archanfel
Active Member
Sorry, you are right. I thought he meant driving to work.
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
Sorry, you are right. I thought he meant driving to work.
nfitz
Superstar
That wouldn't be very cost-effective ... not on a daily basis. And I doubt most employers would pay for that, unless one's workplace changed every day.
archanfel
Active Member
It must be somewhat cost effective, otherwise why do the vast majority of Torotonians do it? I think that's what we need to figure out. Why do people drive? How can we get them onto public transit? If we can't, how can we move them faster? "We can't build a city for them" is not the answer.
nfitz
Superstar
I'm not aware of anyone using it for daily commuting. The minimum daily charge is $65.70 (which is cheaper if you take it for more than 8 hours). If you work 230 days a year, that's over $15,000.
Car sharing is for occasional and/or short/term use. At that point, car ownership is cheaper.
Personally, our car usage exceeds what makes sense for car sharing; however the second car was very infrequently used. So first car is owned, and now when we need a second car, it's from AutoShare ... and hopefully for a work-trip I can claim.
archanfel
Active Member
Darn, sorry again. I thought you meant driving. No, zipcar wouldn't be cost effective. What I meant to say is the majority of people in Toronto use cars for daily commuting. We need to figure out why these people are not using public transit and see whether we can get more people to use public transit.
Chuck
Senior Member
I always take the subway to work as the cost of commuting by Zipcar would be astronomical. It's only when I'm already at work that I use car sharing to go places. Neither the car sharing costs nor the metropass are taxable benefits as the former is a cost specifically associated with my job, while the latter is owned by the company but loaned exclusively to me for the entire month, and also used on occasion for downtown meetings.
From the company's perspective, their costs are typically lower for employees doing the Zipcar/metropass option as compared to the parking pass/mileage option.
From the company's perspective, their costs are typically lower for employees doing the Zipcar/metropass option as compared to the parking pass/mileage option.
SlickFranky
Active Member
We already know why people choose to drive. Primary reasons include travel time, comfort, and convenience.
In the core trips are shorter, primarily on rails, and service is frequent and always nearby. TTC competes very well with cars in the core, and the ridership figures reflect that.
In the inner and outer suburbs trips are much longer, primarily served by buses, routes are widely spaced, stops are widely spaced, and service is generally less frequent. TTC generally fails to compete with cars here, and the ridership numbers reflect that.
The problems are endemic to the build-form of the area. It was built around cars, for cars. TTC is shoehorned in, and the fact that it works at all is borderline amazing.
drone
Active Member
moot point at best. how many muggings/assaults occur on ttc?
drone
Active Member
my father,who was an avid stock car racer/mechanic always said a good driver rarely needs their brakes but to stop at a red light/stop sign! hahaha..you brought back some nice memories.
also,lane changin,I know it seems trivial,but, changin lanes often slows down the flow. I get annoyed when I'm heading north on the dvp and someone from the far left lane cuts over 3 or 4 lanes to head on to the 401 east? or drivers that merge from a parking lot onto a city street expecting to cut across 3 lanes to make a left
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I find that my drive up and down the DVP is much more relaxed now that I sit in the right hand lane. Unlike almost every other expressway in the GTA, the right lane on the GTA never vanishes into an exit or merge lane. Add in a book on CD and a thermos cup of tea, and I'm set.
Action Jackson
New Member
Sticking to the point of the thread, I have to imagine their is ways of making it so that traffic flows more easily in the downtown core. Yes, driver habits and more mass transit help, but I am sure there is ways of physically it easier. I'm just tossing into the wind here, but I'm thinking about it.
One idea I have in mind is making some places where roads pass above or underneath each other, like in Los Angeles, allowing traffic to move more easily on the roads. For example, Adelaide could drop down into a trench just before Church Street and stay low under Church, Yonge, Bay and York, before rising back to street level just before University Avenue. Doing this on streets with streetcar lines is more of a hassle, as it would require the streetcar lines to be elevated above the roads. FYI, the sidewalks here would be unaffected, as they aren't going below ground level, thus businesses don't have to change anything to their storefronts. Could be an issue with parking garage exits, but that can be worked out I would imagine.
In some places, scramble-type crossings might work, too, or maybe even pedestrian bridges over the busiest of roadways, allowing for less congestion caused by pedestrian crossings.
One other idea might be to find a spot on the edge of the core and build a massive parking garage, an enclosed, climate controlled one with security, allowing people to park there for a pittance, and connect it into the PATH system. Thus, those who choose to walk a few blocks save a bunch on parking (not to mention less risk of their car getting stolen than many open lots) and reduce congestion in the core.
Rossi's Tunnel idea should be studied. I'm not sure I support that idea fully, but if it can be done to reduce traffic congestion it should at least be considered. Cost and local concerns should be fully involved, too. Junk the idea of tearing down the Gardiner - yeah, it's an ugly SOB, but we can change that easily enough, and tossing that many cars onto surface streets would make a bad problem worse. An idea there might actually be expanding it, adding two lanes in each direction above the current surface (or better, underground below Lakeshore, but that would be expensive to build) for express traffic, with a express-collector shift every four exits or so. I am aware that would be a challenge to build, but I'm just kicking ideas out here.
Yeah, more Mass Transit would be good. (I've already explained my views on Transit City.) but its not gonna solve everything, and for suburban dwellers like me it doesn't do a whole lot of good. Planning a city's transport system cannot be done entirely based on transit users or car drivers. You need to think about both, think about all forms of transport in the city.
One idea I have in mind is making some places where roads pass above or underneath each other, like in Los Angeles, allowing traffic to move more easily on the roads. For example, Adelaide could drop down into a trench just before Church Street and stay low under Church, Yonge, Bay and York, before rising back to street level just before University Avenue. Doing this on streets with streetcar lines is more of a hassle, as it would require the streetcar lines to be elevated above the roads. FYI, the sidewalks here would be unaffected, as they aren't going below ground level, thus businesses don't have to change anything to their storefronts. Could be an issue with parking garage exits, but that can be worked out I would imagine.
In some places, scramble-type crossings might work, too, or maybe even pedestrian bridges over the busiest of roadways, allowing for less congestion caused by pedestrian crossings.
One other idea might be to find a spot on the edge of the core and build a massive parking garage, an enclosed, climate controlled one with security, allowing people to park there for a pittance, and connect it into the PATH system. Thus, those who choose to walk a few blocks save a bunch on parking (not to mention less risk of their car getting stolen than many open lots) and reduce congestion in the core.
Rossi's Tunnel idea should be studied. I'm not sure I support that idea fully, but if it can be done to reduce traffic congestion it should at least be considered. Cost and local concerns should be fully involved, too. Junk the idea of tearing down the Gardiner - yeah, it's an ugly SOB, but we can change that easily enough, and tossing that many cars onto surface streets would make a bad problem worse. An idea there might actually be expanding it, adding two lanes in each direction above the current surface (or better, underground below Lakeshore, but that would be expensive to build) for express traffic, with a express-collector shift every four exits or so. I am aware that would be a challenge to build, but I'm just kicking ideas out here.
Yeah, more Mass Transit would be good. (I've already explained my views on Transit City.) but its not gonna solve everything, and for suburban dwellers like me it doesn't do a whole lot of good. Planning a city's transport system cannot be done entirely based on transit users or car drivers. You need to think about both, think about all forms of transport in the city.
Asterix
Active Member
How would cars access Church, Yonge, Bay or York from Adelaide if they are down in a trench? Would you also find room for access/egress ramps?
Are you also aware that there is not just unused dirt sitting below Adelaide but things like the Yonge/University subway line or the Path system? I'm sure users of those would not be too keen on have a trenched road cut right through their route.
How massive is 'massive'? How many cars do you plan to be able to stash there? What percentage of the additional cars you want to deliver to downtown will be able to park there? How far would people be willing to walk from your massive garage after parking or would they rather have something within a couple blocks of their destination? Where, specifically, do you see enough available space for your 'massive' garage? Who is going to pay for this deluxe garage given that private money seems to prefer to build condos? Will this be a city funded gravy-train providing luxury parking (given you only plan on charging a 'pittance')?
How will it reduce traffic congestion? The whole point is to be able to dump more cars into the downtown core. Where do you think they will then go given congestion is already a major problem there? Will they all go to some 'massive' parking garage? We're back to wondering how massive 'massive' is.
In your kicking of ideas, did you look at whether there is any space on either side of the existing Gardiner to add any lanes, let alone a total of two in each direction? I'm sure all the owners of all the buildings that will need to be demolished would appreciate some consideration.
So it would really help if people would actually think about these things before kicking ideas out in to public. It really doesn't help the debate when such elemental, obvious flaws are overlooked.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
Jackson, as someone from Oshawa wouldn't increased and improved GO service be appealing to you for commuting?
Electrify
Senior Member
In fairness, the Metropass has always been outrageously overpriced compared to tokens, even when the province helped with the operating costs.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
About 50% of the daily users of the TTC have a Metropass. The reason: more use the TTC during the non-rush hour than most other North American transit agencies, except for New York City. However, the high farebox recovery ratio has to be used because of no operating subsidy from the province nor from the federal government, which NYC gets from their higher up governments.