because driving is typically high stress. Having to drive a manual would only increase the number of things I need to concern myself with and make it more stressful. I realize I'm probably in the minority. Particularly because about the only place I don't mind driving is on the highway, probably because I usually just cruise in one lane without having to make many decisions except when I need to exit or the occasional lane change.

BadassFractal 15y ago

Cars are expensive, maintenance is expensive, insurance is expensive, traffic is a pain and giant waste of time, tolls on bridges add to the costs. There are maybe a couple of activities that I still cannot do without a car, such as getting tons of groceries (say, going to Costco), transporting anything heavy, and doing road trips. Something like ZipCar already addresses most of those. Also, I always feel bad for driving, it feels lazy from both a physical exertion standpoint (I live in a highly urbanized area, it's not like I have miles of cornfields to cross), and burning gas does nobody a favor. Can't wait for some sort of personal automated pods to be developed.

michaelcampbell 15y ago

> When we worry about driving and texting, we assume that the most important thing the person is doing is piloting the car. But what if the most important thing they're doing is texting? I can't even imagine the thought process that would even consider this question.

sliverstorm 15y ago
I don't see it myself, but I just looked at my cell phone bill a few weeks ago, and my sibling (junior to me) had sent some 5,000 text messages that month. Seeing that makes me understand just a little bit better.
- michaelcampbell 15y ago
  I can only HOPE that the author meant, "What if the most important thing TO THE DRIVER is texting?" Then it's a matter of readjusting said driver's priorities.

sliverstorm 15y ago

Good heavens. I had no idea. So many replies here on HN so far seem to concur as well! I am young, and I love motoring. I guess I am out of touch. But, I suppose it wouldn't be the first time. Though there is one major problem encroaching on my enjoyment- the decline of the sports car. The number of true-blue sports cars coming out of car makers is steadily declining. I can only pray it does not grow worse in the future.

devs1010 15y ago

I have felt this way myself, currently I live in a city with terrible public transportation where you have to drive everywhere, I drive pretty far to and from work and it just wears on me. I'd like to move somewhere where I don't have to drive as much, however I also don't much like living in really high density areas so its a bit of a dilemma.

barrkel 15y ago

I'm 32. I've never been interested in driving; I didn't get a driving license until I was about 28. I used to cycle everywhere in my small town, and take buses after that. For a year, I used to commute by train to college; a distance of about 54 miles took about 1 hour total. Now that I can drive, I still have no interest in a car. Mind you, I live in London, where driving a car is very expensive; just congestion charges and parking alone would make it more expensive than public transport, never mind fuel costs, insurance and depreciation. But scooters in the city: that's another game altogether, almost literally. In the UK, filtering / lane splitting is legal, and nowhere is it as gleefully taken advantage of as in London. Getting from A to B is such a joy I frequently go out into the evening rush hour (I work from home) merely to entertain myself, cutting through the traffic. Two wheels: no congestion charge, much better fuel consumption, significantly cheaper insurance, parking is cheap or usually free outside of Westminster, and the weather is almost always mild. It's very hard to beat. And overall, the cost is less than public transportation if you're not living in central London (where you'll take the hit in rent prices or living circumstances instead).

cantbecool 15y ago

I think the decline of younger Americans driving is because of the overall economic climate in the US, not because it's uncool. Talk to any 18-25 year old and ask if they would like to have a car if they could financially swing it, and the majority of the time they would say yes. As a young adult myself I'd love to own a car, but it's almost impossible to have enough capital to pay for insurance, maintenance, petrol, the auto, and my student loans. I'd be digging myself into a financial ditch I wouldn't be able to get out for over 20 years.

TheFuture 15y ago
I agree with you. All the evidence shows that the lack of young people driving is economic. All Americans are driving less right now.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  It's a great situation for the millions of young people living in suburbs, where the lack of a car basically means that they need to bum rides or stay home. Sprawl sucks.
BadassFractal 15y ago
I completely agree. I own a 12yo car which is good enough for buying groceries with, occasionally, and use public transportation for everything else. I'd love a fancy car, but I will never finance something that's not a real necessity. I'd much rather sleep well at night, than have to pay off debt for the next decade.

szopa 15y ago

I am 26, and when I was living in Europe (Poland) I didn't even bother to get a driver's license - getting around by public transportation was cheaper and faster (especially if you take in account the time you need to find a parking spot and walk from it to your destination). However, moving to the Bay Area made me reconsider. Not being able to drive is a serious handicap. Not only there's no public transportation, but also everything seems to be optimized for cars (no sidewalks in some places, traffic lights giving a low priority to pedestrians, highways all over the place). I tried biking, but the cars seem unfriendly in a way that scares me.

rmason 15y ago

I think its for two reasons - cars are way more expensive and less exciting. Growing up I knew two kids with paper routes that bought Corvettes by their 18th birthday. Try spend six years working at the mall and doing that today. My first car in college a '69 Mustang fastback is by far the most exciting ride I've ever had. http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/4/282/941/38202970001_large.jpg http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/4/282/941/3820297... Cars under $50K today are mostly boring. Most of my younger friends see cars as transportation and nothing more.

Zak 15y ago
> Cars under $50K today are mostly boring. I too lament that fact, but there are a few non-boring cars under $30k. The Subaru WRX, Mazda Miata and (soon) the Toyota GT-86/Subaru BRZ strike me as not boring, but it seems to me that the market for these cars has shrunk. People actually seem to want boring cars now.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  Yup, everyone in Michigan here has SUVs and trucks and these new "crossover" things which are secretly just station wagons designed by the people who did art direction for TRON. Seriously, look at this thing: http://www.dieselstation.com/pics/Ford-Edge-Sport-2011-car-pics.jpg http://www.dieselstation.com/pics/Ford-Edge-Sport-2011-car-p... I am way more excited about bikes than I am about fancy cars. Nice bikes are within the financial reach of almost anyone, and cycling skill makes a big difference because you can actually push yourself and your machine to the limits in the city. Save the sports cars for the track.

yason 15y ago

Depends. I'm European and I'm not that young anymore so I'm not exactly the subject demography here but I think driving is tremendously enjoyable and cars can have an unexplainable personal connection to some people, including myself. However, what isn't and what certainly isn't cool is if I had to spend a half an hour on the road, driving to/from work each day. Going to the office, I just take the tram if weather doesn't suit cycling. I'd never move to a place where I'd need a car to go to work or do my chores. A few times a year I end up driving in rush hour traffic and each time just enforces that opinion of mine. I think that as soon as the car becomes a commodity, it loses much of its appeal. For me, it's still somewhat of a luxury: I could do without it. I keep a car because I love to go on long trips driving myself, instead of taking the train or bus. And I love to occasionally drive to some place where I have chores to do but I can't easily reach by public transit, such as shops and spare parts stores in industrial zones, or picking somebody up in downtown or airport. Or just drive to go swim in a neighbouring city where I know they have an especially nice pool. I clock maybe 15,000km per year doing that. And there are weeks I don't start my car once. But then again, I don't text much either. I don't even always take my mobile phone with me when I go out. So, go figure.

wes-exp 15y ago

Well, on the bright side there is no "car piracy" that can be blamed for the decline. (Since you can't download a car) Seriously, though, I think there are just a lot of things competing for people's attention, young or otherwise. There are many activities you can do at home / online nowadays, and these naturally displace some activities that would have involved driving somewhere.

jmspring 15y ago

Born and raised in the Bay Area, mostly living in the suburbs until I went to college in Santa Cruz. Biking and the bus, there are pretty optimal. The rest of the suburban Bay Area, not so much -- unless you are near BART and want to get to the city or Berkeley. I have driven since I was 16. Over 20 years later, I still enjoy it. What I don't like? Commuting. Unfortunately, if one wants to rely on public transit in Silicon Valley, you will either make compromises in time or cost of living (or location to live). Bay Area roads and freeways are pretty bad. Thankfully, for me, I commute off hours twice a week and am at home other times. Back to the joy of driving though -- the road trip is quintiscential Americana. The open road, radio blasting, and just letting the miles go by. If one can get out of the major metro areas (or vacation time traffic routes), you can just go...Highway 395 from the Canadian border, down through the high desert and into the Sierras; or getting out during the low season and driving down the Pacific Coast Highway; or taking it a bit slower and experiencing the gold country with Highway 49 and Highway 20...I could go on... Unfortunately, this enjoyment means getting away from people, density, and traffic...

seanp2k2 15y ago
This really makes me miss California. What a privilege to have the scenic views AND the world centre for tech innovation in the same place (bay area). I seriously cannot wait to move there.

cafard 15y ago

I can say that driving was vastly cooler 40 years ago, where I lived then, than it is here and now. There were limited access highways and even side roads where one could drive recklessly (usually) without fatal consequences. Some of the things I saw done during the commute to and from high school would lead to a wreck in a block or two under the conditions of traffic now. But really it is pointless to compare the US to Denmark. Does New Jersey have a population density comparable to Denmark's? New Jersey north of the Raritan, even?