News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

major failure on this thread.


Most people who are using the 401 are going across the GTA, or going across Toronto.


Everyone is not heading to Downtown Toronto.
 
I think Mangasparky already addressed these points when he said that not everyone works in the core. I think the majority of downtown-bound commuters take alternative transit but, of course, this doesn't really matter when the proportion of GTA residents who work downtown is relatively small and on the decline, to boot.

Also, Bloor, Yonge and the Danforth are not the roads by which car commuters would generally enter the core anyway.

True, transit is not faster everywhere. It can't be. As I mentioned before, it shouldn't be about giving up your car for transit or vice-versa, but reducing car dependence. Creating walkable neighbourhoods, and using transit to get through and between these neighbourhoods. Obviously the world does not center around these neighbourhoods, and this is where cars come in. Look at Germany: They have arguably some of the most efficient local, regional, and inter-city transit in the world. They also have a thriving auto industry, and world's only highway with no speed limit. Different modes suit different commutes.
 
^^ I'd say that in the ideal world, places like Germany would still have significantly lower auto usage and ownership. People need to take a step back and realize that most of them don't need a car to go about their daily business. It just takes a change in direction of how cities, towns and the countryside are built out, and collective willpower.
 
I would say that 100% of people that own and don't NEED a car, just flat out WANT a car. What is wrong with wanting and having something? Nobody needs to take a step back, both cars and other forms of transportation can be supported.
 
Last edited:
There's just no way that public transit can get me to work faster than my car. I leave my house in Cabbagetown at 7:50am, and I'm at my desk at Markham Rd. and 14th Ave. in Markham before 8:30am. I bought the car second hand in 2004, and it's reliable, and gas is still cheap at about a buck. Public transit doesn't stand a chance against cars, especially for anyone that reverse commutes.

Your blessed with a commute that isn't that bad traffic wise, and you live and work both near an expressway. And don't have any great transit alternatives.

But at the same time, I find that DVP northbound in AM rushour is getting slower over the years. And southbound can be quite frustrating, especially from Finch to York Mills.

Personally a 40-minute commute is beyond my limit ... unless it's on a rural expressway. That's over 30 km to drive (65 km a day). I really start to lose it after a 13-km 25-minute commute. (which I can do in 15-minutes at midnight ... but 30 minutes on a rainy day in rush-hour) over many of the same roads you drive.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article from Streetsblog:

Our Mobile Money Pits: The True Cost of Cars

Rowena learned about the true cost of cars the hard way. Raised by her mom, a Filipina immigrant, in a happy if carless home in northern California, Rowena marveled upon graduating from college and getting a steady job that she could afford to lease her very own car. For a small down payment and $199 a month, she was in a beautiful new Honda.

Three years later, lease up, the dealer convinced her to buy a somewhat nicer car, one with “just $299†in monthly payments. When the car was repossessed a year later because she couldn’t make the payments, she figured she had handed her dealer and loan company over $15,000. Sitting down to do the math, she estimated that insurance, gas, parking, tickets, tolls, taxes, and fees had vacuumed an additional $12,000 out of her accounts.

So four years and $27,000 later, Rowena had no vehicle, no savings, and a credit rating in ruins.

Like most Americans, Rowena had no idea of the true total and ongoing financial cost of car ownership, and, like most Americans, she found her dealer in no rush to warn her about them. While rent or mortgage remains the largest budget item for the average household, transportation now comes in a close second, and in some zip codes it even exceeds housing.

Transportation swallows one out of every five dollars earned by the average American family, double the bite it took in 1960. This increase alone could account for much of the plummet, over that fifty-year period, in the household savings rate, which by the aughts had skidded close to zero.

We know how things got this bad. Back in 1960, developers had not yet fully sprawled out our housing stock; government had not yet spent billions on road building, letting transit atrophy; automakers had not yet piled on horsepower, luxury, and cargo space; lenders had not yet become so likely to set unsustainable and predatory car credit terms; and drivers had yet to consider short trips unwalkable and bus trips social suicide.

By 2009, the average purchase price of a new vehicle was over $27,000. But the true cost to families can easily total $45,000 for a midsize SUV like the Toyota Highlander, over just five years of ownership. The Department of Energy reports that the typical American household drove its average two cars a total of 20,000 miles last year. Assuming each vehicle is a mid-size sedan, that’s $14,600 a year, using AAA’s 2010 driving cost estimate of 73 cents per mile. Some families with two older, smaller cars or who drive fewer miles, say, will pay less; some families, with late model cars or trucks or an extra car, will pay a lot more. In a lifetime of car ownership, an American family will likely “invest†almost $1 million in its vehicles.

And these numbers don’t even count yet more hidden costs like the mortgage on our garages or the property taxes levied on them. More significantly, they exclude the goodly portion of our other tax bills that go to road-building, oil and car company subsidies and bailouts, local police and rescue services for dealing with traffic and crashes, the costs of road congestion passed on in the price of goods and services, or the oil-protection services of the U.S. military in the Middle East and elsewhere.

If the costs of cars for middle-class families have become largely unsustainable, those costs are immediately and profoundly crushing for working and poor families. That a car-dependent society makes such families poorer is well established, but this reality rubs against the conventional wisdom that owning a car creates opportunity. This mistaken belief is not without logical basis: the poor and carless can face extreme difficulty in getting and keeping employment because it is challenging simply to get to available jobs. A variety of governmental agencies and NGOs across the country work to help get the poor into cars for just this reason and with this assistance, some have achieved needed mobility.

Sadly, this well-intentioned approach is both scattershot and short-sighted. Cars chomp a disproportionate bite out of the smaller budgets of struggling families, who can be one fender bender or unpaid parking ticket away from losing their wheels. But this isn’t the only way those who are poor or working class lose out when they enter the car system. The car system redistributes wealth upward, playing a significant role in the creation of inequality in America.

How exactly? Cars are an expensive and depreciating asset for which there remains pervasive discrimination in new and used vehicle pricing, financing, and insurance. In other words, someone with low income or living in a poor or minority neighborhood will likely pay more to own and operate the same car than someone holding a higher-paying job or living in the next town over.

A used car lot in a poor Providence, RI neighborhood, for instance, advertised a 6-year-old Hyundai for $9,000 while the actual Blue Book value, more likely to be paid by middle class car buyers, was $2,880. Car insurance also comes with a higher price tag: Car owners living in some low income areas of Los Angeles can be charged as much as $3,500 per year for insurance, and a survey of three large insurers in 2005 found that drivers with clean driving records in some African American communities paid nearly $1,000 more per year than did drivers with similar records living in predominantly white zip codes.

At the same time, some of the richest Americans continue to get richer off the nation’s automobile dependence. Oil and car companies have long made up the majority of the top 10 firms in the Fortune 500, and for years, windfall oil and banking profits have been reaped from the gasoline-buying and loan-taking public. Even as they have been laying off workers and taking federal handouts, car companies have rewarded top executives and major shareholders: GM’s just-resigned Ed Whitacre made $9 million last year while Ford’s Alan Mulally pulled in just under $18 million. The CEO of one dealer chain, Auto Nation, took home almost $7 million in 2009.

While a fortunate handful make a fine living off of the current system, Americans residing on the bottom half of the national income distribution graph can’t live with the car and they can’t live without it. We’ll return to what car dependence looks like day-to-day from the working and poor neighborhoods of America in a future post. The bottom line here, though, is that we all need to understand the true cost of car ownership if the public and our elected officials are to be convinced to support initiatives that provide equitable mobility and freedom from the ever-weightier shackles of car dependence.

The comments are interesting as well in the link.
 
Stephen Rees's blog are has a similar article, available at this link, as well:

David Suzuki: Our obsession with private automobiles is unsustainable

In this opinion piece, the sainted Suzuki is really guilty of lazy thinking. It is much too easy to blame the victim – and concentrate on the vehicles and the people who use them rather than point fingers at the truly guilty parties.

The automobile industry would never have been successful if it had relied on its own efforts. As Henry Ford recognized, though he built cars, someone else would have to build the roads for them to run on – and that meant government, or taxpayers of you prefer. Not only is the automobile industry heavily subsidized – and that was before the recent bail out – but government policies have been heavily oriented to car dependant development. The oil that cars need is also heavily subsidized. But both those subsidies get much less attention than the relatively small amounts spent on public transportation – a constant howl is kept up (including the first comment on the Straight web page) about the “scam†of Translink.

Let us assume Suzuki intends to address his remarks to Greater Vancouver, since that is where the Straight is aimed at. How come there is no mention at all of the current governments obsession with road building? Why no dissection of the intimate relationship between developers, car dealers and the BC Liberals? Why nothing at all about the way cars have been sold – and how car dependency has been built in to our communities?

The word “addiction†is overused – and is misleading. Of course it suits car makers and oil drillers that we continue to use their products. But people are – and will – change modes, when they find that they can. They may not give up car ownership quite so quickly, given the way that cars are kept on standby for most of their lives. But the people who moved into the new developments near rapid transit, or close to the variety of attractive destinations in downtown have shown that there is more than one successful way to develop land. We do not all have to reside in single family homes on their own lots. Indeed, few of those actually are “single family†any longer. Provide a high quality, frequent transit service and people will use it – and their feet and their bikes when it is safe and attractive to do so.

It is easy to blame cars – and to point out how long and hard the path to more sustainable cars is going to be. It is much harder to tackle what needs to change in our communities to make a lass car oriented life style not just possible but attractive. For a current instance, look at the opposition Mayor Robertson is dealing with over one high-rise in the West End. According to the Province’s Michael Smyth that’s because of fears of “traffic gridlock, parking chaos†and so on. Nonsense of course. Gridlock is a temporary phenomenon but a useful sound bite. And the parking “chaos†usually translates quickly onto higher charges.

And as we learned from “Carjacked†we might like our cars as objects but we are sick of the frustrations of actually trying to use them. We have to be persuaded by billions on dollars on the fantasy that we will not have to share the road with an anyone else, that we will be safe inside them – and comfortable.

I do not believe that you can persuade people to change their ways by berating them or accusing them of being obsessed and addicted. There are ways which have worked to change behaviour – after all there has been a considerable decline in smoking, and that was a real addiction. And like oil use was promoted by an industry anxious to throw doubt on the science which was – as near as any scientific evidence can be – unequivocal. Indeed exactly the same people are now involved in a remarkably similar campaign to throw doubt on the evident impact of global warming and the fact that it is being caused by fossil fuel use. And cars are one of the biggest local sources of greenhouse gas emissions, yet we seem to be persuaded that we need ever larger cars and trucks to drive around in.

Much of that is due to deliberate misinformation. But what cannot be denied is that if people could access a different kind of place to live which did not require car use they will move there – because they have. Look what happened when one developer was allowed to go below the municipally mandated parking requirement of a development near Joyce – Collingwood Skytrain station. And subsequently other places – but that still does not silence the howls against developers who propose a similar approach. Of course it is going to take a long time to retrofit our low density neighbourhoods – and it will not be an easy ride to get there. But we who care about such change do not help our cause when we attack people for using their cars.

What we need to do first is to get different policies into place – and that is already happening in the City of Vancouver. It is even becoming apparent in parts of other cities in the region. But what is holding things back right now is the lack of commitment to transit expansion, the huge spending on road expansion – and the rear guard action that has to be fought to secure the gains that have been made on such issues as bike lanes. The Burrard Bridge experiment clearly worked – yet the battle for Hornby has hardly begun. But all of the argument is at the passionate level. Suzuki has the facts and figures – but I do not find him persuasive, and I am on his side.

I think we need an approach similar to that adopted by Sidney Ellen Wade: she persuaded a die-hard to back greenhouse gas emission reductions by telling her she could not only keep her Volvo but its value would increase as it would become a rare collector’s item.

You should link to Stephan's article for his links.
 
I would say that 100% of people that own and don't NEED a car, just flat out WANT a car. What is wrong with wanting and having something? Nobody needs to take a step back, both cars and other forms of transportation can be supported.
This era is defined by what we want. How much joy do you get out of a car rather than what you could get with public transit or a bicycle? Really, you could want a rocket to the moon, but does that mean you should have one?
Apart from the obvious pollution that cars have and resources they consume (in construction and maintaining of road infrastructure,) you still have to ask why everyone needs cars, or why even 1/4 of people need cars. Masses of people in undeveloped countries get by without cars at all, and plenty of them are pretty happy with it. And you'd think that if a country's more developed, it has things like more established public transport so people need cars even less.
 
This era is defined by what we want. How much joy do you get out of a car rather than what you could get with public transit or a bicycle? Really, you could want a rocket to the moon, but does that mean you should have one?
Apart from the obvious pollution that cars have and resources they consume (in construction and maintaining of road infrastructure,) you still have to ask why everyone needs cars, or why even 1/4 of people need cars. Masses of people in undeveloped countries get by without cars at all, and plenty of them are pretty happy with it. And you'd think that if a country's more developed, it has things like more established public transport so people need cars even less.

What I find most disturbing is that there are individuals who own more than one motor vehicle, and have taken out loans or financing to own them. Even worse, during most of the day, the vehicles are being parked (stored) away, because other individuals in the family also have their own vehicle, which is parked (stored) for most of the day as well. And everyone paying off the expenses of upkeep while the vehicles are just not moving (that includes the traffic jams as well).
 
Masses of people in undeveloped countries get by without cars at all, and plenty of them are pretty happy with it


Yet the second they can afford to get one, they buy one...
Look at the massive expanding Car Market in China and India.

10 years ago, my dad's village had 3 cars. Now every established family with land has one.

I know a Car is a drain, but if you live in the Suburbs you must have a car. As bad as traffic is (overplayed most of the time by you guys), it is why faster than local transit. Taking transit to Downtown Toronto is a different matter.
 
Your blessed with a commute that isn't that bad traffic wise, and you live and work both near an expressway. And don't have any great transit alternatives.
Actually Eglinton Ave is an excellent alternative. Eglinton Ave goes in a East-North-East direction towards Danforth, and then Danforth points exactly North-East right up McCowan in an almost perfect line to my office. Whenever there's trouble on the DVP North I take Eg/Danforth/McCowan and my commute is perhaps 10 min longer, max. Even better is when I'm driving to Fallingbrook and Kingston Rd in the Beaches to visit my family, get on McCowan at 14 Ave and it's a poker straight line to Warden and Danforth and onto the Beaches. I can get from 14 Ave to the Beaches in about 25 mins. Try that on the bus.
 
That is true and really a lot of those scooters cause a massive amount of pollution.
 
Your blessed with a commute that isn't that bad traffic wise, and you live and work both near an expressway. And don't have any great transit alternatives.
Actually Eglinton Ave is an excellent alternative. Eglinton Ave goes in a East-North-East direction towards Danforth, and then Danforth points exactly North-East right up McCowan in an almost perfect line to my office.
I don't see how that's a good transit alternative. It's a 30 km trip on buses that average about 18 km/hr.

This is part of the problem with transit, is it isn't a great alternative for trips much greater than 10 km. Maybe a bit more if most of the trip is on a subway or fast LRT line.
 

Back
Top