Smartphones May Help Reduce Traffic In the Near Future

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?"

Comments

Link is broken

[HalcyonBlue]

Here's an updated link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/us/In-Los-Angeles-Where-Car-Is-King-Smartphones-May-Cut-Traffic.html

Re:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

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:Link is broken

[halexists]

What does it mean to be "unfair to the real taxis?"

Re:Link is broken

[Entropius]

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:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

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:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

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 lately that seem to think that breaking the law is ok if you don't think its just, not necessarily you entroplus)

Re:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

erm...apparently i never finished my sentence... The government and people of the city/state/county/ect saw fit to put them in place to make sure the taxis would not descriminate against different classes of people.

Re:Link is broken

[ShanghaiBill]

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:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

Well, it doesn't sound like its flying. I know of other articles that have talked about them getting shut down in cities. If the legal definition of a taxi relies on you not picking a driver and them having standard fairs, that strikes me as odd. I am open to being wrong. But I would have thought a taxi service is someone taking me from A to B for a charge.

Re:Link is broken

[Curunir_wolf]

In the mean time if you wish to live in this society, obey its laws.

Wrong.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

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.

Re:Link is broken

[ShanghaiBill]

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:Link is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Really? Not what I see everyday. A New York cab driver makes about 20 dollars an hour and 42k a year provided he doesn't get a ticket that day which wipes out his entire day.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8283358_average-driver-salary-new-york.html

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.

http://www.nycitycab.com/NYC%20Taxi%20Guide.aspx

Oh yeah and the MTA takes a little bit of the top to boot.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/taxicab_rate.shtml

I think when you over pay for a cab the driver isn't the one screwing you but every other part of society, and when someone comes along and under cuts the entire structure 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.

Re:Link is broken

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

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:Link is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

...make sure the taxis would not descriminate against different classes of people.

They've failed. Ask any African-American about trying to get a cab at night. I have a friend that I frequently go drinking with who's African-American. He's also a professional software engineer. But his race, along with being a well-built 6'4", means that he's never the one that people pull over for. What ends up happening is that we spread out ~50 ft (with him in front of me) and then we both try to hail the cab. Time and time again, the cab passes him by and stops for me. I then wait half in the cab and half out for him to run down and join us.

Services like Uber and Lyft would actually result in less discrimination. Our online profiles, absent a picture, would look very much the same and, over time, would be very positive...we both live in nice neighborhood and tip well. It's only a system where information on the rider doesn't persist past the scope of the ride where he has to face this discrimination and stereotyping.

Re:Link is broken

[Le Marteau]

"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 lately that seem to think that breaking the law is ok if you don't think its just, not necessarily you entroplus)"

Suck my big, veiny, throbbing dick. And don't tell me what to do, asshole.

  “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
  Martin Luther King Jr.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
  Martin Luther King Jr.

“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
  Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.”
  Mahatma Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War 1942-49

“It was civil disobedience that won them their civil rights.”
  Tariq Ali

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
  Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“When EVIL men make bad laws, righteous men disobey them."
Pastor Butch Paugh

“Civil disobedience, as I put it to the audience, was not the problem, despite the warnings of some that it threatened social stability, that it led to anarchy. The greatest danger, I argued, was civil obedience, the submission of individual conscience to governmental authority. Such obedience led to the horrors we saw in totalitarian states, and in liberal states it led to the public's acceptance of war whenever the so-called democratic government decided on it...

In such a world, the rule of law maintains things as they are. Therefore, to begin the process of change, to stop a war, to establish justice, it may be necessary to break the law, to commit acts of civil disobedience, as Southern black did, as antiwar protesters did.”
  Howard Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.”
  Mahatma Gandhi

Harriet Beecher Stowe
“But now what? Why, now comes my master, takes me right away from my work, and my friends, and all I like, and grinds me down into the very dirt! And why? Because, he says, I forgot who I was; he says, to teach me that I am only a nigger! After all, and last of all, he comes between me and my wife, and says I shall give her up, and live with another woman. And all this your laws give him power to do, in spite of God or man. Mr. Wilson, look at it! There isn't one of all these things, that have broken the hearts of my mother and my sister, and my wife and myself, but your laws allow, and give every man power to do, in Kentucky, and none can say to him nay! Do you call these the laws of my country? Sir, I haven't any country, anymore than I have any father. But I'm going to have one. I don't want anything of your country, except to be let alone,--to go peaceably out of it; and when I get to Canada, where the laws will own me and protect me, that shall be my country, and its laws I will obey. But if any man tries to stop me, let him take care, for I am desperate. I'll fight for my liberty to the last breath I breathe. You say your fathers did it; if it was right for them, it is right for me!”
  Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin

Re:Link is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Who follows any laws regarding the road anyway? I see people going 80 mph on the freeway DAILY. The norm seems to be some sort of everyone's-aware-of-it anarchy. I see these gray taxi services as the same thing. A large hole where some people will make tons of money while the donut eating police have "bigger fish to fry".

Re:Link is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the word "taxi" is a clue to what a taxi is - it is the nickname for the "taximeter cabriolet", which (I believe) was a two-wheeled carriage drawn by a single horse, that had a meter measuring the distance traveled and calculating the charge accordingly.
So a taxi has a meter. A limousine does not - they negotiate the price however they like.

Re:Link is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Still, arguing about how some lower middle-class guy (cabbies) make too much money, and how unjust it is, makes for poor optics. The reason it makes for poor optics is because it's actually kind of mean. Of course, taxis may fade out of existence, and some families will suffer, some more and some less... But I think it's only gracious to at least tip the hat to the hard working cabby, however un-market-driven his industry may be.

Re:Link is broken

[halexists]

I really meant my question rhetorically. One view of the world holds that all the burdens put on taxis are to the benefit of consumers. Another view is that taxi-services receive economic rents from the government by receiving a monopoly on their business through licensure. These "burdens" of service requirements are simply the state extracting some portion of the rents from the taxi companies. Do not doubt, however, that the net rents remain positive for the taxi companies, even after these burdens are accounted for -- else they wouldn't be in the taxi business.

The latter viewpoint is that the consumer is robbed through this artificial monopoly regime receiving the positive net rents, and these competitors represent weeds growing through the cracks in the government's collusive regime with taxi companies. Yes, they may be plucked, but fairness is very subjective. In this case, I find "unfair to the real taxis" to mean "reducing the monopoly rents to real taxis." And as a consumer I say Bra...vo.

Sorry, but no one is riding with me

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want all my shit jacked and to end up in a ditch kthx

Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

No one gives a shit what generation Y thinks 'is cool'. A car is a necessity in LA because of how spread out everything is, and if you work downtown, you sure as hell don't live there. The kind of people who make their fiscal decisions based on a cool factor also tend to not work, so I'd sure as hell not carpool with them.

Re:Generation Y

[CohibaVancouver]

Did you RFTA? It doesn't say they don't *drive* - It says millennials don't care about *owning* cars. They're fine with car sharing, car co-ops and using alternate transportation methods. 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.

Re:Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Generation Y

[CohibaVancouver]

Do you have kids? I know Slashdot trends towards no kids (or only one kid), but it's often the arrival of children that becomes the catalyst for my non car-owning friends to bite the bullet and start browsing Craigslist to buy a ride.

Re:Generation Y

[StephenBB81]

I agree fully, with 2 kids I couldn't imagine not having 2 cars my wife and I are a little on the old side at 31 and 32, but we've had 1 car at least since our teens. I'm a smartphone junky but if forced to choose between phone and car I choose car. I think people who are unfortunate enough to be stuck in big cities without access to places outside of said cities don't realize the freedom a car can bring. I spend 2-3hours in my morning commute every day. but when I get home at night to my big yard with kids playing outside and know that by the time I'm 40 I will be debt free. it is well worth the drive. These same people who did the car survey I ask when they plan to move out from their parents houses?

Re:Generation Y

[phantomfive]

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:Generation Y

[jythie]

Actually, what is 'cool' is pretty damn important since, getting away from people who have a specific need, one of the reasons cars are so common and so heavily used in the US is because of their cultural connections. Cars have massive symbolic value to a great deal of the population, meaning far more people own and use them then actually need them and people actively fight effective alternatives both in terms of projects and associating stigma with them.

If society trends away from that 'cool' factor cars have into 'uncool', then you would probably see a decrease in the already artificially high usage.

Re:Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many have enough money to buy themselves a car in the first place?

Re:Generation Y

[CohibaVancouver]

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:Generation Y

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Generation Y

[ignavusinfo]

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 if my public transportation commute were that long, I'd have been able to read, say, 450 books in that time.

Re:Generation Y

[lxs]

Just stick them on your bike. One seat on the handlebars and one in back. Or get a cargo bike. Most young parents around here seem to manage fine.

Re:Generation Y

[AthanasiusKircher]

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, they might be able to afford insurance, maintenance, loans, etc. for a big purchase like a car.

When I lived in such a place for a while (and was in my 20s), I ended up getting rid of my car when I moved in with my wife. To family members and friends who lived elsewhere in the country, they thought this was a little weird if not insane -- "You won't have your own car anymore?" But my wife and both had cars, and the cost of insurance and maintenance for two cars in a walkable city just didn't make sense. So why would I keep owning one, let alone buying a new one?

Also, I really think the family angle needs to be highlighted -- for single "millennials" (or even couples) in their 20s, living without a car can seem easy. Once you're in your 30s or 40s and have kids to haul around, it can become a lot harder to live most places without a car. Single people I know in big cities often don't own a car, even in their 50s or 60s.

Maybe we're just seeing a trend where young people are putting off purchasing a car, even if they don't tend to live in a big city, for similar reasons in tough economic times. Rather that just "buy an old junker" like kids might have a generation or two ago, they just wait until they have the money and/or need it (like when they have a family).

Let's wait a decade or so until millennials actually "grow up" and see whether owning a car still is "not cool" to them.

Re:Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't think it was possible to misspell acronyms, but ...poor little article being subjected to abuse...

Re:Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a young, feckless 20-something, I went out and bought an older Honda Accord on a loan from a credit union. The credit union, of course, required full insurance on the property used to secure the loan (the car). Insuring my $2500 Honday cost $255.00 a month - more than I was paying in car payments, and a significant chunk of my income.

Re:Generation Y

[ganjadude]

I wonder where they got their polling data. If it was all in the cities it would make sense. Head a few miles outside of a major city and you NEED a car to do anything

Re:Generation Y

[Dripdry]

But outside cities this sort of thing is even more perfect. Brings small towns back together and helps people get around more easily. Need a lift across town? Maybe Jimbo is headed in for groceries and can give you a lift. This sort of thing is what the internet is SUPPOSED to be for: Communication and connecting people to make more efficient use of resources. Instead, it's being hobbled by unions and legal bullshit. I mean, come on... one death every 18 MONTHS in ALL of Los Angeles for cab drivers? That's an incredibly safe track record if you ask me, and that was back when crime was much higher in LA!

I say, get the F out of the way Mr Government so we can actually see some more efficiency.

Yes, I live in Los Angeles.

Re:Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

Being without a car might be cool, same with the fixie bike, but there is one bad thing about it:

It decreases mobility. My older brother's generation virtually all had cars, and on weekends, they would get the heck out of town, head to the coast, head to a city 300 miles away, head to a farm out in the country. My generation had cars, and we would drive 100-150 miles into rural areas for a decent rave.

With the pride at being car-free, it means one is stuck in a city core, getting a Zipcar (possibly not an option) or at best having to parasite off of someone who has a vehicle. Public transportation is fine in some spots, but in most of the US, it is woefully inadequate, plain and simple.

Once you get past the "party-hearty" years, you start realizing that cities are not safe places to raise children. One moment of inattention, and a low-life will have the child thrown into the back of a van. Parks are the property of the local gangs. There is no going out of an apartment complex after dark. Police protection is them handing out report forms after the incident happened. Inner city schools are a guarentee of future failure for the child, unless one wants a gangbanger or a prison inmate. Finally, with the fact that most of the US is under the thumb of private prisons, it doesn't take much for one's kid to be arrested.

The millennials will learn that cars are useful when they have kids and find that the same streets that are great for hitting the coffee shop, then getting wasted at night are completely unsafe for kids.

Other countries have livable cities. Here in the US, that isn't the case, and if you value your life or family's well-being, you get to the suburbs or rural areas where either the police are responsive (the city funds them and not the big sports stadium), or you are allowed to defend yourself.

I think once millennials start having children, if they value them at all, they will be high-tailing it out of the inner cities. It isn't cool to emulate parents, but if they want their kids to play in parks without syringes buried in the sand by the swingset, eventually they will get cars.

Re: Generation Y

[bondsbw]

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:Generation Y

[CohibaVancouver]

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:Generation Y

[lxs]

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:Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

A car is a necessity in LA because public transportation sucks. Public transportation sucks because people have, until now, valued owning a car and the freedom it provides. Up until now, had the city of LA invested in a high-quality public transportation system, it would have gone largely unused due to the priorities of the populace.

But stories like this show how public sentiment is changing along demographic lines. If this is legit and the trend continues, there will be more demand from the populace for public transportation systems that allow people to get rid of their cars or even drive less. Public transportation can be very successful, even in cities as large as LA (Tokyo, for example, has an excellent and highly utilized metro system and has an area larger than LA). But part of having a successful public transit system is the public's willingness to use it.

Demographic shifts like the one in this story presage construction of the systems necessary for a Los Angelino to live without a car.

Re:Generation Y

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

No way I'm gonna eat into that time in some Mayberry fantasy world of stopping by the Piggly Wiggly on the way home. ...and as for healthy stuff, I brought a mess of organic strawberries, blueberries and rasberries home from Costco, as well as other tasty stuff.

Re:Generation Y

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, more trips out. My commute is one thing, having to ride in crowded streets every day for groceries with very hostile, aggressive drivers where hit and runs are extremely common?

No.

I have had to help with too many ghost bikes as it is (a ghost bike is a bike spray-painted white that is there due to a death.). At least I can get a week's worth of stuff with a car, and limit my time where I'm vulnerable on my bike to commutes on roads where cars have to go onto sidewalks to cause injury.

Too dangerous in my neck of the woods, even with minimum feet passing zones by law. Plus, every wreck I have seen with a car/bicyclist has turned into a hit/run, because they will not stop, period.

Re:Generation Y

[foniksonik]

So when he's sitting on property worth 200k plus minimum and only paying 4k annual in taxes, where will your savings be?

Re:Generation Y

[ignavusinfo]

The property we bought for retirement is in downtown New Orleans, so probably -- in the most literal sense -- "underwater."

Re:Generation Y

[mjwx]

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 common. Certainly in Australia, most people will have their license and first car by the age of 20 (you can sit your driving test at 17), many will be onto their 2nd car by 20.

I suspect motorbike and scooter ownership to rise (or already has risen) as a response to congestion.

Re:Generation Y

[mjwx]

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 you could run it on less than $500 (read, you drive it until it dies then buy another $500 car).

If you're frugal like me, you learn to do a lot of things yourself, I changed my own brake pads (which I learned to do by watching some videos on YouTube), air con filters, head unit, buffed out scratches. If you go onto YouTube you'll find a lot of video's explaining how to maintain your car, all you need to do is search for the model of car you have and the task you want to perform.

Now owning a sports car, that's expensive (I just paid A$600 for performance brake pads) but a student or low wage earner will not be buying a sports car.

Re:Generation Y

[phantomfive]

You're pretty amazing. If you're making minimum wage, $2,500 is a huge chunk of change that you could spend on something else.

Re:Generation Y

[ganjadude]

so you live in one of the biggest cities and you are trying to convince me that where i live (10 miles from anything) that I dont need a car???

Lies

[Flozzin]

"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? The second article is also riddle with 'Gen Y would'. Didn't hear from an actual Gen Y person. Just a bunch of old fuddy duddies trying to predict a future market, acting like they are in the know. That always works out. Some old guy telling you what kids think...

Re:Lies

[YrWrstNtmr]

It's not always "old guys" saying this. Often, it also seems to be urban hipsters, living in a few selected enclaves where everything is within easy walking distance and/or with abundant public transport.
Completely ignoring the reality of the other 99% of the country.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

And the logical conclusion of that is when people are in an environment that allows them to function without cars, cars drop down, if not off, the list of things that they consider needing as part of their lives.

Lesson from that is to build cities that (a) enable people to live without needing a car for everything and (b) provide better public transport services.

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.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

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

[Ogi_UnixNut]

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:Lies

[cjjjer]

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

Actually I thought you would just keep living at home until your parents died and then you would have a home.

Re:Lies

[Hognoxious]

Didn't hear from an actual Gen Y person.

There's not much useful information you can glean from "umm", "huh", "wtf", "dunno" and "whatever".

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lies

[Ogi_UnixNut]

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:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars and phones make driving safer when used together. Before cell phones I would have to keep tapping the driver on the sholder to turn around when talking to me. Now I just text or call, driver doen't have to turn around.

Re:Lies

[hawguy]

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-density transit links.

There are a few larger cities where transit works, and there are efforts to build more transit friendly housing, but in general, the USA can't have the same level of public transit as countries where transit is already commonplace. And it's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem - no one uses transit because it sucks, and transit sucks because no one uses it. It would take decades for the USA to approach the level of public transit services that many European countries already have.

Re:Lies

[C0R1D4N]

Anywhere in the city nice enough to live isnt worth the expense. I have a five bedroom house, acre of land and four car garage in central NJ cheaper and my taxes are ~500 month. Renting the rooms out to friends my home expenses zero out. An apartment in NYC when I make 30k/year seems impossible.

Re:Lies

[Ogi_UnixNut]

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.

Re:Lies

[C0R1D4N]

Hey daddy-o, dont have a cow just cuz us ankle-biters dont jive talk as well as our hip rents did!

Re:Lies

[hawguy]

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:Lies

[jythie]

Meh, it is the old urban/suburban/rural divide. Each thinks they make up '99% of the country' and that their values/needs are the dominant one, thus people talking from the perspective of one of the other groups are ignoring the real world.

Re:Lies

[Aramis]

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:Lies

[Lunix Nutcase]

Because buses, taxis, etc. don't run on pettoluem fuels?

Re:Lies

[jythie]

Not as much as you might think.

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:Lies

[jythie]

Even in cities where it works, many people consider it a mark of shame to use public transportation and find that their peer group starts looking down on them. Given how admiration by your coworkers/community can play such a large role in career and community advancement, it can have a real impact on one's life.

Re:Lies

[Ogi_UnixNut]

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. Then they inherited the place down the line, which nowadays is even difficult for them due to taxes on inheritance.

Re:Lies

[jklovanc]

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 larger buildings with more people in them. The problem with this mind set is that there are more people on earth every day and they have to live somewhere. Development is like a balloon.; if you don't allow it to build taller it will build outward. That causes the spreading of development and longer commutes.

Re:Lies

[AuMatar]

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 things to do and within walking distance of work. Hell, I'd probably pay twice that.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the main "problem" with US cities, is that they are built for cars. Old cities are built for pedestrians and maybe horses on the big main streets.
But everything new, even here in European cities, is vast and built from a helicopter perspective. Brasilia, the "capital" of Brasil, is the textbook example of how wrong this is. From high up, it looks perfect. Touching the ground with your feet, everything is frighteningly distant. Even crossing the damn street.

Many problems in cities have been attributed to the lack of such an old tight (preferably hub-and-spokes-like) center. If I were mayor of a US city, I would build such centers. With plazas in the middle, a big pretty building, and a lot of cafes and bars around it. Plus at least one important shopping street going off from it. I'd regularly do street festivals and Christmas markets etc. there.

Because to be honest, this is the most beautiful part of every European city I've been to. Apart from the beer gardens next to parks where you drink beer, play frisbee, soccer, and see the bare-chested women lying in the sun. ;))

Re:Lies

[AthanasiusKircher]

"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-speed internet at home, etc), and they're often paying as much as they would have for a car each month.

Re:Lies

[0123456]

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:Lies

[Flozzin]

Gas? Insurance? Repairs? You still think a 12k car is only 180 a month? Plus they do two completely different things. Now if you say Gen Y is giving up cars for bikes, mopeds, ect, I can follow that. But here you might as well say, Gen Y is choosing showering over visiting family.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

A few thousand for a car. Ok. Yep.
Average lifespan of a few thousand dollar car? Oh about 6 years i'd guess. Maybe more. Maybe less.

Now. Over that same 6 years. Add up what the average 20 something pays for their phone(s). Upgrades all the time, accessories, Plus service costs.

I'd bet you'd get really close to the price of that car.

I'd still pick the car myself. I have no use for a phone anyway. I hate them. But i can see where they are comming from.

Re:Lies

[AthanasiusKircher]

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 family and especially kids.

Meanwhile, that guy out in NJ will probably own his home outright by the time the guy in the $1500/month apartment "grows up" and realizes that he can no longer afford a place like that with his family and has to move out into the suburbs, having thrown potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars away in rent before doing so.

There are definite benefits for living in the situation you describe when you're young and single and making enough money to afford a "nice apartment" in a big city. Not all people have those conditions or priorities in their lives.

Re:Lies

[Curunir_wolf]

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:Lies

[jklovanc]

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 have been to many development permit hearings and the main detractors have been NIMBYs who do not want change.

Re:Lies

[AuMatar]

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 rent. Its better if for nothing more than the flexibility and ease of mind- owning property only tied me down and made me miss opportunities in life.

Re:Lies

[CrimsonAvenger]

(especially as thanks to medical advances, I could easily expect to live to my 50's before my parents are likely to die).

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:Lies

[YrWrstNtmr]

Lesson from that is to build cities that (a) enable people to live without needing a car for everything and (b) provide better public transport services.

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. Spent a lot of time there visiting relatives.
Don't want to do it again. I like having a little bit of space. I don't want to hear the kids upstairs. I don't want to have to walk around on tiptoes so as not to bother anyone downstairs.

$1500/mo for an apartment in the city, close to everything, or $1500/mo for a 1/2 acre with a house? No contest....the house every time.
Thankfully, we have that choice. Let's keep that choice open.

Re:Lies

[AthanasiusKircher]

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 family homes).

These people -- often rightly so -- often sense that what makes their neighborhood so highly desirable is that it actually has good stuff going on and it's not full of giant condo buildings.

A lot of people -- particularly "adults" with families -- would generally prefer to have a single family home with a yard somewhere rather than a small condo on the 8th floor in a giant complex. Many only choose the condo because their job requires them to be close or because they like the other stuff in the area, not because they want to live in a cramped apartment.

Look at just about every city in the U.S. that grew up since the 1920s or 1930s. Almost every single one of them is spread out, with residential areas mostly consisting of individual homes with yards, etc., even when those residential areas are very close to downtown. When cars allowed people to have a choice to decide where to live (without being a country bumpkin who only could "come to town" with their horse once every couple weeks), a LOT of them chose to move to less dense situations.

I'm not saying that NO ONE wants to live in high-rise condos over a house in the suburbs. But empirical evidence suggests that a large portion of the population actually does want a back yard... and they don't want you or your girlfriend building a high-rise condo building in the middle of it.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be too sure about that "showering" part.

Re:Lies

[jklovanc]

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 in the last 80 years. Land close to downtown is used up. We are now having to commute further and further to work. These are bad things.

The issue is that there is only so much land. As population increase we can either use more land or build higher. Using more land is a bad idea as it causes transportation and pollution issues.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me up when they actually do something about crime. Last time I tried to live in a city, there were homeless people using stairwells for their bedrooms and bathrooms, trying to use public transportation where the local bums also had it converted into living quarters, treated like dogshit at local stores.

I moved to a smaller town near the town square. I can open a front door without having to step over a wino. My vehicle isn't going to get keyed or tagged by gangbangers. There isn't someone waiting to roll me for my wallet or stick a .40 to my temple for my car keys. I can walk to the local grocery store and get stuff without worrying about someone relieving me of my wallet.

Until city planners actually give more than lip service about safety, they are just not livable in the US.

Re:Lies

[FlatEric521]

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 here, and the last few times I've been amused as they somehow swing getting muscle cars (Ford Mustangs or Chevy Camaros) from the rental companies, just because its unheard of for someone that young to have something that powerful in the UK. Seems like they go for bragging rights back home, so it does sound familiar that they would love to have the performance cars if they could afford them back home.

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).

I'd say this is more of a mixed bag. My sister, who qualifies as the last of Generation X almost first of Generation Y, didn't get her drivers license and car until she pretty much was required to as there was no one able to drive her and no other way to hang our with friends. I was at college at the time, and I knew someone who still didn't have a drivers license. The thing they had in common was they both did see having a car as an annoying necessity and not something cool or something to be excited about. On the flip side, I work with a number of people from the same generation who are very big into cars and have gone out of the way to get nicer or higher performance models. Having a good car is very important to them, to the point where one guy placed a factory order to get exactly what he wanted.

I think the article may be more correct in the US, where outside of major metro areas, driving is just something you are expected to do, as opposed to something more exclusive and expensive like it is in the UK and Europe.

Re:Lies

[volmtech]

My 40 year old Lawyer son has a 4 bedroom home and drives a BMW. My 22 year old son drives a 1999 Pontiac Grand Prix. He has driven it since he was 16 and has named it "Rollin" because it's always rolling. He also has a two year old smartphone that he is welded to. Of course it's dying so for his birthday he will be getting a upgrade on his birthday this month. He also has a laptop and game tower, gifts from his brother, With whom he lives with while going to school in their town. We drive by a 10,000 sq ft home on the river going to his grandmothers house. He imagines the big M on-the front gate to stand for his initial. I tell him work hard and follow advice from good people and he might make it.

Re: Lies

[zevans]

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:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Those "very rich" 5 bedroom houses cost about $180K in the midwest, with a median income around $50K. A couple can very easily afford one.

Stop living in the failed squalor of people-stacked urban rat mazes and enjoy the world.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, try getting an education employers care about.

Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! You have no idea what you're talking about.

These things will be called taxis...

[Anonymous Coward]

and subject to licensing when they start to affect public transport services.

Re:These things will be called taxis...

[tepples]

So what would regulators think of such a service that operates only during nights, Sundays, and holidays, when public transit isn't running anyway?

Not worth sacrificing safety

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am in an urban enough place that this would work, then there is absolutely no way I am risking my life by riding with strangers

Cars are a money pit

[Anonymous Coward]

For nearly all of us, buying a car is throwing away money and lots of it. Insurance, registration,maintenance, gas, parking (and maybe interest on your loan.) On top of that it pollutes and doesn't help the fight against climate change. Both of the current comments on the source link cite this as part of the reason why they don't own a car.

So unless there is some necessity, people are analyzing their needs and determining that the payoff for owning a car is not very compelling.

Re:Cars are a money pit

[Overzeetop]

And for those of us who live in 99% the US, it's effectively imperative.

Yep, they'll fix everything...

[Anne_Nonymous]

http://analienmind.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/28_att00031.jpg

A distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, using a smartphone while driving causes traffic accidents.

I'm with them

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd choose a pocketknife over a jackhammer.

My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[Anonymous Coward]

but then thats because i drive old junk... no loan, low maintenance, cheap insurance.

Re:My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[Rockoon]

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:My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[hawguy]

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:My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[HornWumpus]

Junk yards are nicely computerized.

http://row52.com/home

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 gear you went backwards. Every green light was a chance to make a Camaro driver look terrible. Also clown car factor, I'm 6'2'' 240.

Re:My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[jythie]

That touches on part of the game theory problem of car ownership. People perceive it as giving them a personal advantage in commuting, but the smaller number of people who use cars the faster everyone goes, so you end up in a situation where the best personal route is for other people to be 'playing for the team'.

Re:My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[HornWumpus]

'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:My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, one of the first thoughts from my reactionary mind was "good, less traffic".

Cars Not Cool?

[newcastlejon]

I don't drive to impress others, I drive because it's necessary. Give even the most pretentious hipster the choice between a one hour drive and a three hour bus journey to work (and back) each day, and we'll soon see how "cool" cars become.

Re:Cars Not Cool?

[fermion]

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.

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 has little to do with ownership of a car, but opportunity costs of using the car versus other means of transportation. Obviously if someone does not have a car, then they must use other means. What public transportation is about in cities like LA is making the opportunity costs of using alternate transportation low enough so people will use it.

There are two ways to do this. First is by spending less on highways and diverting money to encourage public transportation. This was a trend that happening in some cities, and to some degree still is. However, car owners, especially suburban and rural car owners, think they have an entitlement to a fast commute, so money has been diverted away from efficient public transportation to getting a vocal minority into the city quickly.

Second is by asking people to voluntarily be responsible. Stuff like carpooling can help, but large firms have had these set up, with incentives, for years. It really hasn't helped that much. People still buy gas they can't afford and put them into cars they can't afford and complain that the government isn't doing enough to subsidize their life style. I have seen change. I have seen people use sharing services, and it is true that younger people are much more likely to do this. Younger people, if they have a well paying job, are also more likely to live in a situation where they don't need a car, i.e. bars and the like are very close.They can take the bus home, change, walk around, pick up a willing partner, walk home and play.

Re:Cars Not Cool?

[hawguy]

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 everywhere they work or play is a 20 minute walk from home.

Providing good transit to spread out suburban neighborhoods is not feasible, yet many people whine "Public transit just doesn't work for me because I've chosen to live far from work. But please add another lane to the freeway for me because 5 lanes is not enough." If you want to take advantage of public transit, then live near public transit, don't expect the public to spend billions of dollars building a train to your suburban front door.

Re: Cars Not Cool?

[alen]

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: Cars Not Cool?

[hawguy]

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?

[PrimaryConsult]

If you lived in the city during the 2005 Transit Strike 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:Cars Not Cool?

[nabsltd]

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 is available when you want to commute. For Metro, that's not a huge problem, but if you have to take MARC, then you are very limited in your choices.

All this is OK for a single person, but if you are a couple, you aren't going to find a house close to both your jobs, especially since you are likely to change jobs long before you change houses. I'm 25 miles door-to-door from my work, and it takes me 30 minutes, while my wife is about 6 miles from her work, with a 15-minute commute, both by car. Public transportation wouldn't help as it would more than double the length of our commutes while limiting the times we could travel, and that's pretty much the case with everyone else in the area, even if their commute goes different places.

Re: Cars Not Cool?

[afgam28]

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?

[alen]

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: Cars Not Cool?

[alen]

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: Cars Not Cool?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Do you think that the roads are somehow not subsidized?

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: Cars Not Cool?

[hawguy]

That depends on your definition of "most" since the USA average is 32% 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 comparison because not all BART riders are driving to SF, and not all car drivers are staying in SF, there are other roads and other forms of transit to SF, but it gives a sense of the scale of transit versus roads). Without transit, there wouldn't be enough roads for all of the cars, nor spaces to park them in.

Seriously..

[Anonymous Coward]

A car sharing company promoting the meme that car ownership is not popular with their target market to promote it. How surprising

page not found

[Anonymous Coward]

i clicked the first link but i got error:

Page Not Found

We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you.

The link to the second page works though

Not yet time for triumphalism...

[argStyopa]

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 a predator to defer the arranged pickup, and show up instead to offer a ride to that lovely 19 year old coed that 'just needs a lift down to school this morning' - her brutally-raped and murdered body washing up in some meltwater creek months later. There's a reason we still tell our children to watch out for strangers, and if adults think they're somehow inherently safer at maturity, they're sadly mistaken.

Re:Not yet time for triumphalism...

[Anonymous Coward]

And there it is. The irrational "think of the children" trump card.

Re:Not yet time for triumphalism...

[RockDoctor]

There's a reason we still tell our children to watch out for strangers,

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.

Evidence based crime education would have children being warned not to suck Daddy's dick (or Uncle Joe's) because he tell you to. But for some reason, that appears politically unacceptable.

Darwin

[rossdee]

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'

And spy on you

[Anonymous Coward]

Courtesy of NSA code generously donated to the the manufacturer.

OT, but smart phones already helping

[davidwr]

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.

On teens' licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of interest: pretty sure the decline in teenagers with driver's licenses is more due to graduated licensing laws making it legally impossible to drive one's friends places. In Connecticut, you have to wait 6 months before you can drive with blood relatives who aren't over 20 and have had a license for at least four years, and another 6 months before you're okay to drive anyone at all. So if you get your license at the end of your junior year of high school, then unless you turn 18 (which of course voids all of this) during your senior year, you can never legally drive someone. And if you get pulled over with someone in the car whom you're not supposed to be driving... well, say good-bye to your license. Not that people don't break the law -- it's just not worth the risk if you don't have a good reason to get a license.
I've heard that other states have similar laws, where a driver's license is essentially useless for some time after getting one. This, more than the uncoolness of car ownership, is probably what's causing teenagers to not get their licenses. So yeah, we're gonna pick the smartphone -- because an iPhone doesn't lock down its data connection for six months after you pay a few hundred bucks for it.

Impersonating a Typical So. Californian

[Anonymous Coward]

"Give up MY right to drive alone?! You'll be hearing from my lawyer!"

Is hitchhiking with a smartphone safer?

[Overzeetop]

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:Is hitchhiking with a smartphone safer?

[CRCulver]

I've hitchhiked well over 100,000 km all over the world (including the United States, FWIW). Never have I seen a hint of "rape/mugging/beating". The only danger I have encountered is a few people who just don't know how to drive, but I could find the same thing getting a lift from a friend or relative. Experiences identical to mine are reported by the rest of the international hitchhiking community, it's a pretty organized community these days with resources like Hitchwiki and the Academy of Free Travel, so you can read an enormous number of reports on hitchhiking if you'd like. Even my solo female peers report that the occasional annoyance from male drivers does not go beyond tiresome suggestive comments.

I won't claim that hitchhiking is "100% safe". Mishaps may occur like in any form of travel (I've since moved from hitchhiking into bicycle touring, and it too has its statistically insignificant horror stories). But it is certainly safer a lot more than "99% of the time".

Offtopic

[he-sk]

A car sharing social network would make a great plot device for CSI:NY. And by great I mean stupid.

Re: Offtopic

[zevans]

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: Offtopic

[he-sk]

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.

One data point, not consistent with post

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess that cars are less popular because they are expensive and terrible investment. A result of young people don't have a lot of money and can do math.

I live in a suburb about 35 miles outside of Los Angeles. I put an ad in local web site offering a free chest of drawers. The people who came to get it came all the way from downtown LA, they were living together and she had some tattoos. They seemed like a nice young (early 20s) couple and the gal was a little fastidious. I asked she why they drove so far and she said they had been looking for a long time. The chest of drawers was not in particularly nice shape but she did not care all she wanted to know what that the drawers worked.

The couple drove up in a brand new small hactchback. They checked all the gen y buttons and yet they had a brand new car.

Actually I, at 52, would love to live car-less. To be able to walk to everything, have the lifestyle where I could walk to everything.

As near as I can tell for any trend, in most cases, follow the money......

Gen Y Can't Even Drive Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares what Gen Y thinks about cars??? Half of them can't drive yet! Cripes. Slashdot is getting nuttier by the day, I swear it.

Re: Gen Y Can't Even Drive Yet

[zevans]

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.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Generation Y doesn't think car ownership is cool because they can't afford to buy a damn car. As far as California goes, that place will always be a shit hole as long as the state keeps misspending the road taxes on everything else but the roads.

Emo twats

[Hognoxious]

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!

casual carpool - looking for input

[H310iSe]

I'm researching the casual carpool setup in the San Francisco bay area to find ways to make it work better. I do *not* nescecarily think this needs an app, in fact I'd be happy if this project didn't result in one, but one thing I've found is currently, there are none. No ride-sharing apps to facilitate casual carpool (or slug-line as they call it on the east coast). Kind of crazy right? If anyone out there is working on a similar project I'd love to share notes. I have some publicly funded studies in hand, and a small team of people working on their own time on the project. This is conceived as a free beer and speech project not commercial. Message me here, I'll remember to check sometime next week, or find dana dane on fb.

the problem is not the solution

[arctother]

What is more likely is that these apps encourage people to use cars more. Especially the ones that pay drivers to work like taxi drivers. This just puts more drivers on the road, driving empty to pick up passengers.

Car ownership

[intermodal]

Universal single-occupant car ownership and use is a product of the US not getting the living crap bombed out of it during World War II. Notice all those nice transportation systems in Europe? Well, those were a combination of necessity and opportunity. You have a lot of free rein in, say, devastated Japanese cities to run roads, tracks, and whatever else you want after a war than you do in pristine postwar Houston. In fact, since the non-destroyed cities aren't in reconstruction, the idea of a major project that would displace existing things and change stuff will be a tough sell in the first place.