Passenger Trains > Millennials Move to Mass Transit -- WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/yearning-for-car-averse-millennials-suburbs-turn-to-transit/2015/03/29/cb916cd8-d259-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This article above uses a photo of the Silver Spring Transit Center to illustrate its point.  Below is another, less sanguine view of that same Center, from an earlier WaPo, which notes it is "years behind schedule and over budget."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/cost-of-silver-spring-transit-center-repairs-jumps-another-21-million/2014/12/04/a87cf0bc-7bee-11e4-b821-503cc7efed9e_story.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/15 04:37 by hazegray.

Other than driving in rush hour, why is owing a car... as the woman intervied said... a "burden?"  I have always enjoyed driving and the freedom it gives me. Not having to go to or from work on a set schedule.  Of course these are the same people who think we are ruining the planet by doing so.

hazegray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcomm
> uting/yearning-for-car-averse-millennials-suburbs-
> turn-to-transit/2015/03/29/cb916cd8-d259-11e4-8fce
> -3941fc548f1c_story.html
>
> This article above uses a photo of the Silver
> Spring Transit Center to illustrate its point. 
> Below is another, less sanguine view of that same
> Center, from an earlier WaPo, which notes it is
> "years behind schedule and over budget."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/co
> st-of-silver-spring-transit-center-repairs-jumps-a
> nother-21-million/2014/12/04/a87cf0bc-7bee-11e4-b8
> 21-503cc7efed9e_story.html


Well it is a smart choice  In Chicago, the city sticker is over 100, state plates are over 100, parking is double and triple taxed and public parking  privatized to increase revenue, there are red light cameras and speeding cameras all over the place, emission testing for dubious results. Of course there is the problem of private towing firms lurking to nab your car and the ever present threat of breakins and resulting higher than usual insurance.  Then the 10% sales tax and sales tax again if you sell your car.    The latest Illinois emergency budget for this year takes 250 million from the road fund for the general revenue fund.

On the other hand CTA fares recover around 1/9th of total costs depending what you count according to Tribune and free rides are the greatest area of growth
due to various methods.  As a side note several good friends kids live in city with cars but guess where they are registered??


Bob

When I was 15 I moved the moon and the stars to get a drivers license.  Our daughter is 19 and can't find the time.  My wife recently was served by a worker who complained bitterly about our once an hour bus in Indianapolis and how she couldn't wait to move to a city that had better service (she doesn't have a car or license).  Last week I was at the drive through and overheard one 17 year old tell the other that she was tired of people asking her about a drivers license. She was happy to take the bus so she could get things done on her tablet (i.e. social media).

When these folks take their seats someday in the statehouses and congress, they will have the same funding dilemmas that we have, but if their attitudes don't change, some of the things that we fund without thinking might not be, and busses and rail lines will be. And I'll still shake my head if our daughter still doesn't have a drivers license...

Ride when you need them services like ZipCar are very popular, too. Why pay for a car except when you need it?

Posted from Android

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other than driving in rush hour, why is owing
> a car... as the woman interviewed said...
> a "burden?"  I have always enjoyed driving and
> the freedom it gives me. Not having to go to or
> from work on a set schedule.  Of course these are
> the same people who think we are ruining the
> planet by doing so.

It all depends on who you are.  A car costs money to buy, to pay insurance, to put gas in it, oil changes, other maintaining expenses, etc.  There are now thousands of folks today who rent a car when they need one rather than pay for having one all the time.  And this is ok for them.

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> andersonb109 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Other than driving in rush hour, why is owing
> > a car... as the woman interviewed said...
> > a "burden?"  I have always enjoyed driving
> and
> > the freedom it gives me. Not having to go to or
> > from work on a set schedule.  Of course these
> are
> > the same people who think we are ruining the
> > planet by doing so.
>
> It all depends on who you are.  A car costs money
> to buy, to pay insurance, to put gas in it, oil
> changes, other maintaining expenses, etc.  There
> are now thousands of folks today who rent a car
> when they need one rather than pay for having one
> all the time.  And this is ok for them.

Well said. Freedom is a relative term.

If I lived in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, or probably Washington, a car WOULD be a burden. The costs of car ownership in big cities are huge, starting with insane parking rates and insurance, which contribute absolutely nothing to one's actual expenses to move around.

In Toledo, a car is a necessity. Bus service is skeletal and infrequent. And I certainly wouldn't enjoy the railfanning hobby nearly as much if I didn't have my own wheels. But the new generation uses its electronic devices to socialize instead of driving over to friends' houses or going out cruising on Friday nights. I could see growing support for public transportation even in "car towns" like Toledo and Detroit in the future.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I lived in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, or
> probably Washington, a car WOULD be a burden. The
> costs of car ownership in big cities are huge,
> starting with insane parking rates and insurance,
> which contribute absolutely nothing to one's
> actual expenses to move around.
>

If you lived in San Francisco, $75K annual salary would require $125K, but in fact your transportation costs would only be 10% more.  Here's the link, check it out yourself:
http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/

My grandson will be 17 in June.  When I was 16, or I should say when I turned 16, I could not get to the DMV office quickly enough to take the driving test and get my driver license.  My grandson?  Has no interest in driving whatsoever.  He does not live in an "urban center" either, he lives in Tracy, CA, hardly the mecca of public transportation.  His plan, as of now anyway, is to someday live nearer, or in San Francisco, and have BART, CalTrain, Amtrak, Uber (when needed), etc.  He likes the idea of not spending money on an unnecessary car.  I don't believe he is against driving.  It just does not have the same social meaning to him that it did to me or my generation, and I am sure he is not alone.  When he sees the need, he will probably do it.  Even then, depending on his living circumstances, I could imagine him never buying a car.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other than driving in rush hour, why is owing
> a car... as the woman intervied said...
> a "burden?"  I have always enjoyed driving and
> the freedom it gives me. Not having to go to or
> from work on a set schedule.  Of course these are
> the same people who think we are ruining the
> planet by doing so.

With 35,000 dead and many more seriously injured each year on America's highways, I would rather take my chances in Vegas' casinos than on our roads. Incidentally, who is paying for all those emergency workers who are waiting around as one enjoys the "freedom" of the open road--those same "little people" who are the taxpayers!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/15 09:35 by railwaybaron.

There are many places one cannot go without a car. Transit serves only larger cities on limited timetables. In addition, family travel with pets is not feasible on public transit. Or desirable, considering some of the types riding it.

railwaybaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 
> With 35,000 dead and many more seriously
> injured each year on America's highways, I would
> rather take my chances in Vegas' casinos than on
> our roads. Incidentally, who is paying for all
> those emergency workers who are waiting around as
> one enjoys the "freedom" of the open road--those
> same "little people" who are the taxpayers!

Fascinating perspective and comparison. I think most "little people" are content with the portion of their taxes going to our safety forces and EMS.
I 'll gamble and keep my car. 
RichS

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other than driving in rush hour, why is owing
> a car... as the woman intervied said...
> a "burden?"  I have always enjoyed driving and
> the freedom it gives me. Not having to go to or
> from work on a set schedule.  Of course these are
> the same people who think we are ruining the
> planet by doing so.

Becaue owning a car is very expensive.  If you buy a new car and drive a normal amount, say 20,000 miles per year, you will find yourself paying many thousands of dollars in ownership, gas,  inspection/registration, insurance, and maintenance.  $4000 in ownership, $1000 in insurance, $3000 in gas, $500 in maintenance/inspection.  If you only make $40,000 and are deep in school loan debt and paying for an apartment, a car becomes too expensive to own.

If you only need it occasionally, its much cheaper to rent.

richs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> railwaybaron Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>  
> > With 35,000 dead and many more seriously
> > injured each year on America's highways, I
> would
> > rather take my chances in Vegas' casinos than
> on
> > our roads. Incidentally, who is paying for all
> > those emergency workers who are waiting around
> as
> > one enjoys the "freedom" of the open
> road--those
> > same "little people" who are the taxpayers!
>
> Fascinating perspective and comparison. I think
> most "little people" are content with the portion
> of their taxes going to our safety forces and
> EMS.
> I 'll gamble and keep my car. 
> RichS

I think people who drive cars also pay other taxes so I don't think this is a case of freeloader drivers.
EMS and police service do more than pick up after traffic accidents and at least some or more of the cost for
auto related costs are borne by ticket revenue.  IE read about Chicago!!!!!!

And being a bike rider or pedestrian in a major city is not without risk.
And of course there are those use parents cars well past what was common in the past.

Bob

I also have to add this a typical case of a paper trolling  old stories, rehashing, with a few quotes, for space filler.
I am sure with a little effort I could find several references to the same type of article on this site.
How about another  article about oil train terror on the rails???

Bob

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are many places one cannot go without a car.
> Transit serves only larger cities on limited
> timetables.

Yes, there are many places on cannot go without a car.  Cars are great for dating, grocery shopping and railfanning.  However, for many other purposes (going to school, commuting to/from work, getting around Yosemite National Park) public transit has its place in communities of all sizes.

There are rural public transit systems.  Additionally, there is a federal program administered by states to provide operating assistance to offset losses born by intercity bus companies serving smaller communities.

In addition, family travel with pets
> is not feasible on public transit. Or desirable,
> considering some of the types riding it.

When I was younger, I traveled on public transit with my family in larger cities (although we didn't have a pet with us). 

If you look at transportation data for metropolitan areas, you would know that the average occupancy in automobiles and light trucks is in the 1.2 - 1.4 range.  Thus, even if family travel (including with a pet) is more feasible with a car, family travel accounts for a minority of the trips in metropolitan areas.

Lastly, I am one of the "types" riding public transit whatever that means.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/15 20:34 by RuleG.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other than driving in rush hour, why is owing
> a car... as the woman intervied said...
> a "burden?"  I have always enjoyed driving and
> the freedom it gives me.

Driving in itself can be enjoyable, but, as others pointed out, owning a car, especially one that's "fun" to drive is an expensive affair.....purchase costs, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc....

Not having to go to or
> from work on a set schedule. 

Most of us DO have to go to work on a set schedule...car or not.....and this schedule tends to be the same as a lot of other people.  Thus, auto commutes in urban areas have a tendency to be miserable, and public transport tends to be more enjoyable.

Of course these are
> the same people who think we are ruining the
> planet by doing so.

Hey, if you think that massive emissions and other environmental damage caused by auto-centric transportation and matching development patterns are all just make-belief, that's your right I suppose.....

Regarding "types" riding public transit:  In some places buses are called "loser cruisers".  Back in 1951, when Pacific Electric abandoned rail passenger service to the San Gabriel Valley, a certain San Marino businessman started driving his car to his office in LA, even though he had been a regular rider of the PE "Red Cars".  When his wife asked why he didn't ride the new bus service, he said something like, "Certainly not!  Buses are for poor people."  And in the world of transit discussions, the dichotomy between "transit dependent" and "choice riders" is often mentioned.  Transit agencies are in a dilemma as to whether to provide "welfare on wheels" for the poor folks who can't afford a car or faster, more pleasant (and usually rail-based, thus more expensive to build) service to attract car owners out of their motor vehicles.
I'm not closely acquainted with many millennials, but some reports indicate that the car/minivan/suv/pickup truck ads that sponsor many of our TV shows are being ignored by the young folks.  One carbuilder had a slogan "You Are What You Drive", and I think a growing percentage of the public is saying "BS" to that concept.

Is it not slightly ironic that we are on a railfan forum populated by those whose for whom the decsion to drive as soon as possible was the primary cause of the collapse of public transportation use from the 1950s onwards. And being slightly braver that constituency were the ones who were happy for urban freeways to ruin inner city areas in a way that urban transit never did.