Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
When the travel time by transit is 4 hrs a day? I think the choice is obvious. Now you could argue about choosing to live closer to your work but we don't live in a society where we can dictate where people live.
|
|
|
Carjacked: An Anthropology of Americans and their Automobiles
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
When the travel time by transit is 4 hrs a day? I think the choice is obvious. Now you could argue about choosing to live closer to your work but we don't live in a society where we can dictate where people live.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I think one of the keys in your situation is that your cars are PAID off. Most people are sold on the car as an extension of their identity/personality and overstretch their budget to get the car that they think "suits" them. As a result they dig themselves a bigger financial hole.
nfitz
Superstar
Oh, sure ... if I worked in Markham and was living downtown, I'd choose the car too.
But I wouldn't ... for long-term at least ... ever live that far from my job; or find a job that far from where I live. When the head hunters start calling, the first thing I say is nothing outside of 416 ... and preferably south of Eglinton. I'm just not interested in moving, or having a commute from hell.
Perhaps some people have no choice ... I don't actually believe that. I know a lot of people who have made what seemed awfully bizarre choices to me ... and a couple of years later they end up quitting their jobs in distress, because they can't hack the 3-hours of driving a day ...
Admiral Beez
Superstar
If I paid $400,000 for my house, and over twenty years paid it off, and thus lived mortgage free in the house for another thirty years, I would certainly consider the last thirty years to be much cheaper than the first twenty. To say that my total cost of the house is $400,000 divided by 50 years is silly, IMO - same goes for the car, once it's paid off, the rest is operating expenses, not payments.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
When I worked at Yonge and Lawrence it took me even longer to get home via TTC. Usually spent ten minutes waiting for the streetcar, or just walked home from College station. 40 min in the car isn't bad at all, and a lot of times it's 30 min door to door, especially if I'm in the car before 7am.
Now, that's not to say I wouldn't love to work downtown, I would, and would dump the beater car in a second (but keep the family van). But I couldn't find work south of Bloor downtown. Sure, if you're in finance, legal, government or medicine you can find a good, $75-$100K job, but I'm not in those fields, and the firms in my industry are all in the 905. And I don't want to live in the 905, ever again. I grew up in Meadow'jail at Winston Churchill and Derry Rd. and that was a big wasteland of mullet wearing potheads - no way I'm raising my kids in the 'burbs.
Last edited:
CityPainter
Active Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 304
- Location
- SLM/Old Town/Distillery/Corktown
But at the core of this discussion we are essentially comparing the relative costs of various types of transportation. If you elminate the cost of the car itself, the comparisons become pretty pointless. As EnviroTO joked above, if I buy a metropass on the first of the month and pay for it completely, does that mean I get transit for free for the rest of the month? Of course not. How quickly you pay for the car does not change the cost. Whether I walk into the dealership with $40K in cash or pay it a few hundred per month for a decade, the car still cost $40K. The magic $8,000 figure is the cost of total car ownership, not just operating costs. No doubt if you take very good care of your car and drive it for many years, your costs would be better than the norm: the $8,000 is an average based on typical car ownership habits, not a best-case scenario.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
It's really not that bad. Assuming you're well in shape, it's not a particularly challenging course to get through the city. And going smaller distances like within Scarborough or the Old City, I don't understand why people don't do it more often.
junctionist
Senior Member
Transit needs the built form to be viable. It's a joke to think transit usage could be high in so-called "cities" characterized by low density subdivisions and shopping plazas where over half the land is used for the parking lot. But a person living in Port Credit or downtown Brampton may find GO Transit to be quite efficient for their commute even if they live far from their job.
In fact, there are plenty of places all over the 905 and suburban 416 where transit works quite efficiently. Unfortunately, the built form is overwhelming anti-transit in the suburban regions where these places are located. One can't tell people where to live but one can provide quality transit and regulate the development of new communities around it. The suburban "city centres" are good starts, but gains like that tend to be overwhelmed by the vast subdivisions of low density housing and highway widenings and extensions that are built every year.
Transit and land use go hand-in-hand. For some suburbanites, transit is the better way already or could be with minimal service expansion. For most, it's not; however we could only allow more transit friendly development, and I'd imagine that a suburban family that only had to buy and maintain one car or none at all instead of 2-4 would have a burden lifted. And so would our cities.
In fact, there are plenty of places all over the 905 and suburban 416 where transit works quite efficiently. Unfortunately, the built form is overwhelming anti-transit in the suburban regions where these places are located. One can't tell people where to live but one can provide quality transit and regulate the development of new communities around it. The suburban "city centres" are good starts, but gains like that tend to be overwhelmed by the vast subdivisions of low density housing and highway widenings and extensions that are built every year.
Transit and land use go hand-in-hand. For some suburbanites, transit is the better way already or could be with minimal service expansion. For most, it's not; however we could only allow more transit friendly development, and I'd imagine that a suburban family that only had to buy and maintain one car or none at all instead of 2-4 would have a burden lifted. And so would our cities.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Which is why I qualified my comment by mentioning that part about where people choose to live. Like I said we can't dictate where people live, at least not in this country. And some jobs aren't always conveniently located near transit (time schedule or geography)
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Yeah, I'm amazed by how fast bikes are. Every now and then I bike from DT Toronto to Port Credit in about an hour and a bit. I arrive sweaty, but no more exhausted than had I sat in traffic for an hour - which is not much longer than it would take to drive from Toronto to Port Credit in the afternoon rush hour. If there were clean public shower facilities downtown, I think more people would do it.
the_yellow_dart
New Member
In my situation, I'd love to take transit, but there are just too many reasons not to.
I live right near Weston Go, and work right near Ajax Go. My entire trip can be done on Go, with < 10 mins walking at both ends.
-However-
Getting to work for 9 (roughly) means that I need to catch the train that leaves Union at 8:13 to arrive at Ajax at 8:56. To be at Union for 8:13, the last available train leaving Weston leaves at 7:31 to be at Union for 7:53. Including walking to the station and work, that's about 100 minutes total. Depending on the severity of 401 traffic, it's 35 to 45 minutes by car.
Also, consider the convenience factor. I'm not always the most reliable person in the morning, so it's nice to be able to run out the door and start my commute, rather than worrying about missing the train by a few minutes, which would make me 1 hour late. (next train to Ajax doesn't arrive until 10)
Also, my company is a consulting company and we all move around a lot (which is why I don't move closer to work - work moves!). This means that they give us travel compensation. If I take the train, I get my tickets paid for in full. If I take my car, I get 40 cents per km. Since my car is paid off and very fuel efficient, this is largely free money for me. Taking the train is a financial hit for me.
Even taking my work's compensation out of the picture - imagining I was paying for it myself - the Go train still works out to be more than the car.
I'm really hoping that as more people get on transit in the future, it will make the system less expensive for each rider (and that gas prices also continue to go up).
I want to make the environmentally conscious choice here, but with all these factors working against me, I would really feel like a sucker for doing so.
I live right near Weston Go, and work right near Ajax Go. My entire trip can be done on Go, with < 10 mins walking at both ends.
-However-
Getting to work for 9 (roughly) means that I need to catch the train that leaves Union at 8:13 to arrive at Ajax at 8:56. To be at Union for 8:13, the last available train leaving Weston leaves at 7:31 to be at Union for 7:53. Including walking to the station and work, that's about 100 minutes total. Depending on the severity of 401 traffic, it's 35 to 45 minutes by car.
Also, consider the convenience factor. I'm not always the most reliable person in the morning, so it's nice to be able to run out the door and start my commute, rather than worrying about missing the train by a few minutes, which would make me 1 hour late. (next train to Ajax doesn't arrive until 10)
Also, my company is a consulting company and we all move around a lot (which is why I don't move closer to work - work moves!). This means that they give us travel compensation. If I take the train, I get my tickets paid for in full. If I take my car, I get 40 cents per km. Since my car is paid off and very fuel efficient, this is largely free money for me. Taking the train is a financial hit for me.
Even taking my work's compensation out of the picture - imagining I was paying for it myself - the Go train still works out to be more than the car.
I'm really hoping that as more people get on transit in the future, it will make the system less expensive for each rider (and that gas prices also continue to go up).
I want to make the environmentally conscious choice here, but with all these factors working against me, I would really feel like a sucker for doing so.
The Mad Navigator
Banned
Car ownership is for suckas.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
A possible alternate route, take the Lawrence West/Malton bus, the subway then the GO bus from Yorkdale to Ajax GO. http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot...ble=94&direction=1&day=1&page=1&New=&station= This GO bus runs every 20 minutes.
doady
Senior Member
I love biking here in Mississauga. There is a decent selection of minor throughfares to use so it is not too dangerous. I don't mind biking on the major roads either as it seems to piss motorist off a lot (people in Mississaga are very impatient). Biking is generally as fast as transit here.
The problem is the heat. I don't like arrive destination all sweaty and smelly, so I usually only bike in spring and fall.
Well people who live in rural areas probably more physically active than those in urban areas. But in urban areas, the people living near public transit are the most physically active. Rural vs. urban, it's different. Since the vast majority of people live in urban areas (80%), it makes sense that the healthiest people in Canada live near public transport.
The problem is the heat. I don't like arrive destination all sweaty and smelly, so I usually only bike in spring and fall.
Well people who live in rural areas probably more physically active than those in urban areas. But in urban areas, the people living near public transit are the most physically active. Rural vs. urban, it's different. Since the vast majority of people live in urban areas (80%), it makes sense that the healthiest people in Canada live near public transport.
nfitz
Superstar
Not necessarily. At the end of 50 years, your house is likely worth pretty much the same (in current dollars).
Your car however typically after the end of it's life is worth little more than the gas still in the tank.
If the house (and land) had no value at the end, you would be correct.