[Rainforest]

Very true. A lot of jobs demand that you not only drive to the suburban office park where your office is located, but drive to attend meetings at clients in suburban office parks, often on the opposite side of the region. I've had a job where the plant was in Vaughan but the offices were in Mississauga; there was a steady stream of cars entering and exiting the parking lot at all hours to head between the two places. Then I've had another job where I worked downtown, but we had to visit customers/clients in the burbs. At least in that case I didn't need a car and could Zipcar it out to Mississauga or Oakville, but we were still adding to congestion.

But if you can easily reach your main office by public transit, and need to attend off-site meetings from time to time, you can rent a car for such days. It will end up being much cheaper than owning a car year-round.

 

[Rainforest]

Since we're on the subject, I will say that I've always thought that suburban mixed use (live/work/play) developments were counter productive. For one. Most people end up driving, even when they live 5 minutes away. For two, many people still don't end up working in their suburb even when jobs are nearby, meaning that suburb to suburb trips are created that can never be served by transit. The latter is especially true for couples when at best, one of them works locally.

Many jobs cannot be located downown, and the suburbs will always generate local jobs like schools, retail, municipal jobs, etc. But so many more people could use transit if office jobs at least were centralized downtown.

But same issues take places with downtown jobs as well. Some people drive downtown in the peak direction even though they live near a subway station. And for couples, it is always difficult to live close to both jobs; if we can serve just one of the two commutes with public transit, it is a success. I am not sure that problems you mentioned are specific to the suburban form.

At the same time, a system with a single employment hub results in higher average commute times, a need for more drivers, trains, buses etc and, likely, higher operating costs per ride. When the fares are nearly frozen, that necessitates higher operating subsidies.

 

[EnviroTO]

Even so, I doubt anybody will spend $60+tax at zipcar just to have a $20 dinner with a friend on the other side of the city.

I did it last weekend. Paid autoshare to go hang at a friends pool. I think some people aren't putting their finances into Quicken to see the total cost of car ownership. www.pricemyride.ca - what parameters are you using? Does $60+tax in transportation sound expensive... yes. However, people who go pay $10k for a older car, pay insurance every month, pay $60 at the pump every visit, and pay every time the car needs to visit the garage for a tune up, oil change, part replacement, etc have only deluded themselves into believing they aren't paying a similar amount.

 

[Chuck]

When I had a car a few years ago, I calculated the daily cost to be about $25 per day, which is $175 per week. That included insurance, lease, gas, maintenance, and parking at my building. A metropass costs around $4.00 per day. Do the math - after commuting to work over the course of a week, you break even and then some even if you spend $60 on a weekend rental. Of course, if you make trips like these extremely often, then obviously you should have a car.

I have found a very effective means of getting around is by sharing rides with frinds who do have cars. I will frequently give them $20 for gas, which is a bargain for me, but makes them extrmely happy to carpool.

 

[nfitz]

That sounds very similar to the numbers I calculated a few years ago, when I had to track my vehicle costs for tax purposes. A $60 rental for a few hours might seem expensive ... but it's a bargain if you only do it every week or so. My car usage doesn't justify going carless, sadly; however it did justify us dropping from 2 cars to 1, and using Autoshare - or more often or not, just coordinating a bit so we only use one ... though more often than not, it just sits in the driveway all day unused.

Another option is simply renting a car for a week or so at a time, for occasions when you are going to be doing it a lot. Should be able to do that for $200 or so a week (at least that's the rate I can normally find in Vancouver when I'm out there). Not sure how the car rental places make much profit at those rates.

 

[Ramako]

This is probably a dumb question, but why aren't they simply redeploying these drilling rigs to dig the Eglinton line once the Spadina extension is complete? From my very limited understanding, it will impossible to ever turn the Eglinton line into a full fledged subway because the tunnels themselves will be too narrow. Wouldn't using the Spadina extension drills solve that problem while saving on the cost of having to purchase new drills?

 

[CapitalSeven]

A bit mixed up. Thge Spadina machines are actually narrower than the LRT machines. The obstacle would not be the tunnel width, but rather the steeper grades.

 

[rbt]

Another option is simply renting a car for a week or so at a time, for occasions when you are going to be doing it a lot. Should be able to do that for $200 or so a week (at least that's the rate I can normally find in Vancouver when I'm out there). Not sure how the car rental places make much profit at those rates.

It's probably close to cost and they save on the parking lot space (~$50/month to build/maintain a space) if they can keep it out of the lot costantly.

If they can get someone else to store the car for free and still have it available during peak season for those 4 or 5 single day rentals (the profit) then it probably works out well enough.

Some revenue is better than no or negative (storage costs) revenue.

Parking spaces cost about $50/month.

 

[gweed123]

A bit mixed up. Thge Spadina machines are actually narrower than the LRT machines. The obstacle would not be the tunnel width, but rather the steeper grades.

No reason they can't conceivably be kept around to do Sheppard West though (should that get the go-ahead). Or to do the Yonge Extension.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I went through the database entries for all the stations today, and I have to say that I like either the York University station or the highway 407 station the most... the 407 station seems to be byfar the largest subway station in the network, it looks like a miniature airport terminal!

 

[Transportfan]

And ironically, will be one of the least used!

 

[rbt]

And ironically, will be one of the least used!

Maybe. Once the 407 transitway is built out I can see that station being middle of the pack (40,000 users per day) without too much difficulty.

A double-decker feeder bus every 30 seconds (~9000 passengers per hour) and extremely busy as a kiss & ride (several hundred passengers per hour).

Certainly the fewest walkins.

 

[Jonny5]

Maybe. Once the 407 transitway is built out I can see that station being middle of the pack (40,000 users per day) without too much difficulty.

A double-decker feeder bus every 30 seconds (~9000 passengers per hour) and extremely busy as a kiss & ride (several hundred passengers per hour).

Certainly the fewest walkins.

I'm not familiar enough with the transitway project to say for sure, but 9000 per hour sounds quite high. Is every 30 second service what is proposed for it's launch?

9000/per hour would also suggest a lot more riders than 40,000 per day, unless literally no one will use this stop outside of 6-8am and 5-7pm.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the sad thing is that 407 station will probably be one of the busiest on the new line..

 

[Markster]

the 407 station seems to be byfar the largest subway station in the network, it looks like a miniature airport terminal!

And ironically, will be one of the least used!

I can see that station being middle of the pack

407 station will probably be one of the busiest on the new line..

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

The 407 station will be either the least used, most used, or somewhere in between!