Hacker News Reader

As a young(-er) millennial, i'm conflicted. I grew up in a town where drivers ed was free through highschool--everyone had a car. everyone. public transit isn't good enough except for those legitimately, objectively poor (most highschool kids have jobs and virtually no expenses though, so this is not them).

When I moved to a big city for the first time, I brought my car with me. The second time I moved to a big city, I left it behind. Cars are nice when the weather or lame, or when you need to go somewhere not serviced by transit, or need to transport something large, or want to go on a road trip somewhere. However, these uses constitute a VERY small portion of trips.

Whenever I dish out $6/hr for parking, or $X00 - $XX00 dollars for maintenance, it frustrates me and reminds me that cars are more expensive than I prefer. Transit means I don't have to pay attention to the road when going places and don't worry about all of the expenses/car headaches.

That said, there are some times when car ownership is nice, and I love driving... but I drive stick, so if people can get around with public transit just fine, I see little reason for people to be eager car owners. Car ownership is quickly becoming a relic for people who care to live close to everything, and can do without cars.

I'm privileged enough that I can afford this without seriously impacting my lifestyle, and I have a sinking suspicion that if more millennials could, they'd also be car owners/drivers.

At 34, I'm at the upper end of the millennial age range, and I have had a car for the past decade. But I'm paying about $500/month extra rent for the privilege of living close to mass transit, and if it could efficiently get me everywhere I needed to go I would ditch my car in a heartbeat.

Or to put that another way: I would pay extra for the privilege of not owning a car. I suspect that in Vancouver at least, 20 years from now the strongest predictor of car ownership will be "too poor to live close to mass transit".

>20 years from now the strongest predictor of car ownership will be "too poor to live close to mass transit".

I'm sure most people on here realize this, but European cities are the opposite of US cities - poor people live in suburbs outside the city, living in the city is desirable.

If you think the debate over gentrification is interesting now, just imagine what it will look like in US cities where this flip-flop takes place.

I live in the Twin Cities, MN, and see this happening to Minneapolis-St Paul as they seem to be going through this right now

I don't think most people on HN realize this.

And that's why I said "in Vancouver". We're a far more European city than most of North America.

The Waterloo region is in the midst of this transition: a huge LRT project on the central transit corridor, along with billions in ritzy new condo developments are shooting up, plus refurbished lofts and such. But a lot of the street-level changes are very much in progress: the main drag is this odd mix of upscale restaurants and yoga studios tucked in between pawn shops, tattoo parlors, and dumpy takeout counters.

Anyhow, we believe in it: We just bought a house a few blocks from a future train stop. If there's a possibility that our present vehicle is the last one we buy, I'd be very happy about that.

Unless mass transit were to become more convenient than point to point transportation via automobiles I can't see this happening. Those who can afford it will almost always value the convenience and privacy allotted by automobiles. In Europe, the cities were originally built and designed long before automobiles, trains, and streetcars and the resulting layout results in a denser environments where mass transit works better.

You're overestimating how convenient an automobile really is. I made the mistake of taking a job 25 miles away from where I lived, and the resulting hour and a half commute in stop and go traffic was a killer.

I would much rather live in a place where I don't have to drive anywhere. Sitting in traffic is pretty soul-crushing.

"In Europe, the cities were originally built and designed long before automobiles, trains, and streetcars and the resulting layout results in a denser environments where mass transit works better."

Bucharest (Romania's capital) was a typical European city like that you're describing, but it was heavily reshaped (especially in the 1977 quake event) and is continuously worked on both in access infrastructure (extending and improving) and real estate development, and they somehow manage to keep it both automobile friendly and convenient for the the rest. The automobile possession here gets more of a whim than a necessity, as the public transportation covers literally everything, even at night! This isn't that much a mater of how things tend to fit naturally, as it is cultural. I get the impression that in USA they go lengths to keep things in a state where you have to need a car.

This is the big problem in Portland OR and San Francisco -- they can't build housing fast enough in the inner city, and it's pricing out everyone but the rich.

Does anyone actually want to live in inner city Portland? Everything hip seems to be East of the river.

I'd define anything inside of Caesar Chavez (39th) on the east side to be inner city. The property value spike seems to correspond to the areas where biking is as fast or faster than driving to get downtown.

Light rail runs quite far into the suburbs these days, and that's going to increase when the red line gets built out.

It's probably moot for me as I currently work in the suburbs (West Bloomington) but even if I did work downtown or in north loop with the rest of the SV wannabes I doubt very much that city living would be a compelling option when compared with a suburb house or apartment nearby a light rail stop.

I'm always surprised how much cheaper it is to own/use a car in the states vs. almost every other country in the world. Even someone on minimum wage can (and often does) own one (if just used).

Parking is cheap, free in many cities/suburbs, there is little tax on purchase (a $40k car in Beijing costs $20k in the USA, and lets not get to Singapore), and wow...gas.

As I've mentioned in another post around here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9297375 ), it seems to be a cultural thing where car ownership is indeed strongly encouraged in the USA. You shred a little bit more light on it.

On the other hand, you're talking about spending thousands of dollars on something that's idle %95 of the day, and is often patently awful to use (rush hour traffic). Being able to walk to work probably portends being able to walk to grocery stores, restaurants, a downtown... which a lot of more people find preferable and more healthful than a car-dependent life. And suburbs are often aesthetically dull (McMansions and cookie-cutter shopping malls) compared even to suburbs with a walkable downtown.

I'm a suburban commuter myself, and though there is a whiff of pretension to the idea of "courting" milennials, I think it's a completely rational preference.

It is and it might have been mine once upon a time. I actually could take mass transit to my first full-time job although I rarely did as it took much longer and I had free or cheap parking. And when I first moved to the area where I now live, I lived out by the office mostly because I didn't want a close to an hour commute.

That said, if you live in a city and get a convenient job in walking distance or on a convenient mass transit line, it's probably worth considering that this state of affairs probably won't last if you switch jobs because it's not the norm.

I cycle more than use mass transit. But, having switched jobs a couple times, this is less a big problem than you might imagine.

One you decide it's important to you to not waste hours in traffic all the time, it's easier to organize your life to facilitate that. It's not even all work, being about to run errands near your home is important too.

I tend to agree with this sentiment, nearly all of the people in this age range that I know work in low paying jobs and cannot afford the traditional lifestyle. The article tries to claim they are "highly educated" but most have degrees that were not challenging and do not lead to value creation.

>I find the idea of millennials not driving simply due to aspiration sets a little nauseating

Not so sure. For me it certainly was a lifestyle choice - I opted to rather spend more on rent and be within walking distance of well...pretty much everything I need.

Sometimes the idea of getting a second car comes up, but man, the opportunity cost is just so huge.