sign in sign up
<<
Home , Millennials, Young Americans

Millennials in Motion Changing Travel Habits of Young Americans and the Implications for Public Policy Millennials in Motion Changing Travel Habits of Young Americans and the Implications for Public Policy

U.S. PIRG Education Fund Frontier Group

Tony Dutzik and Jeff Inglis, Frontier Group

Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D., U.S. PIRG Education Fund October 2014 Acknowledgments

The authors thank Adie Tomer of the ; Scott Le Vine of the Centre for Transport Studies at Imperial London; Doug Short, Vice President for Research at Advisor Perspectives and others for their review of drafts of this document and for their insights and suggestions. The authors also thank Danielle Elefritz for her research support and Tom Van Heeke for his editorial support.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

2014 U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0.

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information about U.S. PIRG Education Fund or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.uspirgedfund.org.

Frontier Group provides information and ideas to help citizens build a cleaner, healthier, fairer and more democratic America. We address issues that will define our nation’s course in the 21st century – from fracking to solar energy, global warming to transportation, clean water to clean elections. Our experts and writers deliver timely research and analysis that is accessible to the public, applying insights gleaned from a variety of disciplines to arrive at new ideas for solving pressing problems. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.

Design: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design All covers photos from istockphoto.com: Woman on bus, Luis Alvarez; family, Ryan J Lane; man on bike, kupicoo. Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Who Are the Millennials and Why Do they Matter? 7

Millennials’ Transportation Behaviors Differ from 9 Those of Other Americans and from Prior Millennials’ Daily Lives Are Less Car-Centered than Those of Older Americans 9 Millennials Are Less Car-Focused than Previous Generations of Young People 10 Millennials’ Transportation Behaviors Continue to Change 12 Millennials Have Led a Broader Shift in Transportation Behaviors among Americans 13

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 17 Socioeconomic Changes 17 Lifestyle Preferences 23 Higher Hurdles for Youth Driving 26 Changing and Transportation Options 28

Making Sense of Changing Driving Trends and Their Implications for the Future 33 Incorporating Lasting Changes into Transportation Planning 34 Using Scenario Planning to Incorporate Uncertainty 35 Seizing the Opportunity to Reduce the Impacts of Driving 37

Notes 38

Executive Summary

ver the last decade—after 60-plus people follow suit—America will have an years of steady increases—the opportunity to reap the benefits of slower Onumber of miles driven by the av- growth in driving. These include reduced erage American has been falling. Young traffic congestion, fewer deaths and inju- Americans have experienced the greatest ries on the roads, reduced expenditures for changes: driving less; taking transit, bik- highway construction and repair, and less ing and walking more; and seeking out pollution of our air and climate. places to live in cities and walkable com- Several indicators—including continued munities where driving is an option, not a decreases in per-capita driving across the necessity. whole U.S. population, the continued shift Academic research, survey results and away from the use of cars for commuting government data point to a multitude of by Millennials, and the consistency of factors at play in the recent decline in driv- Millennials’ stated preferences for hous- ing among young people: socioeconomic ing and transportation—suggest that it is shifts, changes in consumer preferences, unlikely that the trend toward less driving technological changes, efforts by state among Millennials during the has governments and to limit youth reversed thus far in the current decade. driving, and more. Moreover, many of the factors that have Millennials (those born between 1983 contributed to the recent decline in driv- and 2000) are the nation’s largest gen- ing among young Americans appear likely eration, making their transportation needs to last. Now is the time for the nation’s particularly important. They have the most transportation policies to acknowledge, to gain or lose from the transportation in- accommodate and support Millennials’ vestment decisions we make today, as they demands for a greater array of transpor- will be affected by those investments for tation choices. decades to come. If Millennials drive fewer miles than previous generations as they Millennials are less car-focused age—and if of young than older Americans and previous

Executive Summary 1 generations of young people, and their • Young people are not the only Ameri- transportation behaviors continue to cans who are driving less. The num- change in ways that reduce driving. ber of miles driven by the average American has declined nearly con- • Between 2001 and 2009, the average tinuously since 2004. Americans now number of miles driven by 16 to 34 drive no more in total than we did in year-olds dropped by 23 percent, as 2005 and no more on average than we a result of young people taking fewer did at the beginning of President Bill trips, shorter trips, and a larger share Clinton’s second term in office. of trips by modes other than driving. Young Americans drive less than older There are many factors at play in the Americans and use public transpor- drop in driving among young Ameri- tation more, and often use multiple cans. Many of those factors—from high modes of travel during a typical day or gas prices to tougher driver licensing week. laws—appear likely to last.

• In recent years, young people appear Socioeconomic shifts to have continued to shift away from driving: • The contributed to unemployment and falling incomes o Census data show that the share among young people. However, driv- of 16 to 24 year-olds traveling ing fell among both young people with to work by car declined by 1.5 jobs and those without during the percentage points between 2006 2000s, as well as among young people and 2013, while the share of young in households of various income levels, people getting to work by public demonstrating that the decline in transportation, on foot or by bi- driving was caused by more than just cycle, or else working from home, the recession. had increased. • Many of the driving-related so- o Young people aged 20 to 30 are cioeconomic changes linked to the less likely to move from central recession—such as the increase in the cities to suburbs than a decade number of Millennials “living in their ago. parents’ basements”—were already taking place for years or decades o Driver’s licensing among young before the recession began, suggesting people has continued to decline. that a return to pre-recession pat- The percentage of high school terns is not inevitable as the economy seniors with driver’s licenses recovers. declined from 85 percent to 73 percent between 1996 and 2010, o Americans have been getting according to the AAA Founda- married later and having children tion for Highway Safety, with later nearly continuously since federal data suggesting that the the 1960s and have continued to decline has continued since do so during the first years of the 2010. recovery.

 Millennials in Motion o While the number of young enabled transportation services, from Americans living with their bikesharing to real-time transit track- parents increased sharply during ing apps. the Recession, the share of young people living in their parents’ • Young people have been the first to homes had been increasing even adopt many of these and prior to the recession, and house- tools, and have been disproportion- hold formation among young ately attracted to alternatives such as people has remained slow during bikesharing and “ridesourcing” (taxi- the recovery. like services such as and ).

• Millennials reaching driving age to- • Many of these technology-enabled day have no living memory of consis- services are relatively new and are tently cheap gasoline. Gasoline prices currently in use by only a small per- are projected to remain at historically centage of people. But some (such as high levels indefinitely, possibly lead- bikesharing and round-trip carshar- ing Millennials to make long-term ing) have already been shown to lead transportation and housing decisions to reductions in driving and vehicle that require less driving. ownership. Together, they could lay the groundwork for a new model of Lifestyle preferences mobility that is less dependent on private car ownership. • Several studies have found a genera- tional cohort effect among the Millen- Other steps that discourage driving nials—that is, today’s young people drive less than previous generations • Graduated driver licensing require- of young Americans, even when ments adopted in recent years by state economic and other factors linked to governments have likely played a small vehicle ownership or driving are taken but important role in causing young into account. people to delay or forgo getting a driver’s license, potentially encourag- • Millennials consistently report greater ing Millennials to develop less car- attraction to less driving-intensive dependent transportation habits that lifestyles—urban living, residence in they may carry with them as they age. “walkable” communities, and open- ness to the use of non-driving modes • Many colleges and universities have of transport—than older generations. put in place deliberate strategies to reduce the number of with Changing technology and transporta- cars on campus. With roughly 40 tion options percent of 18 to 24 year-olds enrolled in higher education, such measures • The past decade has seen a technolog- might play a role in reducing youth ical revolution, with the widespread driving. They may also help young adoption of the and social people to develop transportation media and, more recently, the creation habits that they carry with them after of a wide variety of new technology- college.

Executive Summary 3 The time has come for America to transportation options, including rethink its transportation investments public transportation, bicycling and to accommodate and encourage the walking. Reducing vehicle travel this Millennial in its desire for way will save money by heading off less car-intensive lifestyles. Policy-mak- the need to spend money on highway ers should: expansion, which currently costs the nation about $27 billion per year. • Factor lasting changes in driving Doing so will also ease congestion, habits among young people into reduce emissions of pollutants that transportation planning, starting now, harm public health and alter the to ensure that transportation invest- climate, and save lives through ments serve the needs and desires of avoided vehicle crashes. Millennials both today and in the decades to come. For these reasons, America should not just accommodate Millennials’ desire to drive less, but • Incorporate uncertainty into trans- actively encourage it. Cities across the nation portation planning through the use are leading the way by expanding public of scenario analysis and other tools transportation options, building new bicycle that ensure transportation investment and pedestrian infrastructure, and opening decisions are consistent with the pos- the doors for an array of innovative new sibility that driving will continue to technology-based transportation services. stagnate. State and federal governments should assist and promote those efforts, while changing • Take advantage of the opportunity transportation policies and investment presented by Millennials’ changing strategies that undermine the development transportation preferences by of walkable communities with access to a expanding access to an array of variety of transportation choices.

 Millennials in Motion Introduction

ver the last four years, there has • The Millennials really are different— been an explosion of interest in the both from older generations alive OMillennial generation and its chang- today and from previous generations ing relationship to driving. Since the first of young people. media stories describing the decline in car use among young people appeared in 2010,1 • Multiple external factors are push- there have been conferences, academic ing Millennials to drive less. Some of studies, frantic by auto- those factors are temporary, but many makers, and surveys of young people them- are likely to last. selves, all aimed at getting to the bottom of two questions: Why are today’s young • The dip in driving among young people driving less than those of previous people that took place in the 2000s is generations? And will those changes last? unlikely to have reversed thus far in The answers to those questions are criti- the new decade. cally important for shaping policy to serve the transportation needs of Millennials The case for taking Millennnials’ today and to make smart investments in changing transportation habits seriously— transportation for the future. and for beginning to factor those changes There remain many unanswered ques- into public policy—is stronger than it was tions about why Millennials are driving less four years ago. As the United States deals than previous generations of young people. with a shrinking pool of transportation But in recent years a few things have come funding, the growing need for maintenance into clearer focus: and repair of our existing systems, and

The case for taking Millennnials’ changing transportation habits seriously—and for beginning to factor those changes into public policy—is stronger than it was four years ago.

Introduction 5 rising demands for more transportation informed and more responsive transporta- choices, it is critical that public leaders tion decisions. understand those changes and factor them The changing preferences and habits into transportation investment and policy of the Millennial generation provide a decisions. golden opportunity to address many long- This paper—an update of the authors’ standing transportation problems, from 2012 report on changing driving trends traffic congestion to oil dependence and among Millennials, Transportation and the from car crashes to air pollution. The time New Generation—summarizes the grow- has come for the United States to take ing body of knowledge about the changes advantage of that opportunity by shift- that have occurred in young Americans’ ing our transportation priorities in ways transportation attitudes and behaviors that provide a broader range of choices to over the past decade. It is intended to help Millennials and all Americans. policy-makers and the public make better

Regional Transit System (RTS) for the City of Gainesville, Florida

 Millennials in Motion Who Are the Millennials and Why Do they Matter?

he Millennials—defined here as those use it, policy-makers can ensure that Americans born between 1983 and the needs of young people are taken 2000—are the largest generation in into account in transportation plan- T 2 the United States. Currently ranging ning and policy-making. in age from young teenagers to adults in their early 30s, the characteristics and • How Millennials behave now may preferences of the Millennials have been provide clues about how they will studied extensively by academics and mar- behave in the future. The oldest ket researchers and debated widely in the Millennials are just a few years away popular media. from entering their peak driving While the transportation needs and years—the period from roughly age desires of all generations of Americans are 35 to 55 that is the peak period for important for policy-makers to understand, employment and child-rearing and, the preferences and behaviors of the Mil- by extension, the period during which lennials are particularly critical to grasp, people make the greatest use of the for several reasons: transportation system. Millennials will almost certainly drive more miles • Millennials have present-day per person as they age than they do transportation needs that must be today. The key question for transpor- met. Young Americans have specific tation planning, however, is whether transportation needs and preferences Millennials will drive more or less than their parents did at the same age. Regional Transit System (RTS) for the City of Gainesville, Florida distinct from those of older Ameri- cans—needs that often receive less attention from policy-makers than the • How Millennials behave now may traditional need to address rush-hour provide clues about how future highway congestion. By understand- young people will behave. Millen- ing what Millennials want from the nials’ transportation behaviors may be transportation system and how they shaped by economic or other forces

Who Are the Millennials and Why Do they Matter? 7 that will also affect future generations new tools, we might learn about their of young people. Understanding those effects once they are adopted by the forces can provide important clues broader population. about future transportation needs. In this report, we summarize research • Millennials have been early adopt- on Millennials’ present-day transporta- ers of new technologies and tion attitudes and behaviors, the degree practices. From to to which those behaviors differ from those bikesharing, young Americans have of older Americans and those of previous consistently been the first to embrace generations, the external forces—many new technologies and tools with the of them likely to last—that have helped potential to shape transportation shape their transportation choices, and the behaviors. By studying how Millen- emerging role of new technologies. nials’ behavior is affected by those

The key question for transportation planning is whether Millennials will drive more or less than their parents did at the same age.

 Millennials in Motion Millennials’ Transportation Behaviors Differ from Those of Other Americans and from Prior Generations

illennials use the transportation or school, 77 percent of Millenni- system differently than other als travel via car, compared with 92 MAmericans, relying less on cars and percent of Generation Xers and 90 more on transit and biking, and frequently percent of , according using multiple modes of travel as opposed to a 2013 survey by the Urban Land to relying on a single mode. There is evi- Institute (ULI). The survey found dence that Millennials drive less than pre- that 10 percent of Millennials use cars, vious generations of young people—part of trucks or motorcycles less than once a broader shift in transportation patterns a week, compared with 5 percent of away from the steady increases in vehicle and 6 percent of Baby travel that characterized America’s late 20th Boomers.3 century Driving Boom. ·• More likely to use transit and active transportation. The ULI survey found that 20 percent of Millennials take public transit once a week or Millennials’ Daily Lives Are more, compared with 7 percent of Generation Xers and 10 percent Less Car-Centered than of Baby Boomers. A 2014 survey Those of Older Americans by TransitCenter found that those Young Americans experience different under 30 used transit roughly two day-to-day transportation realities than to three times more frequently than other generations. Young Americans in the those aged 30 to 60 in every region of Millennial generation are: the country.4 Nearly one out of five Millennials (19 percent), according • Less dependent on cars. When to the ULI survey, bikes at least once it comes to commuting to work a week, compared with 16 percent of

Millennials’ Transportation Behaviors Differ 9 Generation X and 12 percent of Baby Boomers.5 (See Figure 1.) Millennials Are Less Car-Focused than Previous • Likely to be multimodal. Millenni- Generations of als also have a propensity to combine several modes of transportation over Young People the course of a day or a week. Accord- Millennials drive less and use transit and ing to a survey of Millennials in six active modes of transportation more than urban areas, 69 percent of respondents previous cohorts of young people. said they use multiple transportation Between 2001 and 2009, according modes to reach a destination at least to the National Household Travel Sur- a few times per week. Millennials in vey—the federal government’s periodic, these cities average three modes per detailed survey of transportation behavior trip.6 (Comparative statistics for older in the United States—the average number generations are unavailable.) of vehicle-miles traveled by young people

Figure 1. Millennials’ Day-to-Day Transportation Experience Differs from Other Generations7

10 Millennials in Motion Figure 2. Change in Number of Trips per Capita among 16 to 34 year-olds, 2001 to 200912

(16 to 34 year-olds) decreased from 10,300 percent more transit trips per capita, 16 miles to 7,900—a drop of 23 percent.8 The percent more walking trips and 27 percent decline in driving among young people more biking trips per capita than they did resulted from several changes in transpor- in 2001.11 (See Figure 2.) tation behavior): The decline in driving has been steepest among young American men—a common • Fewer car trips: In 2009, young drivers feature of the decline in per-capita driving took 15 percent fewer trips than young in several nations over the last decade.13 drivers took in 2001.9 The average number of miles driven by 16 to 34 year-old men fell by 29.5 percent • Shorter car trips: In 2009, the average between 2001 and 2009, compared with a trip length traveled by young drivers 13.4 percent decline among women.14 was 9.5 miles—a 6 percent drop from Young people are not only driving less, 10.1 miles, the average trip length in but fewer of them are driving at all. A study 2001.10 by researchers at the University of Michi- gan, citing Federal Highway Administration In addition, young Americans took more (FHWA) statistics, found that the propor- trips via non-driving modes of transporta- tion of 19 year-olds holding drivers licenses tion. In 2009, 16 to 34 year-olds took 4 fell from 87 percent in 1983 to 70 percent

Millennials’ Transportation Behaviors Differ 11 in 2010.15 Other sources point to similar several indications that today’s Millennials trends. A paper by the AAA Foundation continue to drive less than previous for Traffic Safety reported that “periodic generations of young Americans: national surveys of high school seniors show a downward trend in licensing rates.” In • Data from the Federal Highway 1996, 85 percent of seniors reported having Administration show that the num- a license, compared with only 73 percent ber of 19 year-olds with driver’s in 2010.16 licenses has continued to fall, to 68 percent in 2012.17

• Young people continue to experience the greatest changes in their choice Millennials’ Transportation of commuting modes. Between 2006 and 2013, the percentage of commute Behaviors Continue to trips undertaken by car (both alone Change and by carpool) by 16 to 24 year-olds The lack of a continuous national travel dropped by 1.5 percentage points. By survey in the United States makes it contrast, car commuting dropped, impossible to estimate the change in as a percentage of commutes, by the number of miles driven by young 1.3 percentage points among 25 to drivers since 2009. However, there are 44 year-olds and by 0.5 percent-

Figure 3. Change in Commute Mode Share, 2006 to 2013, by Age Group19

12 Millennials in Motion age points among those 45 years change in transportation behaviors among old and older. (See Figure 3.) About Millennials is part of a larger shift taking one-third of the decline in car mode place across America as a whole. share among 16 to 24 year-olds (0.5 The past decade has seen the end of the percentage points) occurred between “Driving Boom”—the era of steady, rapid 2009 and 2013.18 growth in vehicle travel in the United States. Americans now drive no more miles in total • Areas with large youth populations each year than we did in 2005, and no more have tended to experience greater on average than we did at the end of Bill changes over the last several years. Clinton’s first term as president.24 (See Fig- College towns have consistently led ure 4, next page.) In 2013, Americans drove the list of cities that have experienced 330 billion fewer miles—about 10 percent the greatest surge in bicycle com- less—than they would have if the trends muting since the mid-2000s.20 that prevailed from 1946 until 2007 had per- sisted. A smaller percentage of Americans is • Millennials aren’t moving from cities licensed to drive than in 2008.25 to suburbs the way that previous gen- While most parts of the country have erations did, a change with implica- seen a decline in per-capita driving,26 tions for the number of miles they some areas saw driving peak earlier—and drive. As has been the case for de- fall faster—than others. In Oregon, total cades, more people of every age group vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) peaked in continue to migrate from central 2004 (as opposed to in 2007 nationally) cities to suburbs than vice versa (with and VMT per capita peaked in 1999 (as cities continuing to grow as a result of opposed to 2004 nationally).27 And in migration from rural areas and abroad Washington state, according to Federal and natural increase—a greater num- Highway Administration data, per-capita ber of births than deaths).21 In 2012- VMT peaked back in the early .28 13, 20 to 29 year-olds were less likely Some cities that have prioritized alterna- to move from city to suburb than vice tives to driving have seen particularly steep versa than in any individual pair of declines in driving. In Portland, Oregon, years for which the Census Bureau a city that has long been committed to has data since at least 1998.22 compact development and investments in transit and bicycling, VMT per driver declined 19 percent—from 21.1 to 17.1 miles per day—between 1994 and 2011.29 In the Twin Cities of Minnesota, long Millennials Have Led a ranked among the top cities for bicycling Broader Shift in and the site of major recent investments in transit, the number of car trips decreased Transportation Behaviors from 7.7 million to 6.3 million from 2000 among Americans to 2010.30 While young Americans have experienced While cutting back on driving, Ameri- the greatest changes in their transportation cans are increasing their use of other trans- habits over the last decade, they are not the portation modes. Public transportation only ones who are driving less and using ridership increased by 8 percent between other modes of transportation more. The 2005 and 2012—a period when VMT was

Millennials’ Transportation Behaviors Differ 13 Figure 4. Vehicle-Miles Traveled in the United States23

essentially flat.31 During roughly the same Meanwhile, the nation has seen a shift period, data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s in residential patterns toward cities. In American Community Survey show in- 2011, for the first time in more than nine creases in the share of Americans traveling decades, America’s cities added popula- to work via transit or bicycle, or on foot, as tion more quickly than their surrounding well as working from home.32 suburbs.36 Central cities have continued Recent local and state travel surveys to grow at rates rivaling or surpassing show similar results.33 The California suburbs in the years since, an indication of Household Travel Survey found that walk- the rapid resurgence of city living in some ing, biking and public transportation more parts of the country.37 During the 2000s, than doubled as a share of total trips from the core downtown areas of cities in large 11 percent to 23 percent between 2000 metropolitan areas (those with more than and 2010.34 In Portland, Oregon, the mode 2.5 million people) grew in population, share for walking and biking has increased with double-digit growth in the core areas from 2.9 percent to 4.2 percent from 1994 of the largest metropolitan areas.38 to 2011. And in the Twin Cities, transit In part as a result of the enduring hangover trips increased as a percentage of all trips from the late 2000s housing market collapse from 2.5 percent to 3.2 percent between and the effects of demographic shifts,39 the 2000 and 2010.35 nation has seen a sea change in the types of

14 Millennials in Motion new housing being built. As of mid-2014, destinations tend to be far apart and, often, builders were constructing as many units few other transportation options exist. of housing in multi-family buildings as Between 2005 and 2009, three-fourths of they did prior to the Great Recession, but large metropolitan regions saw a rise in single-family housing starts remain mired infill housing development as compared well below the levels of construction typical to 2000-2004.43 of the 1990s and early 2000s.40 An analysis of The downtown areas of major cities housing trends by the Kansas City Federal have seen particularly rapid development. Reserve Bank concluded that construction The population living within one mile of of multi-family homes will likely continue the nation’s 10 most populous downtowns to accelerate faster than construction of increased by 17 percent during the 2000s, single-family homes.41 nearly twice the rate of U.S. population Much of this new multi-family housing growth.44 Even cities that have struggled is being built as “infill” in already devel- with overall population loss—such as oped areas, as opposed to in sprawling new Cleveland and Detroit—have experienced communities on the metropolitan outskirts population growth in downtown areas, where people tend to drive more because often led by young adults.45

Figure 5. Single-Family vs. Multi-Family Housing Starts (Six-Month Average, Seasonally Adjusted)42

Millennials’ Transportation Behaviors Differ 15 The Millennial generation is Millennial generation is not only less car- not only less car-focused than focused than older Americans by virtue of being young, but they also drive less than older Americans by virtue of previous generations of young people. being young, but they also drive Based on the numerous sources cited above, less than previous generations Millennials’ transportation behaviors con- tinue to change in ways that would suggest of young people. continued reductions in their reliance on cars and driving. Millennials have been Young Americans inhabit a day-to-day contributors to, and leaders of, a broader transportation reality different from those trend away from steady increases in ve- of older Americans. They use transit and hicle travel—a break from more than 60 active modes of transportation like bik- years of steady increases in driving during ing and walking more and cars less. The America’s “Driving Boom.”

16 Millennials in Motion Why Millennials Are Driving Less

he world experienced by young people has changed dramatically in the last Socioeconomic Changes Tdecade. Technologies and services The 2007-2009 recession was the defining that were virtually unheard of a decade economic event in the lives of the Millen- ago—from and social media nial generation, contributing to high youth to carsharing and bikesharing—have be- unemployment,46 delayed household for- come central to many young people’s day- mation,47 and financial strain that rendered to-day lives. Higher prices for gasoline, home and vehicle ownership unaffordable more rigorous standards for driver licens- for many young people. The Great Reces- ing, and efforts by colleges and universi- sion struck at a time when many young ties to discourage driving on campus have people were already financially reeling made it more costly and less convenient from rising debt.48 for young people to buy, own and operate America’s economy finally appears to be vehicles. The Great Recession damaged the improving, including for young people.49 short- and long-term economic prospects But that does not necessarily mean that of a generation of young people and fed Millennials will revert to the driving a variety of trends—from later marriage habits of previous generations. Many of and childbirth to rising student loan bur- the socioeconomic trends attributed to dens—that had been gathering momentum the recession—from increased enrollment for years or decades. in higher education to an increase in the Since the publication of our 2012 report, share of young people living in multi- Transportation and the New Generation, a generational households (e.g., “sleeping in great deal of research has sought to deter- their parents’ basements”50)—have been mine which of these factors have contrib- building for decades. Other shifts expe- uted to the recent decline in youth driving. rienced by Millennials—such as higher In this section, we review much of that gas prices—are unlikely to change in the research. In the next section, we discuss long run. Moreover, the habits formed and the implications for the future. coping mechanisms used by young people

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 17 during the Great Recession may have last- and other factors traditionally associated ing effects on their behavior. with vehicle use cannot explain the entire In addition, several researchers have shift in transportation behavior among identified a generational cohort effect in Millennials: transportation behaviors among the Mil- lennials—that is, they have found that • While the economy played a major Millennials are driving less for reasons that role in the decline in youth driving, cannot be fully explained by economics according to researchers at the Uni- or other factors typically associated with versity of California, Los Angeles, vehicle ownership and travel. today’s young people are driving less All of this suggests that any resurgence than previous generations did at their in driving among young Americans during age, even when economic factors are the economic recovery could be slow, if it taken into account.53 The researchers occurs at all. found that “the youngest cohorts … appear to be making somewhat fewer trips (-4%) and traveling considerably It’s Not Just the Economy fewer miles (-18%) than was the case The Great Recession played a significant for previous generations at the same role in the decline in driving that has oc- stage in their lives, all else equal.”54 curred over the last decade, but it is far from the only cause. Driving declined • A study by researchers at McGill among young people for reasons that can- University of transportation trends in not be fully explained by the economic Montreal found that recent cohorts of recession. young people were more likely to take While the recent recession caused public transportation than previous particularly steep increases in youth un- generations, even after other factors employment, and those without jobs drive known to influence transit use are less than those who are employed, the taken into account.55 states and urban areas that experienced the biggest increases in unemployment dur- • A report by TransitCenter found that ing the recession were generally not those those under age 30 who are parents that experienced the greatest declines in of school-age children are more likely VMT.51 Moreover, between the recession to take transit than parents over age years of 2001 and 2009, per-capita driving 30, even when household income is declined by 16 percent among 16 to 34 taken into account. The researchers year-olds with jobs. This decline in driving concluded that “this is evidence of a among both employed and unemployed true change in attitudes toward public young people—coupled with the fact that transportation.”56 per-capita driving in the United States as a whole began to fall in 2004, well before • Even a study by the Highway Loss the onset of the Great Recession—sug- Data Institute that largely attributed gests that much more than the recession the decline in youth driver “expo- was at play.52 sures” (number of young drivers with And, indeed, several researchers auto insurance) to unemployment studying changes in youth driving found that a small portion of the behaviors have found that the economy decline in teen driving between 2006

18 Millennials in Motion and 2012 could not be explained by These data—along with the continued the factors studied, which included fall in per-capita driving among Americans changes in , in general since the economic recovery that graduated driver licensing laws (see began in 2009—suggest that the economic page 26), and population.57 turmoil caused by the recession was not

Diverging Trends in Economic Growth and Growth in Driving

or decades, economic growth (as measured in gross domestic product, GDP) Fand growth in the number of miles driven on American roads moved upwards in lockstep. (See Figure 6.) Since the beginning of the 21st century, however, the trends have diverged—while real (inflation-adjusted) GDP increased by 6 percent between 2007 and 2013, total VMT declined by about 2 percent.58 A return to robust economic growth may yet result in a resurgence in driving among young people and Americans as a whole. But the economy has technically been in recovery for and no such resurgence has yet occurred.

Figure 6. Trends in Growth of Real Gross Domestic Product and Vehicle-Miles Traveled59

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 19 the only cause of the fall in driving among decline in driving among Millennials.The young people. Great Recession led to a dramatic drop in the rate at which young people—aged 18 to 34—formed new households.62 How- Changing Timing of Life Stages ever, several of these shifts in life stages One way in which the Great Recession are actually longer-term trends that were may have affected youth driving is by accelerated, not initiated, by the economic discouraging young people from making downturn. life changes that are traditionally associ- ated with increased levels of driving, such • Delayed or forgone marriage – The as entering the workforce, forming new estimated median age at first mar- households, and having children. riage increased from 27.5 years old to European researchers have explored 29 years old among men, and from the implications of changing timing of 25.6 to 26.6 years old among women life stages on declines in youth driving between 2007 and 2013. However, there, which mirror those in the United delays in marriage are nothing new; States. German researchers have found Americans have been getting mar- that recent socioeconomic changes in the ried later on a nearly continuous basis lives of young people—including reduc- dating back to the mid-1960s.63 Young tions in income, increases in the number Americans are also forgoing marriage of young people enrolled in higher educa- to a degree unknown to their parents’ tion, increased residence in metropolitan generation. By 2010, 28 percent of areas, and an increase in single-person U.S. adults had never been married, households, which are less likely to own compared with 15 percent in 1960.64 vehicles—account for about two-thirds of And by 2014, fewer than half of U.S. the reduction in car ownership that has adults were currently married, the occurred there in recent years. Similar so- lowest percentage in the history of cioeconomic factors have been responsible government record-keeping and far for about one-third of the drop in vehicle lower than the 72 percent of Ameri- ownership among young people in Great cans who were married in 1960.65 Britain.60 Dutch researchers have hypoth- esized that delays in the achievement of life • Delayed childbirth – The average stages could be responsible for the bulk of age of first-time mothers increased the decline in youth driving in the Neth- from 25 years old in 2006 to 25.8 years erlands, and have suggested that the result in 2012. Again, however, the trend might not be a reduction in the number toward later childbirth is one of long of miles driven by Dutch youth over their standing: in 1970, the age of the aver- lifetimes, but rather a delay in when that age first-time mother was 21.4 years.66 driving occurs to later in life.61 The German and British studies—as • College enrollment – The percent- with the studies of changes in youth driv- age of 18 to 24 year-olds enrolled in ing in North America—find that there is undergraduate or graduate study has a significant share of the recent decline in also been rising for years—between youth driving that cannot be explained by 2001 and 2011, the number of full- these factors. But changes in the timing time college students increased by 38 of life stages have likely contributed to the percent while the traditional college-

20 Millennials in Motion age population of the U.S. increased Great Recession accentuated trends that by only 11 percent.67 had already been in place for decades. As a result, the ongoing economic recovery may The decision to enroll in college may not result in a full “reset” to pre-recession have effects that last beyond gradu- patterns of household formation. ation. The average amount of stu- Indeed, homeownership rates and head- dent loan debt borne by graduates of of-household rates for young people have public colleges increased by 35 per- continued to decline since the end of the cent between 2001-02 and 2011-12.68 Great Recession, suggesting a slow return Research has found that student loan to previous patterns of homeownership debt has a significant impact on young and household formation among young people’s decisions to live with parents people.72 and on homeownership rates among young people.69 A World of High Gasoline Prices • Residence in parent’s home – One Millennials who are reaching driving age in of the most publicized effects of the 2014 have no conscious memory of a world Great Recession has been increased of consistently cheap gasoline. In 2002, residence of Millennials in their when today’s Millennials were between parents’ homes. And, indeed, the two and 19 years of age, the average price share of young people living in their of gasoline in the United States was $1.39 parents’ homes did increase sharply per gallon ($1.84 in today’s dollars).73 In during the Recession. Again, however, July 2006, nominal gasoline prices hit $3 the increase in the share of young per gallon for the first month ever. As of people living with their parents was August 2014, it had been more than three an extension of a previous trend, not and a half years since gasoline prices had a new trend initiated by the recession. fallen below $3 per gallon in any month.74 Among 18 to 34 year-olds, the per- Government and industry experts forecast centage living in their parents’ homes that gasoline prices are likely to remain at had already been increasing between the higher levels of the recent past as far 2000 and 2006, before the recession as the eye can see.75 (See Figure 7, next began.70 And the share of both 18 to page.) 24 year-olds and 18 to 34 year-olds Economics research tells us that individ- living in the parental home had in- uals change their transportation behaviors creased between 1960 and 2000.71 far more dramatically in response to long- run changes in factors such as fuel prices The Great Recession undoubtedly re- than in response to short-term volatility.77 sulted in significant declines in household The reason is that the most consequential formation among young people—declines choices individuals make that affect their that likely inhibited many Millennials from transportation behaviors—where to work, achieving life stages typically associated where to live, what primary mode of trans- with more driving. As the economy im- portation to use—are typically changed proves, some Millennials who delayed mar- only infrequently. riage, childbirth or the establishment of Unlike older Americans, who may be an independent household will likely take “locked in” to transportation behaviors those steps. However, in many cases, the either as a result of previous life decisions

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 21 Figure 7. Historical and Projected Gasoline Prices76

or simply force of habit, Millennials are young people did not obtain driver’s entering adulthood with the opportunity licenses before their 18th birthday.79 to reshape their lives around the expecta- tion of high gas prices. There is significant • Among Millennial respondents to a survey evidence that suggests that the ex- Smart Growth America/Rockefeller pense of driving is a leading transportation Foundation survey, 64 percent said consideration for young Americans: that the expenses associated with owning a car were an important • A survey by Zipcar found that 53 reason for choosing to live in a place percent of 18 to 34 year-olds attribute where transportation is not dependent high costs of car ownership as a reason on cars. 80 why owning a car is difficult, a higher percentage than any other age group.78 • A 2014 survey by Deloitte found that cost was the top factor influencing • An AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety U.S. Millennials’ decision to own a study found the high cost of gasoline car. More than three-quarters of U.S. to be the third most-important factor Millennials who don’t own or lease a (behind not owning a car and being car reported that they cannot cur- able to get around without a car) why rently afford to own one.81

22 Millennials in Motion Millennials are entering adulthood Millennials’ reported preferences for with the expectation that driving will be transportation and housing are at least costly. As Millennials begin to benefit consistent with—if not proof of—a from economic recovery, car ownership shift in preferences relative to previous will likely become possible for more young generations. Americans. But recent surveys suggest that the cost of car ownership remains heavy on the minds of Millennials. The emergence, Attitudes about Cars and Driving however, of new forms of shared-use mo- The attitudes of Millennials towards car bility (see page 30) could provide many ownership and driving differ markedly Millennials with an opportunity to avoid from those of older Americans. the cost of vehicle ownership while main- taining access to mobility by car. • Young Americans are less inter- ested in owning or relying on cars – Only 62 percent of U.S. Mil- lennials choose driving in a car they own as their preferred mode of trans- Lifestyle Preferences portation, as opposed to 81 percent As noted above, research in North America of other generations, according to a and abroad indicates that not all of the survey by Deloitte.82 Nearly a third of change in driving habits among young Millennials responding to the survey people can be chalked up to the economy. reported being willing to give up their Much of the popular media discussion personal vehicles, three times more of changing driving behaviors among than other generations. The Deloitte young people has focused on the impact research team concluded that “while of changing consumer preferences for their cost consciousness and initial cars and housing. Some have posited that desire for a vehicle may be strong, the current generation of youth no longer [Millennial] consumers appear more shares Americans’ reputed “love affair with fickle—many will abandon vehicle the car.” ownership altogether, even at a higher There is ample evidence from survey cost, for a more convenient option.”83 research that the transportation and hous- ing preferences of young Americans differ • Young Americans have other from those of older Americans. This, in priorities that compete with car and of itself, is important: transportation ownership – A survey conducted by decision-makers need to understand the Zipcar asked respondents which of needs and preferences of young people so four technologies (car, , com- that they can be adequately served by the puter/tablet and ), were transportation system. it to be lost, would have the greatest The survey data, however, generally negative impact on their lives. Only 26 shed less light on the degree to which percent of 18 to 34 year-olds said that the Millennials are less car-oriented than losing a car would have the greatest previous generations were at a similar negative effect, compared with 33 per- age, largely because comparable survey cent of 35 to 44 year-olds, 49 percent responses from previous generations of of 45 to 54 year-olds and 44 percent of young people are unavailable. However, those 55 and up.84 In a survey of 18 to

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 23 39 year-olds by University of Michi- Millennials see transportation alterna- gan Transportation Research Institute tives as effective substitutes for driving. scholars, 26.9 percent of unlicensed Among Millennials who use carshare or respondents said they were “too busy bikeshare programs in America’s 10 larg- or [had] not enough time to get a est cities, 81 percent said they used the driver’s license.”85 programs because they have “the same advantages of owning a car or bike without • Young Americans’ “love affair with the cost and inconvenience associated with the car” may be ebbing – A survey such.” 91 by the National Association of Real- tors found that 49 percent of respon- dents under 40 felt neutral toward or Attitudes about Residential disagreed with the statement, “For Location and Lifestyle me, car is king. Nothing will replace As noted above, today’s young Ameri- my car as my main mode of trans- cans are less likely to move from cities to portation.” This is compared to 36 suburbs than previous cohorts of young percent for respondents over 50.86 people—a phenomenon that tracks with Another survey found that the per- the increase in the number of young people centage of Americans under 25 agree- living in cities in other countries, such as ing with the statement, “to me, cars Germany and Great Britain.92 are simply transportation” increased Millennials are more likely than older from 27 percent in 1998 to 36 percent Americans to report wanting to live in an in 2013.87 Focus group research in urban area or in a walkable neighborhood suggests that cars may not (including walkable suburban neighbor- be the social status symbol they once hoods) with convenient access to a variety were, though for young people they of amenities and transportation options. remain a symbol of maturity.88 • Young Americans are more likely to prefer city living – A 2014 survey Attitudes about Transit and Other by Pew Research Center found that 38 Transportation Modes percent of 18 to 29 year-olds prefer to Survey research shows that Millennials live in cities compared with 24 percent are generally open to the use of modes of of all age groups.93 (See Figure 8.) A transportation other than driving in pri- similar survey by TransitCenter found vately owned vehicles, in some cases more that 32 percent of those under age 30 so than older Americans. Young people identified city neighborhoods (resi- also tend to prioritize the availability of dential or downtown) as their “” multiple transportation options. neighborhood types compared with 16 Nearly one-third—31 percent—of Mil- percent of those over age 30.94 A 2013 lennials say they want their main modes survey by ULI found that 21 percent of transportation to be buses, bicycling or of 18 to 34 year-olds who were likely carsharing.89 In a national poll, 26 percent of to move reported that they would like people aged 18 to 40 said state governments to relocate to a big city. Only 12 per- should have transit and bicycle-pedestrian cent of Generation X and 10 percent projects as an “extremely high priority”— of Baby Boomers who were likely to twice the percentage of people over 50.90 move shared the desire to move to a

24 Millennials in Motion large urban area.95 According to the 67 percent of U.S. Millennials report same survey, 41 percent of those aged that they prefer to live in a neighbor- 18-30 described themselves as “city” hood that “has everything within people, as opposed to 34 percent of walking distance.”99 Nearly half of those surveyed in their 30s.96 U.S. Millennials (47 percent) stated that they would be willing to relo- • Young people prefer walkable cate closer to work in order to reduce communities – Young people also their commute. desire to live in walkable communi- ties, regardless of whether they are • Young Americans prefer commu- described as urban. A survey by the nities with many transportation American Planning Association options – A Rockefeller Foundation/ found that more than half (56 per- Transportation for America survey of cent) of Millennials desire to live in 18 to 34 year-olds living in 10 major walkable communities with nearby American cities found that 80 percent amenities.97 Three times more Mil- said that being able to “live in a place lennials, according to the survey, where I don’t need to rely on a car to would rather live in a suburb with get around” is important. 100 Accord- walkable amenities than a suburb ing to a survey by the Urban Land where people drive most places.98 A Institute, more than half of all Ameri- survey by Deloitte found that cans (51 percent) and 55 percent of

Figure 8. Percentage of People Preferring to Live in a City, By Age (Data from Pew Research Center)102

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 25 Millennials prefer to live in communi- likely that environmental concerns play ties with transportation options.101 a supporting rather than leading role in shaping Millennials’ transportation habits. Attitudes about the Environment Driving less is often seen as an important step to reduce one’s personal environmen- tal impact. Some Millennials report that they drive less in part for environmental Higher Hurdles for Youth reasons. However, environmental concerns generally rank well below issues of cost, Driving convenience and ownership of a vehicle Young people today must surmount greater in determining how many miles people hurdles than previous generations of young will drive. people when taking to the roads. The cost According to a survey by Zipcar, 39 of driving (see page 21) is clearly one such percent of Millennials report driving less hurdle, but others include the adoption of in order to protect the environment.103 graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws by In the American Public Transportation states over the last several decades and the Association’s survey of Millennials in six actions of college campuses to reduce the U.S. cities, one-third said that their con- number of students driving to and around cern for the environment influences their campus. transportation decisions.104 However, it was only the fifth most-common factor influencing those choices.105 A 2014 survey Graduated Driver Licensing by TransitCenter found environmental Graduated driver licensing (GDL) re- concern the least commonly cited factor for quirements typically require additional why young people use transit of six factors training for young drivers, and gradually considered.106 escalate driving privileges in a series of Surveys of young people overseas have steps over time. Enacted predominantly arrived at similar conclusions. A survey in the 1990s due to the higher crash rates of young people in Australia ranked envi- among younger drivers, GDL programs ronmental concerns fifth among dominant are credited with saving large numbers of attitudes about driving and public trans- lives and often require gaining extensive portation—however, the study did not driving experience in order to attain full, find a statistically significant difference unsupervised driving privileges.109 between the stated level of environmental A small but meaningful share of young concern of those who held driver’s licenses people consistently mentions GDL laws or and those who did not.107 British research- the cost and hassle of obtaining a driver’s ers, meanwhile, found that only 1 percent license more generally as a reason for de- of British adults aged 17 to 29 cited envi- laying or forgoing acquisition of a driver’s ronmental concerns as their reason not to license: have a driver’s license.108 When asked, many U.S. Millennials • A 2013 survey conducted by the report that environmental concerns have AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety played a role in their decision to reduce found that, among those who had not their amount of driving. However, it is obtained a driver’s license by the age

26 Millennials in Motion of 18, the expense of getting a driver’s among those young people who license was mentioned by 26 percent intended to obtain licenses in the near of respondents as a “very important” future.115 or “somewhat important” reason for not obtaining a license, along with • The cost of learning to drive was special requirements for getting a li- cited in British research as a lead- cense at a young age (23 percent), and ing factor in failing to get a driver’s not wanting a special restricted license license.116 (21 percent).110 These factors, how- ever, were far less important than not having a car, being able to get around Colleges Discourage Vehicle without a car, and the cost of gasoline Owbership and driving as motivating factors in More than 40 percent of Americans be- not obtaining a license.111 tween the ages of 18 and 24 are enrolled in undergraduate or graduate school in the • Challenges related to obtaining a United States.117 The travel habits of those driver’s license are frequently cited as students—both while they are on campus factors by young people explaining and during times away from school—can why they do not have them. A survey therefore have a meaningful impact on conducted by researchers at the Uni- overall youth VMT. versity of Michigan found that being In recent years, colleges and universi- “too busy” or having “not enough ties have instituted strategies to reduce time to get a driver’s license,” was the number of students who use cars on the most cited reason for not having campus. They have done so for a variety of a license among non-drivers aged 18 reasons: to avoid the expense of building to 39, and was a bigger factor among on-campus parking garages, to free up land younger members of that age group.112 for other facilities, to reduce congestion on campus and in surrounding communi- • A study by the Highway Loss Data ties, and to reduce their environmental Institute concluded that GDL laws footprint. were responsible for about 8 percent Among the steps colleges have taken to of the decline in youth car insurance reduce student driving are: “exposures” between 2006 and 2012.113 • Free and reduced-cost transit: As • A study by researchers at University of 2011, 61 percent of large colleges of California, Los Angeles, found surveyed in North America provided that the strictness of a state’s driver reduced-fare passes for students and/ licensing requirements was correlated or employees.118 Some universities with increased rates of transit com- have gone further by supporting free muting and decreased rates of solo transit open to the entire community. automobile commuting among youth The University of North Carolina, aged 15 to 26.114 for example, supports free transit for the entire Chapel Hill Transit • Survey research in Australia identified system, a move that contributed to a the cost and difficulty of obtaining a doubling of the share of students who driver’s license as significant factors use transit.119

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 27 • Support for carsharing: Universities have encouraged the use of carsharing Changing Technology and as an alternative for keeping a ve- Transportation Options hicle on campus, with more than half The past decade has seen a revolution in of large colleges now providing the technology, characterized by soaring use of service.120 Zipcar, the nation’s leading mobile, location-aware, -connected round-trip carsharing service, report- devices, such as smartphones and tablets. ed in late 2013 that it operated more Technology can have multiple impacts on than 300 campus carsharing locations transportation decision-making: in North America, with Enterprise Rent-a-Car operating an additional 82 • The availability of technology may locations.121 enable young people to substitute vir- tual activity for activities that might • Encouragement of bicycling: Many once have required a physical trip. Or, colleges also encourage students to conversely, it might enable or encour- bicycle on campus, supporting bike- age trips that otherwise might not sharing systems and investing in bike occur. lanes, bike racks and other infra- structure. Some campuses go so far • Technology might enable the creation as to give free bicycles to some first- of new transportation options. year students and provide valet bike parking at football games.122 Many of • The ability to stay connected while the nation’s leading bicycling cit- in travel might make certain types of ies are college towns. In cities such transportation more attractive. as Davis, California, and Boulder, Colorado, more than 10 percent of all workers commute by bicycle.123 Does Technology Substitute for or College towns are also among those Complement Vehicle Travel? that have seen the greatest growth The availability of technology might in bicycle commuting over the last reduce driving by reducing the number decade.124 of young people who feel compelled to obtain a driver’s license, or by reducing College and university efforts to reduce the number of trips taken by young people driving may have several impacts. First, who have licenses. and most obviously, they may serve to Research into the question of whether reduce the number of miles driven while technological advances have reduced driver students are on campus. By reducing the licensure has produced conflicting results, usefulness of car ownership, these efforts with studies showing that activity on the may encourage students to drive less dur- Internet is correlated with higher (rather ing the summer and at other times when than lower) rates of licensure,125 and that they are away from school. Finally, life at Internet availability is linked with lower a college or university can provide a model rates of driver licensure among residents of of a “car-free” or “car-light” lifestyle that 15 countries.126 An analysis by researchers students may wish to replicate after they at UCLA of data from the National House- have left school. hold Travel Survey found that there is no link between reductions in driving among

28 Millennials in Motion young people and the use of “information all Americans. Telecommuting has been and communications technologies.”127 shown to reduce vehicle travel, though Few, if any studies, however, have yet the magnitude of its impact varies across examined the links between more recent studies.128 technological innovations (smartphones, The degree to which recent technologi- social media, etc.) and youth driver licen- cal innovations substitute for or augment sure or driving. Such studies (at least in the driving, therefore, remains unclear, but it United States) would be difficult since the is a factor that deserves further study. most recent National Household Travel Survey did not ask about the use of these new tools—and, in fact, it took place so long Emerging Transportation ago that many of those tools were only in Services and Apps widespread use among young people. Over the last five years, a wide variety of Survey data suggest that at least some new technology-enabled transportation young people use these more recent services and tools have emerged on the technological innovations as a substitute marketplace, joining traditional round-trip for some social trips. (See Figure 9). In carsharing (which launched in the U.S. addition, telecommuting, or working in the late 1990s) in providing alternative from home, has become more prevalent forms of mobility that are less reliant on among young workers, as it has among privately owned vehicles.

Figure 9. Percentage of Licensed Drivers Reporting that they “Sometimes Choose to Spend Time with Friends Online Instead of Driving to See Them” (Zipcar Survey)129

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 29 The impact of these new transporta- 38 percent of U.S. carsharing mem- tion services on vehicle ownership and bers were between 20 and 30 years of driving is still not fully understood. There age, while an additional 30 percent is strong evidence supporting the notion were between 30 and 40 years old.133 that traditional round-trip carsharing tends to reduce the number of miles driven While relatively new, these transporta- and vehicle ownership in most cases, and tion options are increasingly important to a emerging evidence that bikesharing does growing number of Millennials and others. as well, though to a more limited degree.130 According to a 2013 survey by Zipcar, 24 The effects of newer forms of shared mo- percent of Millennials said that transporta- bility—including one-way carsharing (e.g. tion apps (such as Lyft) reduced the need car2go) and “ridesourcing” services such as to own a car, compared with 20 percent Lyft and Uber—are just beginning to be of 35 to 44-year-olds and 23 percent of 45 understood. It is possible that some of these to 54-year-olds.134 Nine percent of Mil- new services may increase VMT in the short lennials who live in large cities reported run (by providing access to new forms of au- that they use short-term rental car (such tomobile-based mobility) but reduce VMT as carsharing) and bikesharing services at in the long run (by increasing the number least a few times per month.135 of zero-car and one-car households). The growth of technology-enabled Beyond question, however, is the fact transportation services in the United States that most of these services have been dis- has been brisk—bikesharing and ridesourc- proportionately adopted and embraced by ing were virtually unheard of in 2010 and younger people: now exist in many major American cities, while carsharing has expanded dramati- • A recent study of “ridesourcing” cally and diversified in terms of its business (Lyft/Uber/Sidecar) users in San models. It is too soon to assess the impact of Francisco found that more than 50 these new services on driving among young percent were between the ages of 25 people, but the potential exists for these new and 34 and more than two-thirds services to provide an affordable alternative were under 35. The age demographic model of mobility to private car ownership of ridesourcing users was younger for an emerging generation struggling to even than taxi users, which in turn, pay off student loan debt and gain a foothold are younger than the San Francisco in the post-recession economy. population as a whole.131

• A survey of users of the Capital Mobile Connectivity, Real-Time Bikeshare system in Washington, Information and Public D.C., found that 55 percent of annual Transportation members and 43 percent of short-term The advent of mobile technology provides users were between 25 and 34. The the potential to make some modes of trans- age demographic of bikeshare users portation—such as public transit—both was found to be younger than that of more efficient through the provision of area bicyclists in general.132 real-time public transportation arrival and departure information, and more valuable • A 2010 study of carsharing demo- by enabling people to remain connected graphics and impacts found that while in transit.

30 Millennials in Motion Drivers have benefited from satellite selected cities would like to see real-time global positioning system (GPS) naviga- updates from their transit agency within tion technologies for years, but it has only the next 10 years and the same percentage been in the last several years that paral- desire Wi-Fi or 3G/4G connectivity while lel services have been available to transit in transit.137 The survey further found riders. In an increasing number of cities, that public transportation was the form transit riders can use smartphone apps to of transportation most likely to allow for navigate the transit system, plot routes, and online socializing and for promoting con- even find out at what time the next bus or nection to the community.138 train will arrive. The use of mobile devices is also be- The availability of real-time transit coming increasingly ubiquitous on public data has been shown to improve the rider transportation. Researchers at DePaul experience and, in limited studies, to con- University have collected data for sev- tribute to modest increases in ridership.136 eral years on the use of mobile technology These studies are not age-specific, but on intercity transport modes. By 2013, Millennials put a strong value on mobile more than half of Amtrak passengers connectivity and real-time information. were observed using personal electronics A survey conducted for the American technologies. Conventional buses, such Public Transportation Association found as Greyhound, saw the largest increase in that 55 percent of Millennials surveyed in use of such devices—from 17.9 percent to

Figure 10. Passengers Using Personal Electronic Technology in Intercity Travel140

Why Millennials Are Driving Less 31 43.6—between 2010 and 2013. (See Figure transit ridership among all age groups, 10, previous page.)139 including young people, compared with In terms of use in intracity public trans- features such as travel speed, reliability and portation, 22 percent of smartphone users cost. People under 30 ranked wi-fi availabil- report using their phones while on public ity ninth of 12 possible improvements that transportation. Disconcertingly, however, would induce them to ride transit more— 60 percent report using the devices while however, those over 30 ranked wi-fi dead last driving. 141 among the 12 factors. Interestingly, people A 2014 survey by TransitCenter found under 30 ranked the availability of more that the availability of wi-fi on transit was parking at transit stations as the factor least a relatively unimportant factor in spurring likely to induce them to ride transit.142

32 Millennials in Motion Making Sense of Changing Driving Trends and Their Implications for the Future

he 2000s saw a marked decrease in commuting among youth. But many the average number of miles traveled of the long-term socioeconomic Tby young Americans. It is unlikely shifts—such as delayed household that those trends have reversed, given the formation and increased pursuit of continued decreases in per-capita driv- higher education—that are commonly ing across the whole U.S. population, the attributed to the recession have been continued shift away from the use of cars occurring for decades and there is no for commuting by Millennials as reported guarantee they will fully reverse once in U.S. Census Bureau data, and the con- the economy has recovered. sistency of Millennials’ stated preferences for housing and transportation. • Several studies have shown a genera- The authors’ 2012 report, Transportation tional cohort effect among Millenni- and the New Generation, suggested several als, finding that today’s young people reasons for the decline in driving among drive less than previous generations of young people. In recent years, research in young people, even after statistically the United States and around the world accounting for other factors such as has shed additional light on the potential economic effects. contributing factors. Among the factors that are likely to have some role in the decline in • High gasoline prices, and the high driving are the following: cost of driving in general, are regu- larly cited by young people as a major • The Great Recession resulted in reason for why they choose not to temporary economic trauma to young obtain a driver’s license or own a car. people and their families that inhib- Gasoline prices have remained at his- ited some from starting households torically high levels for four years and or purchasing cars and reduced the are projected to remain high for the amount of employment-related foreseeable future.

Making Sense of Changing Driving Trends 33 • Preferences for living in walkable such as bikesharing and ridesourcing neighborhoods, often in urban cen- (e.g. Lyft and Uber). The implications ters, and openness to the use of non- of recent technological advances for driving modes of transportation driving are not fully understood, but have been well documented among the potential impacts for reducing Millennials. Today’s young adults vehicle ownership in the future are are less likely than those of a genera- profound. tion ago to leave cities for suburban areas, and repeatedly express a greater • Colleges and universities have taken appetite for city living and living in steps to reduce the number of students walkable neighborhoods than older who drive to and from campus or who Americans. store vehicles on campus, by promot- ing carsharing, bicycling and other • Increasingly stringent driver licens- alternatives to private car use. As ing requirements and graduated college students make up a significant driver licensing systems raise the share of 18 to 24 year-olds, reduced cost and reduce the short-term reward vehicle use by students could translate of pursuing a driver’s license for into lower vehicle use in the short young people. A small but significant term and potentially a large increase number of young people without li- in the number of adults habituated to censes report that these requirements car-light lifestyles. have played a role in their decision to delay or forgo driving. The list of potential contributors to the recent decline in driving among young • Environmental awareness may play people is long, and there is, as yet, no a contributing role in some Millen- clear sense of which factors have been nials’ decisions to drive less, but it is the most important in contributing to likely not a decisive factor for many. the decline. We do not, however, need to know • The advent of new technologies— precisely how to attribute the recent de- particularly portable, Internet-con- cline in driving among Millennials before nected, location-aware devices such as taking action to factor those changes into smartphones—can contribute to re- transportation planning and policy. ductions in driving in several ways: by allowing people to do virtually what they once did in person, by making non-driving modes of transportation relatively more attractive than driving, Incorporating Lasting and by spawning new transportation Changes into Transportation services that substitute for driving or for vehicle ownership. Young people Planning are the most wirelessly connected Even if external conditions change in ways generation, report that they substitute that encourage driving, the transportation virtual connectivity for some trips, habits learned by Millennials may prove and are often the most likely to take difficult or slow to break. Habit is an part in new transportation services important—if infrequently studied—

34 Millennials in Motion shaper of transportation behaviors.143 Using Scenario Planning to Research in Great Britain suggests that commuting behaviors are fairly stable over Incorporate Uncertainty time, with changes in commuting mode While many of the changes that have con- mainly occurring with major “life stage” tributed to the reduction in youth driving events (such as moving house, changing are likely to be permanent, the long-term jobs, etc.).144 Other research validates that effects of other changes are more uncertain. these major life events (and, by extension, How will the economic recovery affect the change in ownership of vehicles, etc.) transportation and location decisions of the happens less frequently as people age, Millennials? Will Millennials’ preference particularly after the age of 30.145 Similar for walkable and urban neighborhoods research in France and Japan has found persist as they age and be carried over to significant impacts of life-stage events on future generations of young people? Will changes in mobility choices, though they new technology-enabled transportation are not the most important factor.146 tools such as ridesourcing and carsharing A study of transit use patterns in revolutionize mobility for millions or will Montreal found that rates of transit use they only serve small niche markets in tend to plateau in the early 30s, suggest- major cities? ing that increases in transit use among The answers to these questions are un- groups reaching that age are likely to certain. Transportation planners, however, persist over time. The same study also frequently fail to incorporate sources of suggested that drops in the percentage of uncertainty into the forecasts they use to people with driver’s licenses (particularly calculate and communicate the costs and men) caused by graduated driver licensing benefits of transportation investments to requirements imposed in the late 1990s the public, instead relying on outdated have resulted in prolonged declines in information and assumptions that do not the number of people in those cohorts reflect the post-Driving Boom world. licensed to drive in later years.147 Scenario planning tools enable local, In short, at least part of the recent state and federal decision-makers to make decline in driving among Millennials is decisions based on a series of “what-if” likely to be lasting, representing a “New questions. What if the declines in youth Normal” to which transportation policy driving that took place during the 2000s and planning should adapt. With the first were to be magically erased? Or what if members of the Millennial generation the changes we witnessed in youth driving now reaching their early 30s, it should behaviors during the 2000s were only the soon be possible to predict the degree beginning of a broader set of changes—un- to which the changes in driving habits leashed by new technology and changing exhibited by Millennials will persist over values—that lead to further reductions in time. Government officials—especially driving in the future? in areas with large populations of young The authors’ 2013 report, A New Direc- people—should begin to reshape their tion, evaluated a series of scenarios based transportation policies and investment on the durability of changes in driving strategies to reflect these changes. behaviors among youth and others dur- ing the 2000s—a “Back to the Future” scenario that saw driving behaviors revert to 2004 patterns, an “Enduring Shift”

Making Sense of Changing Driving Trends 35 scenario that reflected the continuation Transportation agencies should make of existing trends, and an “Ongoing use of those tools, and begin to prioritize Decline” scenario that assumed that the transportation investments that are viable changes in driving that took place during and valuable under a variety of scenarios the 2000s were merely harbingers of even of future driving. Massive highway ex- bigger changes ahead. The trajectories of pansion projects, with few exceptions, are these three scenarios—and their relation unlikely to fit that bill. Rather, strategies to historical trends in VMT during the that make more efficient use of existing “Driving Boom” era—are shown in Figure infrastructure—such as transportation 11, below. demand management—keep existing in- Transportation experts have developed frastructure in a state of good repair, and new, more sophisticated tools to help expand access to public transportation and enable states and metropolitan areas to other transportation options are likelier to evaluate the effects of multiple scenarios deliver a sound return on investment amid of economic and technological develop- an atmosphere of uncertainty about the ment on vehicle travel in their areas.149 future demand for driving.

Figure 11. Vehicle-Miles Traveled Under Three Scenarios of Future Growth148

36 Millennials in Motion Seizing the Opportunity from air pollution to deaths and injuries from crashes, and from traffic congestion to Reduce the Impacts to the crushing financial burden vehicle of Driving ownership imposes on many households Transportation experts and policy-makers without access to other transportation tend to view the implications of changing choices. With members of the Millen- driving trends within the “predict and pro- nial generation and others expressing the vide” framework of traditional transporta- desire to live in walkable communities tion planning. That is, it is assumed that with access to multiple transportation demand for transportation is determined options, the nation has an opportunity to by a series of independent factors and that make significant strides towards reducing the job of transportation planners is to congestion, improving transportation sys- supply the optimal amount of service or tem efficiency, and reducing the external capacity to meet that demand. impacts of driving—if only we can realign However, we know from decades of ex- public policy to support Americans in real- perience that transportation investments izing those desires. don’t just accommodate demand; they Cities across the country are already shape it. Numerous studies have docu- taking action to capitalize on the increased mented that highway expansion projects demand for transportation options among usually fail to deliver anticipated reductions Millennials—expanding bicycling infra- in congestion because they spur new devel- structure, adding late-night transit ser- opment on the urban fringe and encourage vice, providing access to and appropriate people to take trips they otherwise would regulation for carsharing and ridesourcing not have taken—an effect known as induced providers, and encouraging residential de- demand.150 The same principal applies to velopment in areas where Millennials and investments in transit, bicycling and walk- others increasingly want to live. State and ing infrastructure. federal officials should retool transporta- America’s reliance on cars is the source tion policies to encourage—rather than un- of numerous, major societal problems, from dermine—those moves toward an efficient fossil fuel dependence to global warming, and sustainable transportation system.

Making Sense of Changing Driving Trends 37 Notes

1 Jack Neff, “Is Digital Revolution Association, Millennials & Mobility: Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture?” Understanding the Millennial Mindset, Advertising Age, 31 May 2010. 2013.

2 In 2013, Millennials (born between 7 See note 3. 1983 and 2000) accounted for 77.4 mil- lion Americans. The gen- 8 U.S. Department of Transportation, eration (born between 1946 and 1964) Federal Highway Administration, accounted for 75.9 million Americans. National Household Travel Survey, 2001 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Es- and 2009 data, as cited in Benjamin timates of the Civilian Population by Single Davis and Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group, Year of Age and Sex for the United States and Phineas Baxandall, U.S. PIRG and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013, Education Fund, Transportation and accessed at www.census.gov, 23 Septem- the New Generation: Why Young People ber 2014. Are Driving Less and What it Means for Transportation Policy, April 2012. 3 Urban Land Institute, America in 2013: A ULI Survey on Housing, Transportation 9 U.S. Department of Transportation, and Community, 2013, Appendix A. Federal Highway Administration, Study refers to “Generation Y,” which is National Household Travel Survey, 2001 generally considered synonymous with and 2009 data, accessed via the data Millennials. extraction tool at www.nhts.ornl.gov/ det/, September 2014. 4 TransitCenter, Who’s on Board? 2014 Mobility Attitudes Survey, 2014. 10 See note 9.

5 See note 3. 11 Ibid.

6 American Public Transportation 12 Ibid.

38 Millennials in Motion 13 Tobias Kuhnimhof, et al., “Men only on migration from “primary” Shape a Downward Trend in Car Use or “central” cities to other portions Among Young Adults – Evidence from of metropolitan areas and to non- Six Industrialized Countries,” Transport metropolitan areas. “Primary city” and Reviews, 2012, DOI:10.1080/01441647.20 “suburb” in this context have limited 12.736426. usefulness as proxy measures for the degree of , since some 14 See note 9. primary cities contain large areas that are suburban in form, while some suburban 15 Michael Sivak and Brandon areas are quite urban. However, because Schoettle, “Update: Percentage of the boundaries of primary cities and Young Persons with a Driver’s License metropolitan areas tend to be relatively Continues to Drop,” Traffic Injury stable over time, the CPS internal Prevention, 13(4):341, 2012. migration data allow for more consistent long-term time series comparisons of 16 Brian C. Tefft, Allan F. Williams and trends than other data sets. Jurek G. Grabowski, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Timing of Driver’s 22 U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic License Acquisition and Reasons for Delay Mobility: Detailed Tables, Table 23 (1998- among Young People in the United States, 2003), Table 16 (2006-2013), downloaded 2012, August 2013. from www.census.gov/hhes/migration/ data/cps.html, 4 September 2014. 17 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 23 U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Statistics 2012, Table DL-20, Federal Highway Administration, January 2014. Highway Statistics series of reports.

18 U.S. Census Bureau, American 24 Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group, Community Survey, Table C08101: Means and Phineas Baxandall, U.S. PIRG of Transportation to Work by Age, 1-year Education Fund, A New Direction: Our data for 2006, 2009 and 2013, accessed at Changing Relationship with Driving and the www.factfinder2.census.gov, September Implications for America’s Future, Spring 2014. 2013.

19 See note 9. 25 See note 23.

20 U.S. Department of Transportation, 26 Benjamin Davis, Frontier Group, and Federal Highway Administration, 2000- Phineas Baxandall, U.S. PIRG Education 2010 Changes in Transit, Walk and Bike Fund, Transportation in Transition: A Look Commute Shares: Top 30 Places with Highest at Changing Travel Patterns in America’s Bike Share Increases between the Year of Biggest Cities, December 2013. 2000 and 2006-10, accessed at www.fhwa. dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/ 27 See note 23. data_products/2000-2010_commute_ changes/placebike.cfm, 4 September 28 Ibid. 2014. 29 Metro (Oregon), Transportation 21 The U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Research & Modeling Services, Summary Population Survey (CPS) provides data of 2011 Travel Activity Survey Results, n.d.

Notes 39 30 Metropolitan Council, Travel time since at least 1976. See Rich Miller, Behavior: The 2010 MSP Region Travel “Single Americans Now Compose Behavior Inventory (TBI) Report Home More than Half the U.S. Population,” Interview Survey: A Summary of Resident Bloomberg News, 9 September 2014. Travel in the Twin Cities Region, October 2013. 40 Jordan Rappaport, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, “The Demographic 31 American Public Transportation Shift From Single-Family to Multifamily Association, 2014 Public Transportation Housing,” Economic Review, Fourth Fact Book, Appendix A, May 2014; U.S. Quarter 2013. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway 41 Ibid. Statistics 2012, table VM-202, October 2013. 42 U.S. Census Bureau, New Residential Construction: Started (Excel workbook), 32 U.S. Census Bureau, American downloaded from www.census.gov/ Community Survey, Table B08301: Means construction/nrc/historical_data/, 4 of Transportation to Work, 1-year data, September 2014. Figures based on six- accessed at www.factfinder2.census.gov, month rolling average of net privately September 2014. owned housing units started, seasonally adjusted. 33 See note 29. 43 United States Environmental 34 California Department of Protection Agency, Residential Transportation, Comprehensive Travel Construction Trends in America’s Survey Shows More Californians Are Metropolitan Regions: 2012 Edition, Walking, Biking and Riding Transit December 2012. (press release), downloaded from www. dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/ 44 Paul R. Levy and Lauren M. 14pr021.htm, 2 July 2014. Gilchrist, International Downtown Association, Downtown Rebirth: 35 See note 30. Documenting the Live-Work Dynamic in 21st Century U.S. Cities, u.d. 36 William H. Frey, Brookings Institution, Demographic Reversal: Cities 45 Richey Piiparinen, Urban Institute, Thrive, Suburbs Sputter, 29 June 2012. Metro Trends: Not Dead Yet: The Infill of Cleveland’s Urban Core, 2012. 37 William H. Frey, Brookings Institution, Will this Be the Decade of Big 46 In 2012, the unemployment rate was City Growth?, 23 May 2014. 15.1 percent for 18 to 24-year-olds and 8.3 percent for 25 to 34-year-olds – com- 38 Steven G. Wilson, et al., U.S. Census pared with a national unemployment rate Bureau, Patterns of Metropolitan and of 7.8 percent. Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010, September 2012. 47 Catherine Ruetschlin and Tamara Draut, Stuck: Young America’s Persistent 39 In 2014, for example, the number of Jobs Crisis, April 2013. single American adults surpassed the number of married adults for the first 48 Melissa Burden, Karl Henkel and

40 Millennials in Motion David Shepardson, “GM Economist 56 See note 4. Debunks Talk that the Younger Set Doesn’t Like Cars,” Detroit News, 7 57 Highway Loss Data Institute, August 2013. “Evaluation of Changes in Teenage Driver Exposure,” HLDI Bulletin, 30(17), 49 The civilian noninstitutional September 2013. unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year-olds dropped from 18.1 percent in July 2011 58 Vehicle-miles traveled: (1956-2012) to 14.3 percent in July 2014, per U.S. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Federal Highway Administration, High- and Unemployment Among Youth – way Statistics series of reports, available Summer 2014, Table 2, 13 August 2014. at www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinforma- tion/statistics.cfm, (2013) U.S. Depart- 50 Richard Fry and Jeffrey S. Passel, ment of Transportation, Traffic Volume Pew Research Center, In Post-Recession Trends, December 2013, accessed at www. Era, Young Adults Drive Continuing Rise in fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/trav- Multi-Generational Living, 17 July 2014. el_monitoring/13dectvt/index.cfm, 10 September 2014; Gross domestic prod- 51 See Phineas Baxandall, U.S. PIRG uct: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Education Fund, Moving Off the Road: Current-Dollar and “Real” Gross Domestic A State-by-State Analysis of the National Product (Excel spreadsheet), 28 August Decline in Driving, August 2013; 2014. Benjamin Davis, Frontier Group, and Phineas Baxandall, U.S. PIRG Education 59 Ibid. Fund, Transportation in Transition: A Look at Changing Travel Patterns in America’s 60 Tobias Kuhnimhoff, et al., “Case Biggest Cities, December 2013. Study of Germany – Socioeconomic Changes, New Trends in Travel Among 52 Robert Puentes and Adie Tomer, Men, and Increasing Multimodality” and Brookings Institution, The Road … Less Scott Le Vine, John Polak and Tobias Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Kuhnimhoff, “Case Study of Great Traveled Trends in the U.S., 16 December Britain – Socioeconomic Changes, and 2008. Variations in Driving Trends by Income and Location,” in Institute for Mobil- 53 Evelyn Blumenberg, et al., University ity Research, “Mobility Y”: The Emerging of California, Los Angeles, What’s Travel Patterns of Generation Y, 2013. Youth Got to Do with It? Exploring the Travel Behavior of Teens and Young Adults, 61 Peter Jorritsma and Jaco Berveling, September 2012. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (The Netherlands), Not 54 Ibid. Carless but Car-later, 10 June 2014.

55 Michael Grimsrud and Ahmed El- 62 Timothy Dunne, Federal Reserve Geneidy, “Driving Transit Retention Bank of Cleveland, Household Formation to Renaissance: Trends in Montreal and the Great Recession, 23 August 2012. Commute Public Transport Mode Share and Factors by Age Group and Birth 63 U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Cohort,” Public Transport: Planning and Living Arrangements: Marital Status, Operations, 5(3): 119-241, 2013. Table MS-2, downloaded from

Notes 41 www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/ Young Adults in the Parental Home, 1940- marital.html, 4 September 2014. 2010, 2012; also Richard A. Settersten, Jr., “Everyone’s Freaking Out about 64 D’Vera Cohn, et al., Pew Research Millennials Living at Home. They Center, Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Shouldn’t,” Washington Post PostEverything Married – A Record Low, 14 December blog, 22 July 2014, accessed at www. 20111, accessed at www.pewsocialtrends. washingtonpost.com/posteverything/ org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults- wp/2014/07/22/what-we-get-wrong-about- are-married-a-record-low. millennials-living-at-home/.

65 Rich Miller, “Is Everybody Single? 72 Jed Kolko, “More Millennials Leave More than Half the U.S. Now, Up Parental Nest, Without Lifting Housing from 37% in ’76,” Bloomberg News, 9 Market,” Huffington Post, 19 September September 2014. 2014.

66 Data for 1970 and 2012: Joyce A. 73 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Martin, et al., U.S. Department of Information Administration, U.S. All Health and Human Services, “Births: Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Prices, accessed at www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/ Statistics Reports, 62(9), December 2013; hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_ data for 2006: T.J. Mathews and Brady epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m, 4 September E. Hamilton, U.S. Department of 2014, adjusted for inflation using BLS Health and Human Services, “Delayed Inflation Calculator, www.bls.gov/data/ Childbearing: More Women Are Having inflation_calculator.htm Their First Child Later in Life,” NCHS Data Brief, 21, August 2009. 74 Ibid.

67 Institute of Education Sciences, 75 Gasoline prices are projected to National Center for Education Statistics, remain at or above $3 per gallon (in Fast Facts: Enrollment, accessed at www. constant 2012 dollars) through 2040, nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98, 4 per U.S. Department of Energy, Energy September 2014. Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2014, May 2014. 68 College Board, Average Debt Levels of Public Sector Bachelor’s Degree 76 Historical prices: U.S. Department Recipients Over Time, accessed at trends. of Energy, Energy Information collegeboard.org/student-aid/figures- Administration, U.S. All Grades All tables/average-debt-levels-public-sector- Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices, bachelors-degree-recipients-over-time, accessed at www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/ 23 September 2014. LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_ epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m, 4 September 69 Ibid. 2014; projected prices: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 70 See David Dayen, “Yes, Millennials Administration, Annual Energy Outlook Actually Are Living in Their Parents’ 2014, May 2014. Basements,” , 9 July 2014, 77 See, for example, Todd Litman, 71 Krista K. Payne, National Center Federal Ministry for Economic for Family and Marriage Research, Cooperation and Development

42 Millennials in Motion (Germany), Transport Elasticities: Impacts Community Preference Survey, October on Travel Behavior, n.d. 2013.

78 Zipcar, Millennials & the “New 91 See note 80. American Dream,” (Powerpoint), January 2014. 92 Institute for Mobility Research, “Mobility Y”: The Emerging Travel Patterns 79 See note 16. of Generation Y, 2013.

80 Global Strategy Group, Rockefeller 93 Pew Research Center for People Millennials Survey, 2014. and the Press, Political Polarization in the American Public, Table 3.2 Ideal Commu- 81 Craig A. Griffi, et al., “The nity Type, 12 June 2014. Changing Nature of Mobility,” Deloitte Review 15, 28 July 2014, accessed at 94 See note 4. dupress.com/articles/automotive-trends- gen-y/?ind=70. 95 See note 3.

82 Ibid. 96 M. Leanne Lachman and Deborah L. Brett, Urban Land Institute, Genera- 83 Ibid. tion Y: Shopping and Entertainment in the Digital Age, 2013. 84 See note 78. 97 American Planning Association, 85 Brandon Schoettle and Michael Investing in Place: Two Generations’ View Sivak, on the Future of Communities: Millennials, Transportation Research Institute, The Boomers, and New Directions for Planning Reasons for the Recent Decline in Young and Economic Development, 2014. Driver Licensing in the U.S. (UMTRI- 2013-22), August 2013, 4. 98 Ibid.

86 National Association of Realtors, 99 See note 81. National Community Preference Survey (slide show), October 2013. 100 See note 80.

87 Dave Fish, Maritz Research, 101 See note 3. Automotive Apathy: Have Youth Fallen Out of Love with Cars?, 24 January 2014. 102 See note 93.

88 Alexa Delbosc and Graham Currie, 103 See note 78. “Using Online Discussion Forums to Study Attitudes toward Cars and Transit 104 See note 6. Among Young People in Victoria,” Transport Policy 31: 27-34, January 2014. 105 Ibid.

89 See note 80. 106 See note 4.

90 American Strategies and National 107 Alexa Delbosc and Graham Currie, Association of Realtors, National “Exploring Attitudes of Young Adults

Notes 43 toward Cars and Driver Licensing,” 118 Sustainable Endowments Institute, Australasian Transport Research Forum College Sustainability Report Card 2011, 2013 Proceedings, October 2013. accessed at www.greenreportcard.org/re- port-card-2011/categories/transportation. 108 Scott Le Vine, et al., Is Heightened html, 10 September 2014. Environmental-Sensitivity Responsible for the Drop in Young Adults’ Driving-License- 119 1997: Bergen C. Watterson, Mas- Acquisition Rates?, presented at 93rd ter’s Thesis at The University of North Annual Meeting of the Transportation Carolina at Chapel Hill, Transportation Research Board, January 2014. Demand Management on UNC’s Campus: Evaluation, Best Practices and Recommen- 109 Governors Highway Safety dations for Reducing Single-OccupancyVe- Association, Graduated Driver Licensing hicle Use, 2011, 15-16; 2011: Sustainable (GDL) Laws, downloaded from www. Endowments Institute, College Sustain- ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/license_ ability Report Card 2011, accessed at laws.html, August 2014. www.greenreportcard.org/report-card- 2011/categories/transportation.html, 10 110 See note 16. September 2014.

111 Ibid. 120 Sustainable Endowments Institute, College Sustainability Report Card 2011, 112 See note 85. accessed at www.greenreportcard. org/report-card-2011/categories/ 113 See note 57. transportation.html, 10 September 2014. 114 Evelyn Blumenberg, et al., The Times, Are They A-Changin’? Youth, Travel 121 Enterprise: Enterprise CarShare, Mode, and the Journey to Work, presented Find Car Share Near You, downloaded at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the from www.enterprisecarshare.com, 14 Transportation Research Board, January October 2013; Zipcar: Zipcar, Zipcar 2013. Now Offers Campus Car Sharing With More Than 300 North American Colleges 115 See note 107. and Universities (press release), 9 October 2012. 116 Gordon Stokes, Has Car Use per Person Peaked? Age, Gender and Car 122 See Tom Van Heeke and Elise Use, accessed at www.gordonstokes. Sullivan, Frontier Group, and Phineas co.uk/transport/peak_car_2012.pdf, 10 Baxandall, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, September 2014. A New Course: How Innovative University Programs Are Reducing Driving on 117 Jonathan Vespa, Jamie M. Lewis Campus and Creating New Models for and Rose M. Kreider, U.S. Census Transportation, February 2014. Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements 2012, August 2013; 123 League of American Bicyclists, Institute of Education Sciences, National Where We Ride: Analysis of Bicycling in Center for Education Statistics, Fast American Cities, undated, accessed at Facts: Enrollment, accessed at www.nces. www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/ ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98, 4 ACS_report_forweb.pdf, 10 September September 2014. 2014.

44 Millennials in Motion 124 See Tony Dutzik, “The Bike Bowl: Ridesourcing Trips and User Characteristics College Towns Surge Ahead in Bike in San Francisco, University of California Commuting,” Streetsblog, 4 January 2013. Transportation Center, August 2014.

125 Scott Le Vine, Charilaos 132 Darren Buck, et al., “Are Bikeshare Latinopolous and John Polak, What Is Users Different from Regular Cyclists? the Relationship Between Online Activity A First Look at Short-Term Users, and Driver’s-License-Holding Amongst Annual Members, and Area Cyclists Young Adults?, 93rd Annual Meeting of the in the Washington, D.C. Region,” Transportation Research Board, January Transportation Research Record: Journal 2014. of the Transportation Research Board, 2387:112-119, 2013. 126 Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle, Recent Changes in Age 133 Elliott Martin, Susan A. Shaheen Composition of Drivers in 15 Countries, and Jeffrey Lidicker, Carsharing’s Impact October 2011. on Household Vehicle Holdings: Results from a North American Shared-Use Vehicle 127 See note 53. Survey, 15 March 2010.

128 See Susan Handy, Gil Tal and 134 See note 78. Marlon G. Boarnet, Policy Brief on the Impacts of Telecommuting Based on a Review 135 See note 80. of the Empirical Literature, prepared for the California Air Resources Board, 3 136 See Tony Dutzik and Travis December 2013; Sangho Choo, Patricia Madsen, Frontier Group and Phineas L. Mokhtarian and Ilan Salomon, Does Baxandall, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Telecommuting Reduce Vehicle-Miles A New Way to Go: The Transportation Apps Traveled? An Aggregate Time Series and Vehicle-Sharing Tools that Are Giving Analysis for the U.S., presented at the 2003 More Americans the Freedom to Drive Less, Annual Meeting of the Transportation Fall 2013. Research Board, 1 August 2002. 137 See note 6. 129 See note 78. 138 Ibid. 130 See, for example, Elliott Martin, Susan A. Shaheen and Jeffrey Lidicker, 139 Joseph Schwieterman and Alyssa Carsharing’s Impact on Household Vehicle Battaglia, Chaddick Institute of Holdings: Results from a North American Metropolitan Development, DePaul Shared-Use Vehicle Survey, 15 March University, The Digitally Connected 2010; Robert Cervero, Aaron Golub Traveler: Measuring the Growing the Use of and Brendan Nee, San Francisco City Electronic Devices on Intercity Buses, Planes, CarShare: Longer-Term Travel-Demand & Trains 2010-2013, 31 July 2013. and Car-Ownership Impacts, 2006; Susan A. Shaheen, et al., Public Bikesharing in 140 Ibid. North America: Early Operator and User Understanding, June 2012. 141 ABI Research, Mobile’s Role in a Consumer’s Media Day: Smartphones 131 Lisa Rayle, et al., App-Based, On- and Tablets Enable Seamless Digital Lives Demand Ride Services: Comparing Taxi and (Powerpoint), July 2012.

Notes 45 142 See note 4. 147 See note 55.

143 De Witte, et al., “Linking Modal 148 See note 24. Choice to Motility: A Comprehensive Review” Transportation Research Part A, 149 Johanna Zmud, et al., NCHRP 49, 329-341, 2013. Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 6: The Effects 144 Joyce M. Dargay, The Journey to of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Work: An Analysis of Mode Choice Based on Demand, Transportation Research Board, Panel Data, 2005. 2014.

145 Sigrun Beige, Long-Term and Mid- 150 For a survey of the literature on Term Mobility Decisions During the Life induced demand, see Todd Litman, Course, 2008. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Generated Traffic and Induced Travel: 146 Toshiyuki Yamomoto, “The Impact Implications for Transport Planning, 24 of Life-Course Events on Vehicle April 2014. Ownership Dynamics,” IATSS Research 32(2): 34-43, 2008.

46 Millennials in Motion