Smartphones May Help Reduce Traffic In the Near Future 144
crazyvas writes "From the New York Times: 'Experts say services that use smartphones to connect drivers and passengers could help end the reign of single-occupant cars (and unending traffic) in Los Angeles.' One would hope that combined with a recent article from Time stating that Generation Y doesn't think car ownership is cool this might pave the way for less car traffic, more efficient public transit, more pedestrians and bikers, even leading to a healthier population?"
Link is broken (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Link is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for the link.
They are taxi's that found a loop hole and will soon be shut down. It's unfair to the real taxis and the government isn't getting their cut. This won't last.
Also the article sites people using them as an alternative to taxis when coming home from the bar. Yes, that's a good way to watch a car trend. Since drunk driving is illegal, and these people are using 'taxis', they don't want cars and no longer ride alone...
These articles are just writers trying to get out ahead of a trend. If they are wrong no one will remember, if they are right, they can point to how they saw the trend comming. They are BS articles filled with outlier data. I'd be more apt to believe Gen Y doesn't want cars because they are all deep in debt due to college and don't have jobs to pay for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Link is broken (Score:4, Informative)
The ride sharing services, are trying to skirt the law. They are taxis but they try to act like they are somehow something else. As if they are just all friends giving each other rides, thus the name..
from the article,
"In addition to franchise and inspection fees, regulated taxis have to serve far-flung and low-income parts of the city where Lyft drivers need not venture. The city also requires cab companies to offer disabled-accessible vehicles, "
The ride sharing services don't have to do any of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, what's wrong with "grey market" (or whatever you want to call them) taxis?
A guy has a car and would like some money. Another guy has some money and would like a ride. They trade, and now both are better off than they were before. What's wrong with this?
Re: (Score:3)
And that is not a taxi service how? There are regulations set up for taxis that they must follow. The government and people of the city/state/
If you want to argue on if the government should be involved in this sort of transaction, that's another conversation.
Also, disagreeing with a law, doesn't give you the right to skirt it. We have a system in place to change laws. Use it. In the mean time if you wish to live in this society, obey its laws.(this is more of a general statement against a ton of people lat
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Link is broken (Score:4, Interesting)
And that is not a taxi service how?
It is not a taxi service because the transaction is pre-negotiated with a specific driver. When I hail a taxi off the street, I do not know the driver, he does not know me, and at least one of us usually does not want to negotiate the fare (me on a rainy night; him at a taxi-stand with twenty other cabs). So it is reasonable for the government to step in with regulations and standard fares. But with ride sharing, I can read the driver's reviews and ratings, and negotiate the rate in the comfort of my home or office. It is a different type of transaction.
The real problem here is not "regulation", but pricing. In nearly all cities, taxi fares are far above what they would be in a competitive market, which results in under utilization. Maybe we should fix the taxi system instead of trying to outlaw the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Link is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
But I would have thought a taxi service is someone taking me from A to B for a charge.
Nope. Limousine drivers provide that service, and they are not regulated or licensed as taxis, and there is no government price-fixing of their rates*. They do have to have a "chauffeur" driver's license, but that is just a little extra testing and a small fee beyond a normal driver's license.
*One exception: There is usually a government enforced racket to jack up prices for limos and shuttles going to/from airports. So there is usually a special permit required for that. When I have taken a ride share to an airport, the driver usually asks me to pay before reaching the drop off, so the government goons patrolling the curb don't see the money changing hands.
Re: (Score:2)
A New York cab driver makes about 20 dollars an hour and 42k a year
Which is far above the market rate. If it was not, there would not be a queue of applicants, and taxi medallions would have zero value. A NYC taxi medallion (a license to operate a taxi) costs more than a MILLION DOLLARS [reuters.com].
The garage charges a lot to rent those cars, the city makes you replace them every 2 years or so depending on the type and the driver pays for gas and all credit card transactions which can be up to 5% of a fair. Oh yeah and the MTA takes a little bit of the top to boot.
I am not sure what your point is. The fact taxi fares are so high that rent-seekers can sponge money off the top is not evidence that they are market priced.
the person who really gets hurt is the little buy driving the cab your bitching about instead of the people who put this in place.
I am NOT bitching about the "little guy". I am bitching about the government who are exactly "the people who put this in place."
Re: (Score:2)
In the mean time if you wish to live in this society, obey its laws.
Wrong.
Often the first step of this Right (and duty) is to disobey unjust laws, created by a government that has passed laws to favor the wealthy and well-connected, instead of those in the best interests of the governed.
Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely ignoring the reality of the other 99% of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You see, I read that as you have to take care of an acre of land (not having to do so is worth at LEAST $100 a month to me, probably more), you have to live with 4 or 5 friends (unless I'm sleeping with them, I would never have a roommate again for any amount of money), and you have to go through all the pain and expense of home repairs, remodeling, and you have the risk of what happens if your friends move out and you suddenly need to pay higher rent. I'd rather pay 1500 a month for a nice apartment near
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather pay 1500 a month for a nice apartment near things to do and within walking distance of work. Hell, I'd probably pay twice that.
Not on the $30K the GP earns you wouldn't. And on that salary even $1500/month would leave you very little for even food, utilities, and necessities, let alone allowing you to enjoy any of the "things to do" that you're near.
For many people with lower salaries, that "nice apartment" that's near to everything in a major city actually isn't affordable, even with a job significantly above minimum wage. And even for the single people with $1500/month to spare now, the equation changes a lot if they have a f
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a single bedroom apartment in the closest city or even suburb. I've owned property- I will never do it again. Not only is it not cheaper, but I don't want the hassle. Plus the idea of owning a 5 bedroom house unless you have 3 or 4 kids is a little disgusting- its far, far more room than I need. Extra annoyance to clean and keep it up for 0 benefit.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't live in downtown anywhere with a kid (nowhere for them to play), but I'd still stay in a city and I'd still
Re: (Score:2)
Because buses, taxis, etc. don't run on pettoluem fuels?
Re: Lies (Score:2)
The point is they don't have to. Buses run fixed routes and taxis have a well understood range - so they're both great candidates for using alternate power even today.
When did you last see a bus pull into a public filling station? So there is nothing practical tying them into gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Big Oil won't like that and similarly none of the politicians in the pockets of Big Oil will be in favor of that.
"Big Oil" is becoming the "Hitler" of the environment debate. Everything bad is caused by "Big Oil". In many cases that is not true.
The major obstacle to denser urban planning which would allow more people to live near amenities and therefore need fewer cars is the people who live there. Go to any rezoning application and there will be people who live near by the site who are against the project. These people are not controlled by big oil; that just want their neighborhood to stay the same. They don't want
Re: (Score:3)
The major obstacle to denser urban planning is that most people don't want to live like that. Few people choose to be crammed into a Stalinist tower block if they can have a house with a garden instead.
Re: (Score:2)
If your theory was true then few people would buy condos in the dense areas. If they were so hard to sell there would be few developers applying to build large buildings. Developers build to meet demand. If there was no demand there would be no big buildings. While many would prefer a house with a garden, few can afford it and/or want to commute that far.
Go to a development permit hearing and you will see what stops densification. My ex girlfriend was the executive director of a local developer group. I hav
Re: (Score:2)
the main detractors have been NIMBYs who do not want change.
Regarding the GP's argument, you may want to note the meaning of your acronyms: NIMBY = "Not in my back yard." Exactly right. Most people who actually have back yards don't want giant dense towers built in them. They would like their back yards, which proves the GP's point.
What's really happening here is that people want to move into these areas because of the type of people who already live there -- i.e., the "cool" people, often rich, who have back yards and single family homes (or small multiple fam
Re: (Score:2)
You are taking the "my back yard" thing to literally.
In downtown Victoria in the commercial/residential district where no "back yards" exist there are people who fight against 15 story buildings because they are too high and block views/sunlight. It is not an issue with densifying single family areas but densifying already commercial areas. It is not an issue of building an apartment where there never was one but building a 15 story building to replace the 5 story building that was there.
Look at just about every city in the U.S. that grew up since the 1920s or 1930s.
Things have changed
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Big Oil won't like that and similarly none of the politicians in the pockets of Big Oil will be in favor of that.
It's telling that we can't just build cities that fulfill what people want. Instead, we expect some bureaucracy to know how everyone should live, so the Agenda 21 folks and the Big Oil lobbyists fight each other for influence over planning decisions. If only there was some principle or system for getting suppliers to provide what people want...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Big Oil won't like that and similarly none of the politicians in the pockets of Big Oil will be in favor of that.
No, it's not just Big Oil and the politicians.
*I* don't want to live there. And I am not in their pocket.
I've lived in those situations before. Hirise just outside of Madrid. Many apartments here and there. Hell, I born in NYC.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, choosing between a car and a phone is indeed stupid. You need both. Why would I want a phone built into the car when I have one in my pocket?
My 26 year old daughter, in college in Cincinnati, hasn't had a car since the head broke in her old one a few years ago.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
As a "Generation Y" person (according to their stats) who lives in the UK , I can tell you that most people of my generation (that I've known/met across Europe), and the one below it (born mid-late 90's), would love to own a car. However many just can't afford it, the costs, the fuel, the taxes, the insurance (espcially this) are just too high.
It isn't that they are not interested, just that they cannot do it. They are not stupid, they see what a money sink it has been turned into for them, and most just cycle, walk, take public transport, or use a car-sharing service if they really need a car (This is for those of us in the inner cities who have this alternative). Others have taken to using motorcycles as they are cheaper to run.
I have a car, but then, my income is above average for my age, and the place I live was built in the 80's, when it was assumed everyone would have a car, so they made off-street parking available. A lot of newly built properties are "car-free", where if you buy/rent there, not only do you not get your own parking, you are forbidden from owning a car parked/registered at that address. The local council will not let you.
Coolness has nothing to do with it. We are being forced away from them. Those old guys are telling us what kids think because it is those old guys who have made owning a car (or a home for that matter) impossible for us.
Next thing I'll hear is how "Generation Y" thinks its uncool to own a home, and we'd rather spend our lives renting due to the "flexibility" it offers us.
(Yes, I know this is somewhat UK/Europe centric, but I'm sure there are similar concerns across the pond as well).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I thought you would just keep living at home until your parents died and then you would have a home.
It makes it somewhat tricky to have relationships, or generally socialise.
If I stayed with my parents, I'd have to share a room with my bro, and that would have made it a lot harder to bring a girl round.
Indeed a lot of us do still live with our parents, but being cooped up in a little room when you're in your thirties with your parents is just a recipie for arguments and family disputes (I know, because I have an older friend in this situation). From things like going out, to bringing people home, to being able to live your life on your terms, it just doesnt work to live at home. I had massive disputes with my parents because they didn't approve of my lifestyle, until I left, and things calmed down.
Especially now, as youth unemployment is really high. Of my friends only 2 of us have full time jobs. The others are either unemployed, or doing temp/part-time jobs for near minimum wage.
That is why we tend to socialise at each others places, going out has become a luxury, and things like your own pad, or a car, are just waaay out there. If you have a job and are lucky enough to have friends with jobs, you can get together and house-share.
Yes, I know very rich people who have like 5 bedroom houses, and yes, then those Gen-X'ers can just stay at home until they build up enough money to move out, or their parents die.
However, I don't know about others, but me waiting till my parents die for a place to live is not appealing (especially as thanks to medical advances, I could easily expect to live to my 50's before my parents are likely to die).
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, this whole 'when children grow up they move out, often far away, get their own home' thing is actually pretty modern and is far from universal. In fact because of various immigration shifts home builders have started carrying standard designs for multi-generational homes since they found there is profit to be made by not providing 'assimilate in all ways' options to people with money.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but property here is expensive. I would probably not mind so much living in the same house as my parents if it was big enough for all of us to have "our space".
However to get that in a city (where the work is) in a country in Europe that is not in crises... you'll be looking at 1 million Euros at least, most likely more.
Way out of league of most people I know. The only ones who can do that are families that have lived in one spot for generations, so bought the place when it was cheap as chips. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I take it your parents didn't reproduce until quite late?
I'm in my mid-50's, and both of my parents are doing fine - I'm expecting to be in my 60's before either of them die....
Re: (Score:2)
As a "Generation Y" person (according to their stats) who lives in the UK , I can tell you that most people of my generation (that I've known/met across Europe), and the one below it (born mid-late 90's), would love to own a car. However many just can't afford it, the costs, the fuel, the taxes, the insurance (espcially this) are just too high.
As someone who has been working with 20-somethings from the UK for the past 5 years, I have to say overall they have been quite surprised as just how cheap many of the things are here when compared to the UK. Gas is cheaper by a significant amount sure, but even the base price of the car and the insurance tend to be significantly cheaper, and that is not even factoring in the dollar being worth less than the pound. A few of them have been sent to the US to receive training from the senior engineers over he
Re: (Score:2)
There's not much useful information you can glean from "umm", "huh", "wtf", "dunno" and "whatever".
Re: (Score:2)
Emo twats (Score:2)
Didn't your mom teach you to look at the person you're talking to? At the very least you could move your hair out of the way so I can tell if you are or not.
And get a fricken job already!
Re: (Score:1)
This seems ridiculous on the surface: a smartphone is $200 and a car is at least $12k. But if you look at the monthly cost of a cell phone( + data +plus more GB's + a tablet) vs a car payment, then you are looking at $150/month for a cell phone vs $180/month for a car. When they can't afford both, the younglings I know choose the cell plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If they had to pick between a smartphone or a car, they would pick the phone." What sort of choice is that anyway? They aren't comparable. A phone is a few hundred dollars. A car is thousands. Why would you have to choose between them?
Most smartphone with data plans end up being at least about $100/month. If it's a premium plan, they need coverage for multiple devices (tablet, etc.), it may well be over $150/month.
The car payment on a relatively cheap used car -- such as the kind people in their 20s a generation ago would buy -- might be around $150/month, maybe even less.
These actually are roughly comparable expenses for many young people today. Add in various other technology "needs" for the younger generation (gadgets, high-spee
Re: (Score:2)
Germany city dweller here.
Nobody has a car. There's no point.
Public transport is good enough, even if it's 3 in the morning and you're drunk.
Cars only waste a load of money.
And for everything heavy, we have the "loads taxi" (?) (Lastentaxi), which costs 8.50€/h, and they even help you carry stuff for 4€ per 10 minutes carrying.
What's left? For me, in my whole life... nothing.
The only thing I can think of is that if you travel around a lot in the same country, and have stuff to carry (like a camera team or a band), then a car is cheaper. So it's more of a group / company / bus thing.
Public transport is not good enough in many cities in the USA - most USA cities were designed around a car culture and aren't well designed for public transport - housing and neighborhoods are too spread out, and housing is too low density. There are often big suburban office parks that are separate from housing, so instead of a train taking commuters into the city where they work, instead you end up having to link a bunch of low density neighborhoods and offices parks with each other with a big grid of low
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that most of the European public transport sucks as well, but for different reasons (lots of people have to use it, so high density, uncomfortable, expensive and unrealiable).
The UK public transport sucks so badly that I would never go near it if it wasn't for the fact there is no alternative (and I suspect most other people would do the same).
I've heard amazing things about German public transport, but Germany is one of the few European countries I've not had a chance to see in person, so I
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that most of the European public transport sucks as well, but for different reasons (lots of people have to use it, so high density, uncomfortable, expensive and unrealiable).
The UK public transport sucks so badly that I would never go near it if it wasn't for the fact there is no alternative (and I suspect most other people would do the same).
I've heard amazing things about German public transport, but Germany is one of the few European countries I've not had a chance to see in person, so I cannot comment (I've been on the UK, French, Italian and Belgian public transport systems)
Either way, don't assume that magically building public transport would make your commute better, it could well make it worse (nothing like being stuck standing in a hot tin can with the smell of farts, urine and beer for 40 mins because a train broke down in the tunnel).
It would be far better to reduce this silly concept of "commuting", so that only those that have to be on premises to do their job commute, and make it so there are jobs that are withing walking/cycling distance to where you life. A more mixed zoning system, rather than massive tracts of residential zoning in one area linked to commercial/industrial ones would help with that.
I've only ridden European public transit as a tourist, so I can't comment much on that, but I've commuted both on crowded Tokyo and San Francisco transit lines (trains and buses), and haven't really run into problems with the smelly farting passengers (though BART does often have the stench of urine in some parts of the train), but even so, I wouldn't trade that commute for a car commute.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, they'll fix everything... (Score:2)
http://analienmind.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/28_att00031.jpg [wordpress.com]
Cars Not Cool? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance there has been times when a bus has been easier for than driving. So I take the bus. There are places where parking is simply not available,or very expensive, so people drive cars for part of the commute, then take a bus or train or whatever for the rest. So really this
Re: (Score:2)
It is really going to be a compromise between the expense of a car and the ease of other transportation. And it is not going mean people are necessarily going to own fewer cars, just that they will not use them to commute.
It's also a compromise in choosing where you live. You can have the nice 4 bedroom 2000 sq ft house out in the suburbs with a big yard and a pool with an hour drive to work, or you could live in a higher density condo complex with a small 1400 sq ft 3 bedroom condo, shared pool, small patio or deck and an 30 minute train ride plus 15 minute walk to work.
Many people don't want to give up that big house in the suburbs, but the younger generation is happy to live in a small apartment or condo in the city so
Re: Cars Not Cool? (Score:2)
Wait till the kids grow up, pay most of their loans off, get married And get raises. They will buy cars again
I live in NYC and transit costs a lot in subsidies. Fares only cover 25% to 50% of costs
Re: (Score:2)
Wait till the kids grow up, pay most of their loans off, get married And get raises.
I know plenty of $150K+ software engineers living in downtown SF condos with kids. Having a family doesn't have to mean moving to the 'burbs. I live outside of the city, but in a condo with a 5 minute walk to the train, or a 45 minute bike ride to the city.
They will buy cars again
I live in NYC and transit costs a lot in subsidies. Fares only cover 25% to 50% of costs
Cars have subsidies too, but the subsidies are hidden. If people stopped using transit, even if NYC could afford to build new roads to accommodate them, where would they build enough roads and parking to accommodate the cars?
Re: Cars Not Cool? (Score:2)
I take the train to work to. Lots of people in NYC have cars mostly for weekend travel
Even inside NYC it may take 2 hours or more to go somewhere by train. Try that with kids
Last week I was at the beach till 8:30pm. Drive back. Train ride would have been almost 3 hours and I wouldn't have stayed that long
Re: (Score:2)
If you lived in the city during the 2005 Transit Strike [wikipedia.org] you would know the amount of subsidy is irrelevant - without transit for three days the "local" (local being a population larger than the countries of Switzerland or Denmark) economy was massively disrupted.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in NYC and transit costs a lot in subsidies. Fares only cover 25% to 50% of costs
I really don't understand why so many people insist that public transit systems should be a fully profitable business, independent of the government. Do you think that the roads are somehow not subsidized?
Re: Cars Not Cool? (Score:2)
All the anti car people complain how their taxes pay to subsidize roads. Same with transit here. It's partly subsidized by a property transfer tax.
My lirr monthly pass only covers 25% of the expenses
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA, most of the costs of maintaining the roads are covered by gasoline taxes.
Which, oddly enough, are mostly paid for by the people with cars (the users of the roads).
Which is why a very large fraction (how large depends on just where you live - there are Federal, State, and sometimes local gasoline taxes) of gasoline prices are taxes....
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on your definition of "most" since the USA average is 32% [taxfoundation.org] of road expenses covered by user taxes and fees. Locally, San Francisco just passed a $150M bond measure paid out of the general fund to repair their roads.
Even if drivers paid 100% of the road costs, their commute is still aided by transit riders (and bicyclists), since there's not enough roads to support them all. The SF Bay bridge carries 250,000 cars each day, while the BART system carries 400,000 riders/day (not an apples to apples
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a compromise in choosing where you live. You can have the nice 4 bedroom 2000 sq ft house out in the suburbs with a big yard and a pool with an hour drive to work, or you could live in a higher density condo complex with a small 1400 sq ft 3 bedroom condo, shared pool, small patio or deck and an 30 minute train ride plus 15 minute walk to work.
You are seriously tilting the scale towards public transportation with your exaggeration.
In the Washington, DC, area, that condo in "close" would have to be a lot smaller to be the same price as the house in the "suburbs". In addition, the 30 minute train ride would mean you are still damn far out (and technically in the suburbs), but close enough to be in the "a lot more expensive" area. Meanwhile, out near the house, you can catch a train and get downtown in an hour. All this is assuming that a train i
Seriously.. (Score:1)
A car sharing company promoting the meme that car ownership is not popular with their target market to promote it. How surprising
Not yet time for triumphalism... (Score:2)
1) As I recall skimming in an article, in one city (SFO?) the taxi-drivers unions and lobbyists are fighting this tech tooth and nail. Given our predilection today for legalistically protecting the rights of the 'buggy whip makers' (as long as they donate consistently to the right legal campaigns) I'm not sure that there isn't going to be some Byzantine bizarre legal moratorium placed on such apps.
2) humans are still not "safe". I can quite easily conceive of a system like this being spoofed in order for
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there is. Considering that the overwhelming majority of child murders and rapes are performed by members of the household or family (not necessarily the same thing), and a large proportion of the rest by friends of the family, then the obvious reason for telling children to watch out for strangers is to lull them into a false sense of security and make it easier for them to be raped/ murdered/ sold to foreigners and priests.
Eviden
Darwin (Score:2)
People driving while texting/updating their FB/watching movies etc crash and are injured or killed and therefore not driving anymore, therefore less drivers and less traffic.
Takes a while though, and not reccomended to be on the road in the meantime'
OT, but smart phones already helping (Score:1)
Google Maps and the like presumably use feedback from smart phones (among other data sources) to build their real-time congestion maps.
I use my smart phone's map app to decide what route to take and whether to delay my trip.
So, even today, smart phones are helping reduce congestion even if they aren't actually reducing traffic.
Is hitchhiking with a smartphone safer? (Score:2)
This is, if I'm reading it right, just hitchhiking. Safe 99% of the time, which means you'll probably only get raped/mugged/beaten and left for dead once every 100 trips or so - maybe twice a year. Less if you actually die.
Re: (Score:2)
Offtopic (Score:2)
A car sharing social network would make a great plot device for CSI:NY. And by great I mean stupid.
Re: Offtopic (Score:2)
Seen It A Million Times. Any hitchhiking horror ever. This is no different. In fact it's safer because there is SOME interaction with the driver before getting in.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's different from hitchhiking horror movies because it's not random anymore as you've noticed. A serial killer could profile his victims using the car sharing social network.
casual carpool - looking for input (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My car is cheaper than your smartphone (Score:1)
but then thats because i drive old junk... no loan, low maintenance, cheap insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
but then thats because i drive old junk... no loan, low maintenance, cheap insurance.
In my experience, the cost of maintaining a car doesnt really change over time. Doesnt matter if the car is new or old. Older cars have more frequent problems, but they are often much cheaper to resolve (good luck finding a 2010 Honda at the local salvage yard to pull parts off of.)
You are right about loans and the then necessary comprehensive insurance. The best vehicle buying advice ever is to actually buy a car, not finance one.
Re: (Score:2)
Junk yards are nicely computerized.
http://row52.com/home [row52.com]
What's your zip. What model and trim of 90 Honda?
The nice thing about old Hondas is they are easy to work on, tuner parts are cheap and common, light weight and you have to flog the piss out of them to get them to go. 7K RPM redlines are fun. They also run clean and get 20 MPG plus, even when you're driving them right.
One of the funnest cars to drive I've ever owned was a Honda 600N. 600cc modified motorcycle motor. If you weren't in the right
Re: (Score:2)
but then thats because i drive old junk... no loan, low maintenance, cheap insurance.
But your old junk is still contributing to pollution and it's slowing down my bus commute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'The Stig' is your bus driver? That would be cool. Unless he blew-off your stop (and all the others) to keep up speed. It would still be cool, all the other passengers screaming, four wheel drifts in the corners etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And for those of us who live in 99% the US, it's effectively imperative.
Re:Generation Y (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife has a large circle of younger cousins (Catholic family) and they're all like this - All in their 20s and not one of them owns a car.
How many of those can reasonably afford a car? Because I didn't have a car either in my 20s until I was making enough that payments/repairs/gas wouldn't take most of my income.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those can reasonably afford a car?
Could they afford to pick up a used Civic or Focus on Craigslist? Sure. They just choose not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my post again, if the car is taking most of your income (it will on minimum wage), that doesn't count as reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think of a used car only in terms of the initial sales price, you are silly.
Read my post again, if the car is taking most of your income (it will on minimum wage), that doesn't count as reasonable.
Yes, and cars are not that expensive to own unless you're a complete idiot.
My first car was a EK Civic, it got 7L/100 KM in the city, doing 250 KM a week when petrol was A$1.40 a litre I bought about 18 litres it was A$26 a week on fuel. Registration was $420 a year. Maintenance was 2 yearly services at $200 a shot. A set of tyres set me back A$500 and trust me, the US gets tyres for a lot less than we do. If you're spending more than $2500 on running a car, you're doing it wrong, if you're really cheap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It says millennials don't care about *owning* cars. ... My wife has a large circle of younger cousins (Catholic family) and they're all like this - All in their 20s and not one of them owns a car.
Is it that they don't care about owning cars, or is it that owning a car is too expensive for young people in a tough job market?
My sense is that in walkable/bikable areas (like large cities in the Northeast U.S.), many people don't own cars. This has been true for generations. And for those who do, they don't tend to buy one until they are older, have a family, become more established in their jobs, etc. With kids, they find a greater need for a car sometimes, and with a steady job for a few years, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you RFTA? It doesn't say they don't *drive* - It says millennials
I stopped reading at that word.
Its used by crotchety old men in dying print media to deride people under 20 because they cant think of a legitimate complaint but wish to complain about those "utes" anyway.
In the more congested US and European cities owning a car is impractical because there's nowhere to park and you take the bus to work anyway, here people tend to hire cars by the day when they need them. But in most of the country in the western world car ownership amongst under 20's is relatively co
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a Gen Xer, but at the very tail end, and I don't own a car. I live in a major city (not New York), take the bus to and from work, walk to stores, etc. If I need a car, there's Car2Go, Zipcar, Uber, taxis, etc. Somehow I manage to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Eh. I couldn't imagine being unfortunate enough to have to trade 2-3 hours a day [*] sitting in a car for a yard to take care of when there's a well maintained city park across the street -- not to mention all the other amenities the city provides. I'm sincerely glad what you have is working for you but don't believe that city dwellers all feel "stuck."
[*] 2 hours/day x 5 days/week x 45 weeks/year x 10 years is 4500 hours, pretty much a full 1/2 year of dead time in the period you're talking about. Even
Re: Generation Y (Score:2)
This is why I'm excited about the future with automated driverless cars. I can reclaim those hours reading, sleeping, watching the news, talking or texting safely, putting on makeup (for the womenfolk)... whatever, just not having to pay attention to the road.
Re: (Score:2)
So when he's sitting on property worth 200k plus minimum and only paying 4k annual in taxes, where will your savings be?
Re: (Score:2)
Just stick them on your bike. One seat on the handlebars and one in back. [www.rnw.nl] Or get a cargo bike [maliebaanschool.nl]. Most young parents around here seem to manage fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Just stick them on your bike
Just got back from Costco with my 2 year old and 5 year old. Back of the station wagon's full of provisions. Explain to me again how that works on a bike?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't. You go to a local store on your way from work and pick up supplies for the day. Not for the whole month. Leaving out unhealthy goods like soda and milk will seriously cut down on the amount of hauling you have to do. To be fair, this probably is easier when you aren't stuck in a suburban sprawl. If you are, you have my commiserations.
Re: (Score:2)
You go to a local store on your way from work and pick up supplies for the day.
I leave work at 5. I get home at 5:45. That just give me time to help make and have dinner with the kids (with maybe a trip to the park afterwards) before we start pajamas, teeth brushing, stories and bedtime.
...and as for healthy stuff, I brought a mess of organic strawberries, blueberries and rasberries h
No way I'm gonna eat into that time in some Mayberry fantasy world of stopping by the Piggly Wiggly on the way home.
Re: (Score:2)
If society trends away from that 'cool' factor cars
Re: Gen Y Can't Even Drive Yet (Score:2)
Because if you are going to build new cross-town rail (over or under the surface) you need to start NOW in order for those people to use it when they turn 30.