Throughout the rich world, the young are falling out of love with cars
economist.com
economist.com
People get sanctimonious about not owning or using a car, and that's annoying. I just wish there were more options. I don't see us (in the US) removing car infrastructure. I could see additive changes, though, which include national public transit, with some political will and creative thinking, which means it'll never happen.
Meanwhile, with the car, I don't have any of those frustrations. During rush hour I'll sit in my car rather than waiting in the cold or standing up in a train. Given, finding parking can sometimes be frustrating, but it's a minor frustration. Going grocery shopping (or anything larger and heavier) is way more convenient with the car as well.
That said, bicycling is still one of my favourite ways to commute when the weather permits. :-)
I always enjoyed reminding my car-enslaved colleagues, "I never have to park the bus."
People fail to notice for all the time (and distance) spent walking back to retrieve their car. It always felt like such a victory to hop on and off busses, taking care of four or five errands, and never once having to retrace my steps.
Do you feel the same way about your home? Your day's itinerary will inevitably have to see you return there, too.
Too see the other side, it may be useful to think of a personal car as home-like transportation infrastructure and always using public transit like living full-time in hostels.
What I really dislike though is living in a place that's made for cars. I miss walking to a grocery store to pick up a few things, walking to a friend's to hang out or just walking to a bar or restaurant to meet up. I've lived in the American suburbs now (mostly due to affordability) and hasn't had that experience in a long time. However, I recently had to do a unusual trip to a city in Germany near where I grew up and stayed at a downtown hotel. I mentioned to a friend that I was there and he texted me that he and his girlfriend happened to be having dinner in a restaurant not far away. Just being able to walk over and sit outside on a street filled with other diners, playing children and some guy playing piano was incredible. I'm not sure if this is all due to car centricity or other circumstances like having childhood friends in that city, it was a beautiful summer day, I was going through a tough emergency and seeing friends is extra nice then. However, given all the caveats I don't think I'd headed over to meet them if I had needed to get into a car, find parking etc since it was very short notice and I didn't know if I had 10 minutes or 3 hours till I had to go back to the emergency situation.
What I do know is that I do badly want more of that all the time!
Previous generations would just go out for a ride, take the car out on Sunday and and enjoy the scenery. We just don't do that anymore, either because we're more concerned about the environmental effects of driving, or that we just have more interesting things to do.
Not to mention, when this idea of "the freedom of a car" came about, even many smaller cities still had decent transit systems, and were denser. A car truly was freedom, because you could choose to walk downtown, or take the car, or go to the next city over because they have a really nice cafe that you like. Nowadays if you want to go anywhere, unless you're lucky enough to live in a dense city with good transit, there's no choice. It's not freedom anymore, it's a sentence.
I'm also an older millennial and like GP have no emotional attachment to cars. I also mildly resent my dependence on them, having traveled in places with fantastic public transport. I find them lonely and isolating.
I agree about the enviromental cost and other forms of entertainment. I think most of the rest can be explained by the combination of novelty + nostalgia for previous generations. Older Boomers caught the upswing out the highway act when there were new roads everywhere and an explosion of innovation in car design. The country wasn't yet totally built to enforce car ownership via sprawl, so I imagine a nice afternoon drive in the country was a thing many people enjoyed and created fond memories around.
Now they're smaller, with thick heavy safety beams providing much worse visibility, and there aren't many convertibles around.
There are exceptions, but they're mostly fun for the driver, not passengers. And they're usually expensive.
Plus, at-home entertainment is far more engaging than it used to be.
If I'd lived somewhere a car was needed, I'd have learned. It's not an ideological opposition to cars by any means. Occasionally I consider getting a drivers license, and then forget about it, because it's just never felt worth the hassle.
Like you I've just never felt that emotional association with freedom from a car. I think an essential aspect of that was growing up somewhere where I felt I had the same options without one.
To me cars, equal freedom. I grew up in a small neighborhood, I rode bikes to my friends houses there but my neighborhood was so far removed from other places and stores that there was no other place to go. Getting my license at 16 opened so many doors for me. Now I could go hang out at my other friends houses that lived 10-15 miles away from me. I could get a job, go to the store and movies, and just cruse around without having my parents question me. I didn't have a cell phone back then, so being able to leave and not be contacted was glorious.
For college I moved out to the Texas Panhandle. When gas was cheap I'd often go out for long drives into the country with friends, to talk, so explore and see what was out there, to visit family, and to make beer runs because our city was dry meaning you had to go out of town to buy a six pack.
When I have had extended periods of not having a vehicle I have get a visceral sense of foreboding and dread. I feel like a caged animal, unable to leave any situation, escape in case of danger. These feelings mildly lessen if public transit is available, but they are still there. Having any kind of vehicle feels like safety as I know I can flee if I need to, even if I don't.
I think your point of view aligns well with the idea that increased density and good alternative transit options lead to less need and want for cars.
But rural and isolated areas can’t live without a car (or a credible alternative).
As much as I’d like car to disappear, there’s a lot of use of it that we can’t replace without severely altering some of the population’s quality of life
This is probably why. It's less clear cut when there's an abundance of places to go and things to do within easy walking/biking/transit distance.
They also restrict themselves to jobs they can easily get to. Which in tech was basically impossible in, say, Boston 25 years ago.
A friend of mine made the observation that people mostly just don't do optional activities if they're hard or expensive to do. So if you live carless in a city with decent public transit, you mostly restrict your recreational activities and people you get together with to what's convenient and tend not to do things that require renting a car on a Friday night and returning it Sunday or Monday.
Really? There was plenty of tech in Kendall Sq area within an easy walk from the T. I worked for three different companies in that area and regularly walked from a couple of different apartments (generally leaving my car in the company parking garage).
It might have been impossible to do that in tech in other cities, but Boston/Cambridge has been strong for 3+ decades.
I think as time progresses, I have truly learned to dislike my car(s). Insurance where I am is out of control (one of the highest in the nation), a new car is so far out of reach it is not funny, and used ones cost far more than the last new car I purchased. I think as others have noted, there may be a number of factors leading to people not wanting them... A few young people I know do not have cars, when asked the reasons are typically money (biggest one) and pure need / desire. I think when we were young it was as symbol of freedom. I think now it is (rightfully so) either a status symbol to some, or a ball and chain that costs money just sitting in your driveway (maintenance, depreciation, insurance).
For an occasional weekend away I might get a car from a regular hire company as they workout cheaper for longer distance.
I suppose I never drove that much before in the UK, never really had to commute as I always try and live within walking distance to work, although I would sometimes drive if it was bad weather, but that was because public transport wasn't really an option for that, the buses were frequently backed up in the rush hour traffic and all would arrive at once instead of being evenly staggered, meaning long waits in the rain where it would have been quicker to walk anyway.
This is something I wish were more common in the US. I'm in a relatively high-density suburb of one of the largest US cities and they're practically nonexistent here, and even in the city are hard to come by.
I don't have a lot of money, some might even say that I don't have money.
I drive a Citroen Saxo 1.0 year 2000 in the golden colour and the incredible sense of freedom it gives me is strong enough where I don't care how much a car costs ( It cost 350€), I don't care for luxury, I mean my radio stopped working about three years ago.
I still remember my father telling me many years ago, not being able to drive is like not being able to read or write, you're basically illiterate, and to some extent I have to agree.
Having a car gives me the same feeling of freedom that I've felt when I was able to walk again after getting my legs messed up.
I live in a city now with amazing public transport and I don't miss my car at all.
People who collect things, or have a workshop in their garage, or go fishing, or hunting, or real hiking, or any outdoor activity really, or who have children (especially more than one).
If I lived in the city, I would probably get rid of my car and just rent one when I needed it. But I just don't really want to live in the city because none of the stuff I enjoy most is there.
Even with all that goodness, roughly half the population in the neatherlands owns a car, despite how outrageously expensive it can be there. There are still great reasons to own a car, and frankly I think everyone's experience would be better if walking, biking, and public transit were safe and viable. That could get so much traffic off the road. It would make driving much more pleasant.
Owning a car should be a 'nice to have' and not a 'need'.
It was possible to do that before cars, but mass car ownership & a modern road network made it something the average consumer could do semi-routinely, instead of something that required more spare time & energy than people had day to day.
When you know not only what businesses, facilities etc. you'll find in the town 50km away, but have a fair idea of what they're like (google reviews..), the world is so much a smaller place than it was even up until the mid 1990s. And with social media, you're no more or less a stranger in your own town than anywhere else.
On the flip side, it's a fun activity to do with my kid. Pick a random country, "drive around" on SV to see what it's like there.
I'm sure we lose something from the watered down interaction though. Walking into a faraway bar or diner and chatting up the locals is much more enriching.
I love having a car! I can't imagine not having a car when you have KIDS! Driving them to their various sports games, with a car full of their equipment. Going camping with them. Getting groceries for a family of 5.
I can't imagine doing that on public transport.
It is possible. It just depends on where do you live and how comfortable you are.
When I was in Europe, my daily routine was get up, grab a donut from the corner shop connected to my flat, walk one block to the subway. If I was lucky, there would be a tram waiting at the other subway station and I could just jump on, or walk the 8 blocks to the office. When I stayed at the office late, the subway was closed but I could always take the night tram the long, long way around.
It sounds complicated, but it really isn't. You buy a ticket, then you can simply walk onto any form of public transit. Subway, tram, busses, even a ferry over the river. And it cost the equivalent of $1.50 to go all the way across one of the largest cities in Europe. It's easy and pleasant, and leaves you free to read a book or work on your laptop if you really want.
Meanwhile in the US, I have to maintain this car, I have to pay something like $30/week in gas and parking. I have to deal with our inadequately maintained roads that damage my car. I also have to deal daily with the incredibly high-stress situation of not letting other drivers fucking kill me. I have at minimum two close calls a week.
I could take the bus here, but it turns a 20 minute commute into 2 hours.
I'd take a subway and a sidewalk 100% of the time. Zero question, no hesitation. It's simply superior in all ways.
I'd argue it's a combination of money and aging infrastructure. Money is the big one (cars used to be a lot cheaper, both to buy and to maintain. Incomes for most used to be much higher). Infrastructure is another, in a lot of places, they haven't meaningfully upgraded any of the public driving transportation infrastructure since the 1950s to 1970s, so a lot of infrastructure is handling car volumes 200% to 600% higher than they were ever engineered for.
In Michigan, there's still very much a lot of "fun/freedom" around cars. But our population has been pretty flat this entire time (+/-2% pop change YoY since the 1960s), so even though the infrastructure is old, it's usually appropriately sized for the population in all but the newest-growth places. If you live in, say Seattle, you very much don't get that experience, public vehicle transit infrastructure has not kept up at all, and so driving is artificially a lot more of a painful burden there.
Cars have inflated at a rate significantly lower than general inflation (typically by about half as much), meaning they've gotten cheaper in real terms. They've also gotten much safer, more fuel efficient, reliable, lower-maintenance, and long-lived.
https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation/1980-...
Hell, a lot of our municipalities have transport infrastructure designed for larger populations. Driving around Flint or Lansing is easy for the most part (Detroit proper can also handle much bigger traffic numbers but the roads will kill your car so that's not easy).
I hated driving in the PNW though. Especially Vancouver, with its refusal to allow highways.
That's just not true. Maybe for some outlier car models.
For example my parents bought a base model Toyota Corolla in 1998 for 16K. A 2023 Corolla has MSRP $21,550.
16K in 1998 dollars is $29,366 today.
So, the Corolla has actually become substantially cheaper over the years!
Absolutely no question, living in the city (in this case, Manhattan/NYC), a car is a liability. Parking was either insanely expensive or a game of musical chairs 2X per week as the no parking times for the streetsweepers come up (and that was decades ago).
But anywhere else, the car is basically a necessity. Doesn't have to be fancy, but it does have to be. I keep looking at electric motorcycles/scooters for a relatively short commute, but not keen on the hazards (and I'm not risk averse; I've had sportscar racing licenses & experience, rock climbing, etc., but when surgeons I know call motorcycles "donor-cycles", I take the hint).
What is sad is that only rarely is driving fun anymore. A long drive in the country on a nice day was a real joy, but there's just too much traffic now...
My Boomer parents, on the other hand, own five or six cars, including several Corvettes and still go on long drives just for fun. We just can't understand each other.
I also live in a place now that has a "car culture," like people come to visit for races and car shows, and to do scenic drives in their exotic Ferrari and Lamborghini sports cars. To a first approximation, it's all Boomers.
Not sure if rich people worry about this, which is what the article is about, rich people.
Agree wit everything else you said though.
The average new car price in the U.S. is now over $47K (Consumer Reports). I make a good living and I'm not going to pay that kind of money for a new car! A young person would be stupid to pay that kind of money for a car.
Okay, so what about used cars? The average used car price in the U.S. is now over $28K (KBB). That's more than I've ever paid for any new car I've ever bought!
What does that look like for a monthly breakdown? The finance costs for $28K is $525 per month. The average car insurance is $130 per month (US News). The average fuel costs are $100 per month (1,000 miles per month, 35 MPG fuel consumption and a fuel cost of $3.50 per gallon). Finally, the average maintenance costs are $25 per month (Consumer Reports). That cost goes up as the car gets older and doubles after the car is 10 years old, according to Consumer Reports.
Add it all up and that's $780 per month. Now ask yourself, with those costs are you really surprised to hear the young are falling out of love with cars?
Used car prices have really went nuts since mid 2020 though, well beyond what can be normalised out. I'm not sure that's long enough to explain the phenomena on it's own, it certainly started before young people wanted to buy cars in 2021, but if you're looking for where it got more expensive for young drivers the very recent used car price explosion is it.
The average sale price is skewed by people choosing luxury purchases by buying larger (and fancier) than necessary vehicles. Also can be skewed by vehicles lasting longer in the first place, meaning poorer people do not need to buy cars as often, but richer people can choose to buy cars more often.
Have you compared to how things used to be? These numbers all seem to assume that it used to be much cheaper relative to income. That seems like a rosy look at the past but the numbers don't support that assumption.
Yes it would be dumb for a young person to pay 47K for a new car! (I'd say it's financially dumb for any person of any age, unless very rich, to pay 47K for a depreciating car.)
Since when do young people (on average) buy new cars? Aside from wealthy families, that was never a thing.
My first car cost $500 in 1988 was 20 years old with the floorboard rusting away so the road was visible through the floor while driving. And a starter that didn't work so it had to be push started every time. That's $1264 in todays dollars. That doesn't buy much, but I see a handful of beaters on craigslist that can be had for that money, and most seem nicer than the rusted beater I bought for $500.
My first new car (nothing fancy, a Mazda) cost 42% of my gross salary at the time.
A Mazda 3 can be had for $23K today, so at a similar price proportion a $55K salary would feel the same as when I bought.
So, none of it feels proportionally more expensive than 30+ years ago.
I think what is different today is the very high end of the market has grown a lot. There are endless cars over 100K whereas back in the 80s the list of hyper-expensive super cars was a very short one. Maybe this twists the perception of the market.
But the basic beater cars and new Toyota/Mazda/Honda/Kia-level cars are about as affordable as they ever were.
As young person who has fallen out of love with cars (despite once having earned my money driving): It is not as simple as that.
Money plays a huge role for sure, and the more you live in an environment where cars are needed the more this is true. But living in a big european city I can assure you that for most people my age not owning a car isn't a thing you do because you couldn't afford one. The benefits of owning a car just don't outweight the cost of having to constantly think of caring for it.
Most of my daily mobility I can do on foot and with a bicycle, with the benefit that my commute takes half the time of a typical rush hour commute for the same route. I need a car if I need to transport something which is roughly once every 3 to 4 months and then renting one is a good option.
In doing that, though, I've discovered that cars are kind of miserable! Walking, biking, and riding the train are all much more pleasant ways of getting from one place to another. I feel more engaged with the world around me and more active. I also have a little kid and feel much more concerned these days about car crashes (with cars, but especially with pedestrians).
So with all that, we're trying to form a plan to move to a larger city that prioritizes other forms of transit over cars. It'll be more expensive. Although maybe it'll all even out if we stop driving?
Will also add.
- Why buy a new car when one cannot afford a proper home to put it in? - Why buy a new car when one cannot be sure about their job security? - Why buy a new car when there's less of a need to be in an office every weekday?
But wait it gets better. Some car manufacturers have come up with the innovative idea to require the car's owner to pay monthly subscription to "unlock" all the features of the car they bought.
Yes, why indeed are young people losing interest in cars.
(Also, your calculation doesn’t include depreciation, which people don’t often think of as a cost, but economically it absolutely is.)
So while I'm sure costs today have pushed people who were on the fence, there are so many other things to spend money on now. And cars are just...boring.
As one data point, the 2004 Corolla LE's MSRP of $13,570 is $22,063 in 2023 dollars. The 2023 Corolla LE's MSRP is $21,550. And that's a larger and more featureful car.
Used cars are still really expensive though.
I think what you mean is that enough Americans are stupid enough with money to pay 47k$ for a car (or worse, a 15mg truck/jeep), plenty of $15-25k cars exist, 45k$ cars just look cheaper with 5-7 years financing.
Or maybe a reflection of higher expectations? Housing, healthcare, and vehicles are all examples of things that both cost more and are much more advanced than the same version previous generations had.
Also young people are living in cities more than previous generations and those cities are denser. The value prop of a car, price aside is less than it was for previous generations.
I bought a 3 year old used car in '09 for $14500 for cash. Since then I've spent a grand total of about $3000 on repair and maintenance. My insurance is about $700 / yr. I spend about another ~ $650 / yr on gas. My total costs have been less than $2500 / yr all in.
You're also not accounting for the value of your time. My 30 minute commute to the office would turn into at least 90m on public transit. That's just one example. It's death by a thousand cuts. At even 1/3rd of hourly rate that most of us make, the cost in lost time is tens of thousands a year.
But now, the young don't want to dedicate their lives to the car anymore. They have other priorities, other dreams. Maybe they prefer to let go of the car and eat good food instead of a cheap pasta diet, things like that.
That's more than I've spent on buying, taxing, insuring, MOTing, and repairing every car I have owned since I passed my driving test nearly 30 years ago.
We live in an age of ubiquitous information. It has never been easier to learn how to repair things. Why would you pay more than most new cars cost, when you could pick up some shiter for a few hundred, run it until it breaks, and then figure out how to repair it from a couple of youtube videos?
For comparison, back in December 2020 I bought a 2-year old Ford Focus with 13,000 miles on the clock for £11,500, my insurance is £25 a month, but my fuel is closer to £160 a month, for around 10k miles a year.
It helps that it's a 1 litre 3 cylinder engine (although still puts out a respectable 125bhp, which is more than enough with 6 gears for motorway driving) and on long journeys I'm getting 50mpg.
For a country that seems built around needing a car (unless you live in a city with decent public transit) it seems ridiculous so many people are now priced out of it.
Advice to younger generation: forego that shiny toy and invest your hard-earned money.
If you think about it, the prospect of getting a loan to finance some expensive vehicle that costs tens of thousands of euros/dollars and then paying loads more every month for insurance, taxes, maintenance, and fuel is not very appealing. Some people spend many hundreds of dollars of their own money every month on a thing that they arguably could do without. And then there is parking as well. Parking is not cheap in bigger cities. There are cities where you need a mortage to be able to afford to buy the right to have your own parking place.
If you add all of that up, you can free up quite a nice budget for alternative ways to get around. I use taxis/ubers when I need them. I walk short distances or use a bike (nice and its good for me). I can hop on public transport at a reasonable cost. Total cost for all of this per month is probably around 50 euros in a typical month. I have a lease bike that costs me 22/month. The rest is public transport and an occasional uber. I technically also have access to car sharing but I rarely use that. Price is similar to an Uber and Uber is more convenient for me.
So, that's my day to day travel needs covered. I don't need a car for that and here in Germany, even a really shitty old car would probably cost me way more than that. I could double or triple my uber usage and it would still be cheaper.
For longer distance, I take trains and the occasional plane. If I need a car, I rent one. Happens maybe a few times a year. Total cost for car rental would be at best a 1000-1500 in an average year (including fuel). I can't make a case for owning a vehicle to cover any of that. And I don't think I ever will.
For the future, self driving cars might add some more options and flexibility. Getting a self driving car to pick me up would allow me to be driven while I nap at night to some far away destination. Door to door service, private, comfortable, etc. No need to own a car for that. And that could probably be cheaper than a train/flight + hotel. Not that hard to build a business around having something like that with some luxury options. Why would you ever own a car if you can get something like that to pick you up to go wherever on a moment's notice? How often could you do that before it becomes cheaper to own the car? Self driving will turn car rental on its head. You don't go some place to pick up the car. You get picked up by the car.
I don't know how many rich countries that describes, but I lived happily for years in Boston in the USA without a car. I have one now but only because I have an off-street parking space for it. Otherwise I'd go back to renting one on the ~monthly occasions I want to use one. The main benefit of Zipcar to me versus owning is that the car had a parking space that it went back into.
Now if only the mass transit system in the area wasn't falling apart and the rail connections to other cities were even half as good as the ones in the Netherlands.
First, let's establish that the Netherlands is a car country. We have 11 million cars on a population of 17 million. On a typical day, 1 million people use public transport. Cars are the norm, not trains or bicycles.
Public transport is rarely faster, not even in the most idyllic example that you give where you go from big city to big city. The thing you conveniently forget to consider is that nobody lives near the station of city A and then also works very closely to the station of city B. It almost always includes additional travel towards A and from B. Cycling, trams, buses, multiple stops in both directions. It adds up.
To illustrate how absurdly slow public transport can be, a personal example. I used to live directly behind a train station in a mid-sized city. Doesn't get much better than that, right?
Let's explore the commute to work, some 60km away...
I have to get up early and be there some 10 mins before departure to secure somewhat of a reasonable spot. Next, I'm on route to the first big city station. This route is slow, it stops 5 times along the way as everybody needs to connect to a big hub to get where they need to be.
I arrive at the hub, where there's a 20 minute connection wait to take the train to the big city destination. This route is longer but fast, no stops along the way.
I get out and have a 10 minute connection wait for the bus to take me to the place closest to work, after which there's a 5-10 minute work.
Total commute time: 2.5 hours single way. To move 60km. And that's living behind a train station and working at one of the countries' largest employers.
What works really well in the Netherlands is living within a cycling radius from work, every other option sucks.
Anyone visiting a Dutch city can see what a distortion this comment is. The sheer volume of bike traffic on largely safe infrastructure is phenomenal. Imagine if even half of these people took to cars instead, it would be gridlock. Life may be good for Dutch drivers, but only because so many others leave their cars at home.
São Paulo has more car than population, and has so many cars that their area summed is bigger than the area of all streets in the city.
It is so many cars that sometimes walking 1 hour to your workplace is faster than a car route where you can spend 2, 3 hours to go to a neighborhood next to yours during rush hour.
So many cars that the city became also the city with most helicopters, because as ludicrously expensive they are, for people that need to reach their workplace really fast (CEO, firemen, medics...) helicopters are good idea.
Situation got so bad that the government wants to heavily restrict the use of helicopters because private helicopters were causing literally airborne traffic jams along the normal traffic jam, blocking public services like police from moving to emergency sites.
EDIT: indeed I was talking about adults, forgot to make it clear. Still the percentage of cars to people in Brazil tends to be high. It is one of the reasons car companies love Brazil. There are historical reasons for that. Mostly politics related.
Yeah, but we have 23 million bikes.
It's true that our public transport has been neglected. The privatisation of the 1990s was a bad idea in my opinion, and public transport should be run for the public good, not for profit. Like roads, it's part of the nation's infrastructure. And better public transport means less people on the road, which means less traffic jams, which will also mean better travel times for people who really do need cars.
The number of bike trips and car trips aren't that far apart (25% and 32%). Public transport still lags way behind at 3%.
Let's compare your commute to work to a commute in the US:
>I have to get up early and be there some 10 mins before departure to secure somewhat of a reasonable spot. In the US, you have to be there at least 30 minutes early, because the parking lot will be absolutely packed, and the busses don't run on time, so it might get there too soon.
>Next, I'm on route to the first big city station. We don't even have this in the US. You would have had to already be in the city to get on the bus.
>This route is slow, it stops 5 times along the way as everybody needs to connect to a big hub to get where they need to be. In the US, this route stops the same five times, but also gets stuck in rush hour traffic, because we rarely have dedicated transit lanes.
I arrive at the hub, where there's a 20 minute connection wait to take the train to the big city destination. The connection in the US would be at least 30 minutes, if you're lucky it will be scheduled at 20 during rush hour, but the bus is probably late. Also, again, it's not going into the city, you were already there, you just need to get on a different route.
>I get out and have a 10 minute connection wait for the bus to take me to the place closest to work, after which there's a 5-10 minute work.
If you have to make another connection outside the hub, you're probably waiting at least 45 minutes, in addition to the bus being late. The closest bus stop to where you work is another 30 minute walk away, along a 45 mph highway with no bike lanes and a sidewalk that just randomly ends occasionally.
>Total commute time: 2.5 hours single way. To move 60km. And that's living behind a train station and working at one of the countries' largest employers.
In the US, this was actually entire hypothetical. The route just doesn't actually exist.
Hope this helps you see why we place NL on a pedestal. We know it's not perfect, but it's so much better than what we have. Unless you live in an incredibly small portion of the country, it's just not an option.
I also found this plot interesting relating vehicles and GDP [1], though the data seems outdated compared to the first link.
I'd also guess, though I can't find the data, that the US is one the highest cars per capita rates in its cities. Outside of NYC and Chicago, there is a real lack of public transport infrastructure in most US cities.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_... [1]
No, you are confusing the Netherlands an a whole with cities like Amsterdam.
People refer to the latter as an example of walkable cities.
Well. There's your problem.
The idea of travelling 60km to work is a very modern phenomenon. Like a lot of people you've built your life around car travel. It's hard to get back from that.
It's a bit of a long commute by US norms (I think average is 20mi, 32km) but not too crazy compared to what some people do.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Ra...
Usage (totals):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...
They even pay the $100,000 fee for a 10 year permit to have a car, on top of 100% import tax. That's close to $175,000 just to own some tiny 3-cylinder car for 10 years.
Well, I live in The Netherlands and the place where I work is not very reachable by public transport. The 138 trains per day between Amsterdam and The Hague is all very nice and so on but even in the Netherlands people who live in a village will in many cases be somewhat isolated if they don't own a car.
If you're going from the Hague central station to Amsterdam central station, sure. Now plan a more typical commute from say the Hague Wateringen to the over Amstel industrial estate (It takes two times as as driving) Play around with real life scenarios. Say you're going from Amsterdam Osdorp to your work in Utrecht Lageweide. It takes twice with transit as if you were to drive even with traffic. Most Dutch people drive, especially those that can afford to.
But the kicker, I suppose, is that in my version you drive 35+ minutes and then need to work out, while the train version means I don't need to go to the gym. When I lived in LA I rode my bike and it meant being in great shape without ever having to work out, and I miss it, but of course it depends on the situation.
That really depends on the amount of traffic jam you end up in.
It's true that not every route has a direct train connection, and there are definitely trips where cars are faster, but during rush hour around big cities, cars become a lot less reliable. On top of that, cars are only fast if you have access to parking on each end of the trip. Otherwise you still need to park somewhere else and take local transit for the final leg (which is definitely the preferred way to visit Amsterdam by car).
You have to make owning a car impossible. Take away parking spaces, block roads into the city, increase taxation.
But it does breakdown or be worse with slightly more complicated routes. Like I used to travel from smaller city to bigger city to other big city. And in the end public transport was probably 50% if not longer in time. First 15-20 minutes to station, then 45 minutes with local train. Wait for intercity, ~2 hours and 30 minutes or get lift to destination. Compared to straight 2 hours from door to door with car.
And this is with perfectly serviceable train network with plenty enough trains. Or at max capacity.
Driving has several advantages, but getting stuck in traffic is extremely unpleasant in ways that similar delays on other forms of travel don’t really replicate.
But this is not the majority of travel, and in those cases car travel is indeed overkill, and a hassle to boot, as anyone who has ever had to daily wrangle with parking lots and rush hour traffic can attest.
There are different concerns with public transport, but the advantages tend to outweigh the disadvantages, and it appears this is borne out by the data.
I don't consider train travel to be lost time in the way car travel is.
A train is great for Rotterdam-Hague-Amsterdam, not so good for visiting the Bosch museum in 's-Hertogenbosch.
Holland has a great road system and parking everywhere. The perfect place for a car owner.
Huh? There's a bike rental place on practically every other corner in most Dutch cities, and most of their profit is from tourists. You only need to show some ID and leave a deposit. Dutch people usually have a cheap old bike, or use the public OV bikes, for which you do need to register and get a card, but even that is possible as a foreigner, it just takes some days to process.
> visiting the lovely villages and other places Holland is full of is a time consuming exercise in futility unless one has a car.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from either. Intercity transport by train works great, and there are many organized bus tours that take you to smaller villages. You can easily see most of the country without owning a car, though it's a personal preference whether you enjoy using public transport or not.
Because some people don’t live in Amsterdam or The Hague.
Taking public transportation will take me over twice the time, and that’s when there’s no outage or delay.
“But traffic jams!” I hear you say. Well, the % time in traffic jams is drastically less for me than the % time lost due to missing a transfer, a delayed train or a canceled train.
Traffic jams are annoying but not very common or large, and will only rarely cause me to miss an appointment. Also, you just use cruise control and wait.
Experiencing a delay, cancelation or missing a transfer is almost guaranteed for any trip I make, and this usually means waiting another 30 mins for the next train or bus, and trying to figure out what I need to do to get to my destination (finding alternative trains)
All while being more expensive and less comfortable than just driving somewhere. If it were (drastically) cheaper, I could convince myself to take the time loss. But it is not, it is literally more expensive to take the train or bus than to drive if you already own a car.
I used to wholeheartedly agree with this. I lived in a very parking-constrained area. Zipcar had cars with dedicated spots on random corners throughout town, which was extremely convenient! At least prior to 2020...
Then the pandemic hit, and the number of package delivery trucks skyrocketed, along with doordash, uber eats, etc. And also just a general decrease in people's willingness to follow parking rules and signs. In the final year of my Zipcar membership before cancellation, literally 100% of my rentals involved dealing with a blocked parking spot when trying to return the car. I just don't think Zipcar's concept is viable anymore.
Although as many of the other commenters noted, one reason that driving in some places in the country is doable is that many others choose alternatives, themselves made attractive by high quality infrastructure.
This makes any trip much more difficult. Anyway I had to have the car for work. I hated that thing and the consultancy job.
Because some people, like me, find driving to be blissful and elating, and I will never not take the opportunity to do it.
Subreddits like r/solarpunk, r/fuckcars, r/notjustbikes, along with the push for 15 minute cities are a testament that young people dont want to be in the grip of petrol companies or owning a car as they are not sustainable, cause traffic, accidents, and on and on.
I get that a car is the only realistic option in the 'great outdoors', but anywhere even slightly dense, they're a pain to buy, to maintain, to drive, to park. If you want the fun of driving, go to a track. If you want to get around, there are often better options. Car ownership seem like an outdated aspiration, IMHO.
I am not interested in owning a "house", too expensive, there is little to no reason to strap myself with long term responsibilities.
I am also not interested in drinking, given all evidence on how bad alcohol is, I am not keen on destroying the only tool I have that allows me to live as well as I do. Unless of course you mean drinking for social reasons, which is another thing entirely but I don't do that either.
Cars are really just trash technology that has made city life worse.
Older generation have an emotional attachment to cars, and project a lot of virtuous attributes onto it (freedom, independence, wealth, ...). Younger generations just do that less. They accurately see what cars are.
The young have that luxury. They're not at that age yet where they need to capitulate to the cult of the car. Once you have children, the thousands of vectors pushing a family in all directions, car life in some burb is the only one that's financially affordable.
It's the other way around. Youth reject cars because cars are objectively shit. As people get older, options dwindle, aspirations get adjusted, and people submit.
Having to own a car and drive it everywhere every day can be pretty miserable. Being able to afford owning a car and not having to drive it all the time is wonderful. Freedom of having an option to just go anywhere at any time is not something I ever thought I would appreciate so much before I had to get a car for security reasons. But it absolutely is a luxury as even mediocre public or commercial services will get you 90% of own car utility. And good public or commercial services can eliminate whole categories of car use cases.
Is it because of this intense fear of getting a job that was starting to emerge when I was young and seems to have really taken off since?
As discussed many times past, including on HN, if you live in or near a major city, and in a country or area which prioritises goood public transport, you can get by admirably --even better-- without a car.
As soon as you move even a little away from the metropolis, and/or to somewhere that doesn't prioritise good public transport, access (at least) to a car becomes close to a necessity for many activities. This rule holds true in my direct experience in the UK, US, Switzerland, and Germany.
For example, in the US compare living in Denver to a small town a couple of hours' drive out in the sticks. Or in the UK, living in one of the major cities to virtually anywhere in the countryside.
But whenever I can avoid driving, I prefer to do that.
I also wonder if it is truly cars or just driving that is out of favor? If so, will full self drive fix that if and when it ever arrives?
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/3/our-self-impos...
I'm generally handy and usually perform my own maintenance on my vehicles. As such, I tend to drive 10-20 year old Japanese vehicles. I remember once when I confidently told my partner that I'd swap their burnt out headlight bulb, no problem. Imagine my surprise when I found out that a 2010ish GM sedan recommended taking the front bumper off to access the headlight housing.
If every little thing that goes wrong requires a multi-hundred dollar maintenance bill at a minimum, it's no wonder people want a viable alternative.
Is your argument that those national statistics are being driven entirely by changes in rich cities?
That the changes in driving habits have been so large that it drags down the bottom 60%.
The article says that in 1997 43% of 16-year olds had a driver's licence but by 2020 it had fallee to 20%.
Since you're claiming that's entirely driven by the richest 40% let's do some simple math to quantify the implications of your claim.
If richest 40% of 16 year olds had 0 driver's licences... Not a single one in the entire country... Then the national rate would have fallen to 25% not 20%. So the richest 40% must actually have NEGATIVE driver's for the math to work out on your claim.
Or maybe it isn't just a phenomenon limited the rich places.
Among teens, their basic needs are often already met by their family, teens are less likely to work than a generation ago, and a lot of their interaction is online anyway. Teen physical independence dropped for other reasons and the appeal of cars went with it.
For adults I think you're right about only high income people being able to live in neighborhoods with close amenities, but also reliance on delivery services, Uber/Lyft are also ways that high income lifestyle can make you dependent on cars while not owning one yourself.
I assumed it was because countries like India and China are following different trends - lower initial car ownership rates, more two-wheelers on the road, but a growing middle class.
Also if you're planning to have a family, a car is essential. Herding children on packed public transport is a no-no. I can imagine it being easier to walk with children if you're living in high trust communities where all amenities are available within walking distance, but that might also be a wealth thing too.
I never felt the same way, and I think a large part of that is that I grew up with the Internet; I could always AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) my friends or use ICQ. I was always connected even during an era of dialup. With the always-on functionality of modern phones, I’m sure that feeing is much more magnified. This doesn’t surprise me and I hope it drives a much more efficient future.
But then the Internet become a thing. For some of us sooner rather than later (I started earlier, as a tween, doing FidoNet and running a BBS). That shift online came with a tremendous increase in seat time in front of the computer.
So now I'd have to throw the kids out of the house and lock the door behind them, or they'll happily park in front of their computer playing games, watching YouTube, texting with friends that are literally across the street.
No wonder young people no longer see the car as freedom, they've lost the interest in even leaving their house, much less driving into the wilderness to take a hike or see the stars, etc. Sure, not all of them, but there is a very obvious pattern. And older generations aren't immune, of course, the allure of sitting on your butt in front of a computer screen appeals to all ages. But the older generations started with more habitual roaming habits.
1. Spend thousands of dollars a year on gas, whether you want to or not
2. Buy auto insurance
3. Pay for routine maintenance like oil changes and brakes
And none of this is by choice.
I hate cars. Yet I am forced to own one in order to live.
I'm an older millennial but enjoy living in a community where I only have to get into a car a couple times a week, but can spend the reset of the time walking or biking around my community.
Cars are dangerous to both pedestrians and cyclists. They make our streets noisy, our air polluted -- even electric cars shed particulates from their tires and their brakes. Cars require extensive amounts of parking, which is ugly dead space which contributes to sprawl.
"In 2017, the average amount of time people spend commuting with public transit in Toronto, for example to and from work, on a weekday is 96 minutes. 34% of public transit riders ride for more than two hours every day. The average amount of time people wait at a stop or station for public transit is 14 minutes, while 10% of riders wait for over twenty minutes on average every day. The average distance people usually ride in a single trip with public transit is 10 kilometres (6.2 mi), while 25% travel for over 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) in a single direction."
But it's nice to have a license so you can rent a car if you really want to.
Sure there are those who cannot afford a car, but that isn't what the article is about.
Not necessarily so.
I live 2 minutes from two tram lines and two bus lines.
I live 4 minutes from a train station with a train every 15 minutes.
It takes my 12 minutes door to door to the central train station and 25 minutes door to door to a 2nd tier European airport with excellent world wide connections.
I'm a member of a car sharing cooperative with about a dozen cars within 10 minutes walking distance. I don't think that I rented one in the last two years because I just didn't need a car.
And all this has really nothing to do with my financial situation. It's just that owning a car with public transport connections within walking distance would not add to my mobility in any reasonable sense.
Personally, I am walking 40 minutes each way to go to work, or uber in the morning and walking in the afternoon. It's not that I can't afford a car. I am just not interested in owning one.
Also, I'm pretty sure that many "anti car" teens still know someone, like their parents or a friend, that owns a car and can help them out occasionally.
The value of having and maintaining a car is directly tied to whether you need it to perform the activities you enjoy. I enjoy taking my dog on hikes outside of NYC, so I pay the exorbitant cost of parking ($650 per month on the upper east side) to have a parking spot. If I didn't have a dog, I wouldn't have a car in the city. This is despite the fact that I personally love cars having owned a number of Japanese sports cars.
The focus of the article on climate change activism and urban planning is somewhat political, but I think it gets it right in the end: "Several studies...have concluded that driving habits that are formed in youth seem to persist...even into their 40s."
This is exactly it. I grew up in a relatively remote area of Southern California and became accustomed to driving-in for school, to see friends, to take my dog on hikes, etc. Those experienced have formed a positive association with "owning a car" despite the displeasure of driving around looking for parking.
Maybe the Zoomer/Millenial focus on luxury goods has lead to a world where people aren't interested in vehicles outside of the high end?
I thought that was dumb and just decided to get by with less money and no car.
Throughout high school, I’d walk to the general store a mile away and that was about all I did other than go fishing (my favorite thing to do at the time). For a bit of money I tutored at school and tied flies (a fishing thing) for a local tackle shop.
In college I’d think nothing of walking 3-5 miles round trip for errands. Outside of peak school hours I was often the only person on the limited local bus system. I kept tutoring and writing grad school entrance essays for kids for money.
After college I moved to Portland, OR and still haven’t learned to drive (I’m 40 today). I walk and bike everywhere and take the bus once in awhile.
I only got a driver's license when I got married and my wife insisted, because she didn't want to the only one driving the kids around. (She mostly insists that she drives, though.) I still commute by bike.
In a well-designed city, most people don't really need a car. Some do; some jobs really do require a car. My wife still travels to all corners of the country regularly, so we do have a car for that, but for me personally, a car would be a pointless expense.
For me a car isn't for getting around the city or getting to work (I much prefer walking/biking/taking public transport for that), but getting away from the city. To get to my favourite walking trail by the sea or the local ski slope is a 30 minute drive or 1.5+ hours by public transport. Getting to the slightly larger ski resort is a 90 minute drive or almost 4 hours by public transport. Getting to a national park I like visiting is a 2.5 hour drive and virtually impossible to get to by public transport. With public transport I can vacation in most major cities in Europe. With a car I can vacation in tiny beautiful out of the way places I never would have even thought of visiting before I got car.
Traffic was a problem on roads long before the internet. It's not the car. It's how we've attempted to scale cars via highways and stroads at the expense of everything around us.
I don't hate cars. They're not the problem.
The problem with enjoying cars as a mode of commuting is that cars don't scale when the occupant-to-car ratio is 1:1, since the car is easily several times the size of one occupant. Cars could scale if the number of occupants was on average, greater than 1:1, as it is on planes, trains, and busses.
One way to make cars scale like larger vehicles is to reduce their size toward a bicycle or motorcycle. This is obvious from observing denser parts of the world.
The other way is HOV lanes. That hasn't worked well around here where I've frequently been the only one on the HOV in the middle of stop-and-go, multi-lane, rush-hour traffic for decades.
The driver just made the decision not to carry more occupants under the guise of personal freedom. That's an error for which we all bear the burden.
The hyperfocus on productivity, punctuality, and space-time in general is the problem with modern commute culture, ignoring the evolving dialectic on remote work. We did not create this, but we've certainly accepted it, - the triumph of commute-time over commune-time.
We may not all be pickled in the same diminishing-returns-on-more-cars culture, but we can transition to an increasing-returns-on-less-cars culture and simply learn to transit the earth more creatively, meaningfully, and multi-modally.
Commuting is a choice that should be optimized for the mutual benefit of self and society.
I, for one, really enjoy being able to read on a bus or a train (leave the driving to them) - ignoring self-driving because I don't trust "them" any further than I can throw my near-autonomous medical device, because there isn't any greater sacrifice in my mind than the feeling of agency that arises from having my hands on the wheel and the gearshift, whether bicycle, motorcycle, or car.
It's pretty cheap and is competitive with a bus pass depending on where you're going. It covers gas, insurance, maintenance, and you have access to all local parking permits. You can get essentially 'unlimited rides' for less than 100$/month.
I had a car off and on over the last couple of years, and I would barely use it, mostly just to change parking spots. I also sank a couple ~4k into repairs only to finally scrap it (I'm a bit of an idiot).
Communauto is a great inbetween, where I can do groceries, can go on extended trips. It's a great option for the occasional (<3/week) or frequent in-city motorist.
At the same time, I recently saw a documentary about how young families are driven out of the cities and into the suburbs because apartments in bigger cities have become unaffordable for many of them. Also, life styles sometimes change as you get older - when you start a family, many of the amenities of city life become increasingly irrelevant, and raising kids outside of the city can also be more attractive for many. In such a situation, the perspective of having a car becomes a completely different one.
I mostly gave up a car living in Washington, DC. I still had one, but only because my apartment had free parking. It came in handy for occasional work trips and road trips, but day-to-day I walked or biked almost everywhere.
Yet, the main reason it was not useful was because the roads were so packed with traffic, at almost all hours of the day, that it was nearly impossible to drive anywhere. Let alone find somewhere to park that wouldn't charge you $20.
If enough people fall out of love with cars, maybe it driving will become attractive again.
Cars are a necessary evil in my life for the moment, but I hope for a future where that "necessary" part goes away.
I don't buy this article's argument. Outside of cities there will always be a demand for cars. My daughter just turned 16 and she's working/saving for a car and won't shut up about it - which IMO is great...motivation to work hard, keep her grades up (one of our stipulations), etc. Same with all of her friends.
In cities with a functioning mass transit system, there's very little need for the young or old to be interested or in love with cars. It's the same as it ever was. This is literally a non-story.
I loathe car dependence too, but I suspect a lot is linked to frugality: I grew up with gas prices approaching $5 a gallon and it certainly didn't feel freeing to pay that to go literally anywhere (plus maintenance and upfront costs and insurance, of course).
As others have mentioned though, cost matters too. AAA reported today that for new car owners the average cost of ownership has crossed $10,000: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/08/annual-cost-of-new-car-owne...
That's a lot of buses and Ubers.
- Not just taxis anymore: Rideshare apps are available and easy to use
- More car rental/carsharing options to choose from (e.g. Zipcar in the USA)
- Not just bikes/motorcycles: Now one can buy E-bikes, or borrow E-bikes or regular bikes via bike share programs, now scooters are getting in on this too
- More intercity bus and train companies with decent amenities
- I don't know how car rental companies were before. But they are still an option.
And we don't have to pay for inspections/insurance/maintenance on any of that.
Where I live now it'd be madness to want a car, just a huge obligation to take care of with very little use. Decent chance I'll feel a bit different when I buy a place and am living in an area with much less frequent public transport options (but much more space to just leave a car sitting).
I would rather stay where I am than move out to somewhere like that though; and I don't think I'd ever see it as a positive trade beyond the ownership vs rental aspect.
It's a real hassle to drive, park and do maintenance/accreditation/insurance on a car that most people simply accept because that's the way things are done. Honestly, I'm 35 and I've always felt car-culture reminded me of smokers in the 60s: it's terrible overall but most people can't seem to see the problems since it's so widespread.
Cars pollute. Cars can kill you (and do kill many unprotected people every day). Cars make people disconnected from others and social connection suffer - you don't just meet people on the street anymore, children don't walk home which was always great time to socialize.
Cars are also terribly inefficienct way to get around. Even if you forget fuel cost, health considerations, pollution. They are just too big for everyone to have one and still be able to get around in a city in reasonable time. Bikes are already faster in many cities even with terrible car centric infrastructure and laws hostile to cycling. E-bikes with some infrastructure would be significantly faster than cars. And cheaper, and greener and safer and healthier.
Cars often take valuable land which could be used for residential buildings or recreational areas. Significant % of many city centers are parking lots. Significant % of many big buildings are parking lots as well. The cost of car centric infrastructure is humongous.
I am so happy this movement gets some traction. For everyone life quality getting rid of cars in cities would mean great improvement for life quality, especially young people and poor people.
This is largely just nonsense for a lot of modern cars. I’m at 80k in 4 years and have only done oil changes and tyres.
My mother only had her first “big” repair on her car at 140k after 10 years.
Cars are more reliable than they’ve ever been.
Luckily I moved away, but every time I'm back home I do feel the pain - especially during winters.
But we need to understand. There are cases where the car is a must. Unavoidable. Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability.
I tick all of those boxes and never had a car.
I live in the city, walking and using public transit. Toddlers love to walk and to be carried in the stroller.
Cars from the suburbs are a constant inconvenience for us living in inner cities: they are a danger to pedestrians and cyclists alike, they make our streets noisy and our air polluted.
If people liked the suburbs so much, they would stay there. But no, they want the convenience and services of the city while shoving the externalities of their lifestyle onto other people.
There's different ways of living a life, and the current trend shouldn't be seen as car demonization. I see it more as a new generation seeing the current US car-centric society and pushing for a better (for the life they want to live) alternative.
Bud, nobody is taking the car away from those kinds of use cases. It's very clear for most people that cars are necessary in those situations, and that's fine. What we're demonising is the car as the only way to go about getting from A to B. If you watch some of the urban planning videos on the topic, or lurk the r/f*cars subreddit you'll quickly see that most people also* want to make the driving experience better! And by better they don't mean to build one more lane, but sensible infrastructure that makes sense for everybody, not just the cars. The whole point is about inclusion: why isn't using a car unavoidable?
If you had business in a different city that's a few hours distance, and you miss the last bus of the day, you'll need to wait at least 6-8 hours to be able to get the first bus or train of the next day.
In this case you can probably still find a taxi, but then we're back to the car situation.
(EDIT: Of course the problem would also be solved if you could get a bus or train any time of the day.)
Cars have reasons to exists and a no-car future is neither likely nor desirable; but today they are overused as an inefficient but easy solution.
Here in Switzerland I see people biking with toddlers AND heavy groceries all the time. And the landscape and weather are definitely challenging.
I have a neighbor who drives her 3 small kids around on a bicycle (one in the rear child seat, two in a trailer). In her defence it's an e-bike.
A. In the US - driving sucks.
Populated areas: It's gotten much more crowded on every road in the past 20 years. At least where I live rush hour is a joke - there's a crash every day on the interstate, meaning traffic doesn't get above 30mph the whole time I'm on the interstate. Local roads are also full of cars during these times and during most times. It's not fun, and it's not freedom, it's an annoying necessity to live.
Non-populated areas: Far less crowded, but to get anywhere, you're looking at long drives on twisty, winding roads. It might be fun at first, but then gets old. It's not freedom, it's an annoying necessity to live.
B. I think cars used to be a rite of passage for young people, and often the first way they would get "out of the house" and have a way to get privacy for their earliest girlfriends/boyfriends. This is something that started to die in the late 80's. Today's young people are much poorer, much more worried, pissed, and disappointed in everything, much more isolated, and under much more restrictive settings in things they do such as school and such.
Yea, try living somewhere rural without a large number of things. The fact is, most people don't, and the fact is, most of the market for everything is in cities and their satellite suburbs.
This wouldn't be problematic if the replacement were better, but it's not. Try going on a long road trip in an electric car: depending on your origin and destination, it may or may not be possible. It will take a significant multiple of the time it would've taken in an ICE car.
It's no wonder today's youth aren't interested in anemic ICE cars - they aren't as cool or exciting as they used to be. And electric cars are only really viable/useful for the rich (with garages to charge them in) and/or those who live in densely populated areas where they don't have to drive very far... and those places usually have viable public alternatives that young people without families are happy to use instead.
And it made me love cars.
I love having a little home base wherever I go.
I love not having to sit next to homeless people on drugs doing crazy things next to me.
I love being able to wear a nice watch and nice shoes and not having to constantly look over my shoulder worrying about being robbed.
I love being able to bring my little mini Australian shepherd dog without having to beg and plead with the government for permission and medical institutions for service dog paperwork because Pitbull owners exist and are exactly the people who ride mass transit.
I love being able to go anywhere at any time.
I love not having to rely on unreliable drivers of mass transit to get somewhere on time.
I'm sure mass transit works great in an idealic region of all middle class and upper middle class people.
But I would rather the downsides of driving than the downsides of having having to sit next to the seething teeming flesh of the average American anytime I want to go somewhere.
Also part of me wonders if mass transit works better in cities like New York in Chicago where the cold weather annihilates the homeless population.
Public transport can be slow and you get weirdos on it occasionally and it's annoying if you want to visit somewhere without a train station like a castle or whatever - but it doesn't seem worth the hassle of having one in the city.
I really wish they'd expand the train network though.
Like begging and street selling should be illegal, clean it right up so even the wealthy would choose to take public transport.
Since moving back into a midlands city and purchasing a house, it quickly became apparent that *not* owning a car was detrimental to quality of life, there's a lot of aspects of home ownership where having a car just makes sense. Going to the DIY store to buy bulky items, going grocery shopping to do a "big shop", moving stuff around etc.
So I got my driving license at 36 years old a few months back. It's kinda awkward learning to drive at this age but I think I took it more seriously when I learnt a little bit at 17.
I'm still in the honeymoon period so quite enjoy the novelty of driving, the independence etc. I guess one advantage I do have with working remotely is I don't commute to work, so all my driving is 100% leisure and I don't drive during the peak/rush hour times.
On the other hand people will seek better living quality in less dense areas and this makes the car necessary, however infrequently. Maybe the news of their demise is greatly exaggerated
It’s not even about the fact that it’s inefficient or you’re limited to specific routes or that it’s slow.
The core reason it’s so shit is because some trash person can just come on the bus and chef you up for looking at them funny. I don’t have to deal with trash people in my comfy lil car.
Like in my city it'd cost at least $4000 to get a licence, and then $250 a month for indoor parking, $~200 a month or so for insurance, road tax, etc. and $~400 a month for the car loan.
After taxes and mortgage payment/rent that's just unaffordable (as a Europoor).
Regardless, I still love cars. I have a small collection of euro classics and vintage Japanese models and I love restoring them.
I definitely see people have gone more toward seeing cars as appliances rather than appendages they love. And I can see the trend heading more toward an overall disdain with having to own cars or put up with them as pedestrians or cyclists. I wonder if when my daughters grow up if driving around my classics will actually been seen as cool or gross to their peers.
I love not owning a car. This is made possible by lots of good public transportation options around me. On the few occasions that I need a car I can easily rent one. I've only rented a car 3 times in the last 10 years, excluding trips to the US (where I always need to rent a car).
But also, modern cars are bananas. Between the flat screens replacing physical controls and the paid subscriptions to enable existing functionality, I want nothing to do with car ownership anymore.
I expect $tatus $ymbols to continue falling out of favor and be replaced by self sufficiency. Rich are also falling out of love with alcohol and falling in love with fitness. This is good for everyone.
It's better to go to the track twice a month and have fun in a rented Ferrari or a Lamborghini for 10 very hot laps and then Ubering for the rest of the month moving from point A to point B.
The whole ownership of a car seems like useless as far as practicality and also cost. The A-B cars are owned by the community and the fun cars are owned by the track (or the rent company at the track). And I just use one or the other depending on my mood.
The whole cars as design objects I never bought into that.
Of course I live in a city and I don't need cars to do heavy work.
I now find that I didn't much need the car. My wife has a car, we share it. I'm a car enthusiast, but now I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever go back to two cars for the pair of us.
I now work for a large german car manufacturer as a SWE. I cannot afford the cheapest car they make, it is literally more than I make in a year before tax. I don't own car yet and I'm not sure I will be able to afford one in the next 3-5 years. I don't even care that I (a former car nut) works for a car manufacturer when this would've been my dream job as a kid
I like this combination and I am glad that taxis exist. Some errands would be really weird-to-impossible without the ability to use a car, even if it is driven by somebody else.
Going carless works mainly for people who have their whole lives around urban areas. For the rest of us cars are a necessity for enjoying life.
Mainly it is for idiosyncratic reasons: I hate being confined where I can't stand up if I want to, and I don't like "car smell". There's something about the air inside motor vehicles that puts me on edge. I get the same feeling on buses and planes, but oddly not on trains, even though rationally I know the air must be of similar quality.
There's the health benefits and the climate stuff and saving money and so on. But that's not what I'm happy about about when I bike around; it's about fresh air and postural freedom.
I'm glad I live somewhere where I don't need a car to do everyday things. It's not as bike-friendly as somewhere like Denmark but it's tolerable.
My car has been staying in the garage most of the time. I feel, slowly, places are getting a bit more dense and have more things to do that are just walking distance, without having to deal with the hassle of driving/parking, etc.
If you live in a single room in a house in London, barely go outdoors, and have one shelf in a fridge, then a car is just far less useful to you as a concept.
If you live in a house and you go on outdoor adventures often then it's a daily thing. I mean I transport wood, tools, large amounts of groceries, etc on a near daily basis.
My car isn't even expensive. Go buy a Toyota or Honda. Hybrid? Even better. I'd happily pay a bit more monthly to be in comfort than to save a buck.
For GenZ the 'scene' is mostly online. There's no reason to go to a particular place to hang out with friends, meet new people or see something cool, interesting, and different.
Taking the train everywhere has its issues but I would much rather deal with those than a car.
Most cities are not Portland, OR. Culturally, geographically or structurally. Show me this trend in Anywhereelseville.
Back in the day, my first car was £700, with £400 insurance. It's no where near that now, and this is only 19 years ago.
Case in point, a kid who (a) wants to have a job (b) wants to hook up and (c) wants to go to parties / events still wants a car. What changes is that whereas in the 80s/90s, a kid who sat in his basement pulling his pud would would be considered a loser and have pressure to not be like that. Today it's totally acceptable. So there are simply more kids who aren't even trying to have an out-of-basement life, so they don't need cars.
I think it's not that relevant. The kids who are going to grow up with more power (financial and social) are the ones that want cars today.
Other times? Meh.
Their price and wages are another.
cant afford a car. cant afford a house.
Marx predicted it perfectly:
> You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
"By 1997, 43% of the country’s 16-year-olds had driving licences. But in 2020, the most recent year for which figures are available, the number had fallen to just 25%. Nor is it just teenagers. One in five Americans aged between 20 and 24 does not have a licence, up from just one in 12 in 1983. "
US vehicle sales numbers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA
The article states it's baby boomers that account for increasing traffic on the road. So baby boomers are buying more cars per capita as they age? So much so that it's offsetting these dramatic drops from the younger generations? I find that really hard to believe so maybe I'm missing something. Anyone able to explain?
It's irrelevant whether or not the young are "falling out of love" with cars, cars are essential in the rich world (at least in my country, the UK) outside of a few urban areas well-served by public transport infrastructure - and non-EVs at that.
There's a huge amount of development needed in that infrastructure before the luxury of choice will matter to the average Jo.
I’ve never really wanted to own a car but I did when I lived in a small town as there wasn’t really any other option. As soon as I moved to a place where I could live comfortably without one I got rid of it and haven’t had any regrets about that decision.
Older generations (my parent for example) truly love their cars and never could imagine themselves living without one. Same for my grandmother and she lives right next to all the services she uses and mostly walks to them but still she has to own a car.