Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's because many of today's younger adults got chauffeured where ever they wanted to go by mom and/or dad -- and when they were old enough, many got a car of their own immedidately. They take them for granted. If they had limited to how far they could walk or ride their bikes as kids or if they had to beg to use the family sedan to go out on Friday nights, they'd understand the freedom that having a car represents to many older Americans.
Maybe, I didn't own a car for a while past the "chauffeur stage"
I was never chauffeured as a kid. My mother and many other mothers never learned to drive. We had one car and my father took it to work six days a week. When I finally had my own car, it was freedom to go when and where I wanted. It still is.
Given how many Americans are willing to go deep into debt to buy -- or even lease -- an "upscale" or sporty car, I'd say that most Americans still love their cars. Some just can't afford to buy/lease what they'd like or they're just more sensible about money than others, so they settle for a Honda rather than a Lexus ... but if they ever got a windfall ... hello, Mustang convertible or BMW.
For one, that majority of new car sales are to Baby Boomers. Take that for what you will.
But what you present is not so much evidence of any kind of love affair with the car as it is of a desire to buy a nice car. But that's all it says. It doesn't suggest deep attachment to the car. If the car fell out of favor--preferences changed, technology made it outmoded, or costs swung against it--nothing about what you said suggests the car would remain as important.
There's an argument that has been made that it is a status symbol, like a house or a nice phone, clothes, or TV. There's also an argument that, as home ownership has become more difficult, cars have increasingly become the predominant symbol of economic status.
For one, that majority of new car sales are to Baby Boomers. Take that for what you will.
But what you present is not so much evidence of any kind of love affair with the car as it is of a desire to buy a nice car. But that's all it says. It doesn't suggest deep attachment to the car. If the car fell out of favor--preferences changed, technology made it outmoded, or costs swung against it--nothing about what you said suggests the car would remain as important.
There's an argument that has been made that it is a status symbol, like a house or a nice phone, clothes, or TV. There's also an argument that, as home ownership has become more difficult, cars have increasingly become the predominant symbol of economic status.
Boomers are a large population and new cars are expensive so not surprising.
The odds of the car falling out of favor any time soon is about the same as the odds of the horse and carriage falling out of favor in 1860.
There is indeed a love affair with the car, because it empowered so many people and made possible so many things. Public transport is an older technology that lost a lot of it's appeal due to the car. The car has the ability to transport(and store) both people and cargo. Few technologies can offer that.
1. A typical family could get by with owning one car - just send it back home after one spouse commutes for the other one to use.
2. A lot of people in urban areas who own cars but don't use them to commute will likely move away from car ownership entirely, relying upon automated rideshare services.
There is indeed a love affair with the car, because it empowered so many people and made possible so many things.
Well, your romanticizing it. That's a feeling. I can't debate feelings.
That said, that empowerment carries a great and regressive cost. Sadly, we often ignore the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
Public transport is an older technology that lost a lot of it's appeal due to the car. The car has the ability to transport(and store) both people and cargo. Few technologies can offer that.
Let's be clear about something about public transit. It "fell out of favor" because we massively rebuilt our cities around easy travel by car. We made jaywalking a crime, we built a massive interstate, freeway, and expressway system, and we required huge amounts of parking everywhere. The value proposition of NOT traveling by car collapsed because other modes can't compete with cars under those rules. That's nothing to do with the value proposition of the car in a vacuum.
I'm not saying the car doesn't have great power in and of itself to transform our lives. What I am saying is that we wrote the rules of the game that effectively gave the car its current centrality in our lives, far above and beyond its intrinsic utility.
Even so, where we see good, fast, frequent PT, we see that it is well used. But, we have to keep in mind that PT agencies are finite and are charged with serving the public good, so ridership is often not the goal.
Last edited by darkeconomist; 04-05-2016 at 10:51 AM..
Let's be clear about something about public transit. It "fell out of favor" because we massively rebuilt our cities around easy travel by car. We made jaywalking a crime, we built a massive interstate, freeway, and expressway system, and we required huge amounts of parking everywhere. The value proposition of NOT traveling by car collapsed because other modes can't compete with cars under those rules. That's nothing to do with the value proposition of the car in a vacuum.
I'm not saying the car doesn't have great power in and of itself to transform our lives. What I am saying is that we wrote the rules of the game that effectively gave the car its current centrality in our lives, far above and beyond its intrinsic utility.
Even so, where we see good, fast, frequent PT, we see that it is well used. But, we have to keep in mind that PT agencies are finite and are charged with serving the public good, so ridership is often not the goal.
Public transportation did not "fall out of favor" across the US. It was never in favor for the vast majority of Americans--who predominantly did not live in the major cities until the 50s.
Everywhere outside the major cities--which was most of America and most of Americans for most of America's existence--private transportation was the rule of the land. The private transportation culture was set in stone long before America became urban.
Public transportation did not "fall out of favor" across the US. It was never in favor for the vast majority of Americans--who predominantly did not live in the major cities until the 50s.
Everywhere outside the major cities--which was most of America and most of Americans for most of America's existence--private transportation was the rule of the land. The private transportation culture was set in stone long before America became urban.
What time frame are we talking about? The ideas of "public" and "private" transport have drastically changed over time. To understand your post, I'm gonna need some more detail.
Public transportation did not "fall out of favor" across the US. It was never in favor for the vast majority of Americans--who predominantly did not live in the major cities until the 50s.
Everywhere outside the major cities--which was most of America and most of Americans for most of America's existence--private transportation was the rule of the land. The private transportation culture was set in stone long before America became urban.
A majority of Americans were living in cities by 1920. (51.2%) In 1900, 39.6% of the US population lived in cities. While not a majority, that's still a significant portion of the population. (https://www.census.gov/population/ce...ta/table-4.pdf)
Also, public transit wasn't just limited to major cities. Around here, just about every little town had a connection to a public transportation network. Here is a historic photo of Navarre, Ohio: BC 2703.4 Looking north Main St Navarre_positive by Massillon Museum, on Flickr
I don't know when this photo was taken, but I think it's safe to say it was taken in the first quarter of the 20th century. (although it could be older) As you can see, there are trolley or interurban tracks in the middle of that dirt road, connecting it to the big city of Massillon, Ohio, about 5 miles up the road. Between 1900 and 1930, Navarre's population fluctuated between 1000 and 1500 people. During that same time, Massillon's population fluctuated between 10k and 25k people.
What time frame are we talking about? The ideas of "public" and "private" transport have drastically changed over time. To understand your post, I'm gonna need some more detail.
That's a good point, too. At the time the above photo was taken, the public transport network was almost certainly owned by a private company.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
