[zang]

These numbers are worthless to individuals

And that's why we have averages.

 

[T3G]

Pfft. When I decided I was no longer going to drive every day, I took the GO bus. The GO drivers bypassed as much of the Gardiner as they could to take the Lakeshore or other routes, and almost invariably still got in on schedule.

And how long ago was that? Because I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a GO bus bypass the Gardiner in the last 5 years.

Drivers always try and appeal using people other than themselves, whether it's transit, commercial vehicles, emergency vehicles. Yet undeniably, the problem of the overwhelming amount of traffic exists because far too many people choose to drive by themselves in a car. Every last one of them contributes, yet every last one of them thinks they're special and don't.

Again, why do you think that is?

Because our transit system is a flaming pile of garbage!

Imagine if Manhattan had the same population it currently does, but only a few subway lines. What do you think would happen then? People would know they can't rely on the transit system, and so they wouldn't take it, and the modal share would be much higher. Trying to kill an expressway before any meaningful changes have been made to the transit network is putting the cart before the horse.

"Excluding all the money that's been explicitly stated by the city and province rebuild the Gardiner to a state of good repair, maintenance is cheap!"

Not sure what that leaves other than street cleaning and line painting.

Proper maintenance has been put off for decades. Don't kid yourself that it's only $16m. The Gardiner has also had several waves of extensive repairs since the 1990s. It's not "once in a generation" by any stretch of the imagination.

Fascinating. Why do you think this argument wouldn't also apply if it was a different sort of infrastructure we were talking about? If we were New York in the 1980s, all of these things could be said about the subway.

If you neglect maintaining a critical piece of infrastructure, it will wear out and then we'll have to pay out the ass to repair it. Doesn't matter whether it's a highway, whether it's a subway tunnel, whether it's a rail line, it's all the same.

If you live in a different tax region, why should you get a say as to where my taxes as a Torontonian get spent?

As I said already, you have been relieved of that burden, and thank God for that. Now you don't get to decide whether other people in the region get any benefits, and it will be your provincial taxes instead that go to something you don't benefit from.

Maybe Torontonians who hate 905ers coming in and using "their" infrastructure should build a wall around the city and keep them out.

Because ironically, the areas that would benefit most from GO expansion vote in the people least likely to want to meaningfully expand the system. This isn't rocket science.

Milton just voted in Zee Hamid, unsurprisingly. Toronto has never had the power to stop the GTA from voting conservative.

I didn't vote for Zee Hamid, but I should be punished for whatever things he doesn't do? I reject your notion of collective responsibility.

Sorry, the time for diplomacy with drivers has long passed. Drivers have held all the card for a very, very long time.

No, you're right, there is no need for diplomacy. You can be as belligerent and unpleasant as you want. But then don't act shocked when you don't win other people over to your side.

Commuter driving comes with huge portions of added entitlement and selfishness.

Entitlement and selfishness has nothing to do with the form of transportation that person has elected to use. It's a widespread aspect of human nature. If you go to the comments on any TTC post on Facebook, you can find just as many snotty, entitled TTC riders. You'll find even more of them when the drivers go on strike on June 7.

Are the GTA cities and their taxpayers willing to shoulder the burden of that cost out of respect for the decades that the City of Toronto paid for the expressway that made their lives easier?

You mean the thing that has now happened?

For someone so bent on lecturing about free will and democracy, you don't seem overly willing to take responsibility for your own personal choices.

For someone who so often rails against right wing talking points, this sure sounds like a pull yourself up by the bootstraps post to me. I was 11 years old when I moved to Milton, so I can't imagine what kind of responsibility I'm supposed to take for that, and as for moving closer to where the action is, well, if it was so easy, why are there scores and scores of stories of people on the internet who are struggling to do just that? Our housing market is in the toilet, our transit is a complete joke, and you want to take away the highway. Absolutely excellent.

Luckily, in due course I will be moving away, but it's not going to be to Toronto, because it is patently obvious the city, and the whole of the GTA, has no vision and no future. This is just the circling of the drain. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[turbanplanner]

And that's why we have averages.

Again totally useless. Everyone's living situation is so unique they're hard to compare or aggregate

 

[EnviroTO]

There is no real big benefit to tearing down the Gardiner. The city is connecting to the waterfront under the Gardiner from a pedestrian realm perspective and with the hybrid option for the rebuild of the Gardiner will allow the Keating Channel Precinct to reach its potential. Congestion and the fact the expressway cannot possibly be widened is all that is required to move trips that use the Gardiner "by choice" to trips that use transit. There will always be trips that are not "by choice" like vehicles that are making deliveries and moving equipment that will require a way to move around the city and with a growing city it makes no sense to knock down the Gardiner... simply let it slowly transition from primarily cars to primarily trucks and transit over time. As long as we don't start knocking down buildings for widenings or build new freeways... we are prioritizing transit.

 

[Natika33]

There is no real big benefit to tearing down the Gardiner. The city is connecting to the waterfront under the Gardiner from a pedestrian realm perspective and with the hybrid option for the rebuild of the Gardiner will allow the Keating Channel Precinct to reach its potential. Congestion and the fact the expressway cannot possibly be widened is all that is required to move trips that use the Gardiner "by choice" to trips that use transit. There will always be trips that are not "by choice" like vehicles that are making deliveries and moving equipment that will require a way to move around the city and with a growing city it makes no sense to knock down the Gardiner... simply let it slowly transition from primarily cars to primarily trucks and transit over time. As long as we don't start knocking down buildings for widenings or build new freeways... we are prioritizing transit.

I agree. Much of the city is already cut off from the water by Lakeshore Blvd. Rather than add even more car traffic at ground level, I'd rather keep the vehicle traffic removed via elevation and concentrate on making the ground-level more pedestrian-friendly. There's a lot that can be done to make the area under the Gardiner feel more porous and activate the dead zones. We already have The Bentway, and the new mini mall around Housey street, but I think we've barely scratched the surface of what could be done. Shade & semi-protection from snow/rain are not such bad properties, especially when we're hardly talking Chicago-, Tokyo- or pre-Big Dig Boston-levels of elevated structures here, just one.

 

[tstormers]

Congrats!.. but tbh.. this is an issue which should have been fixed 10 years ago, when they (I think) removed most of a bridge over the gardner. The pier should have been removed and build a new smaller one for the pedestrian bridge we have now, to create more space for a proper on ramp...

I agree! Maybe the MTO will do it as most of the on/off ramps don't meet MTO standards.

 

[innsertnamehere]

$1387/month for car ownership includes depreciation. 43% of that total, in fact.
For the average person managing their monthly cash flow and expenses, that isn't part of the monthly operating cost of the vehicle.
Yes, agreed it is a real cost in the end.

I've analyzed this claim in the past and the cost of owning a car can be far, far lower than that, FYI.
$1,387 is if you purchased a median priced new vehicle with no substantial downpayment and at a high interest rate, and had to pay for parking at your residence.

If you own a parking spot (i.e. a driveway or free curbside parking), and drive an old but reliable vehicle (think 2006 Toyota Corolla or similar), costs can be about 1/3 of that.

I looked at my past 4 years of ownership, which aligns with that scenario, and it works out to about $400 a month.

 

[Rainforest]

I've analyzed this claim in the past and the cost of owning a car can be far, far lower than that, FYI.
$1,387 is if you purchased a median priced new vehicle with no substantial downpayment and at a high interest rate, and had to pay for parking at your residence.

If you own a parking spot (i.e. a driveway or free curbside parking), and drive an old but reliable vehicle (think 2006 Toyota Corolla or similar), costs can be about 1/3 of that.

I looked at my past 4 years of ownership, which aligns with that scenario, and it works out to about $400 a month.

You might be excluding the depreciation cost (you paid for the vehicle and the vehicle is gradually losing its value, eventually you will need to buy a new one), as well as the opportunity cost (you could invest the money instead of purchasing the car, and would earn some profits on your investment).

But I agree; $1,387 seems way too high if we are talking about a person who wants to keep the car spending to a reasonable minimum. When everything is taken into accout, I believe the monthly cost will be somewhere between $700 and $1,000.

 

[turbanplanner]

Look at the smashed screens I posted in the other thread?

You might be excluding the depreciation cost (you paid for the vehicle and the vehicle is gradually losing its value, eventually you will need to buy a new one), as well as the opportunity cost (you could invest the money instead of purchasing the car, and would earn some profits on your investment).

But I agree; $1,387 seems way too high if we are talking about a person who wants to keep the car spending to a reasonable minimum. When everything is taken into accout, I believe the monthly cost will be somewhere between $700 and $1,000.

Eh I don't think it's fair to add opportunity costs or any "imaginary" costs. By that logic my car costs me negative amounts because of the time saved, and the fact I earn more with a job that needs a car.

 

[Rainforest]

Not my calculation. This comes from finance company Ratehub.

How much are Canadians paying per month on average to own a car? Here’s what one report found

The report from Ratehub.com also found the cost of buying a new car shot up more than 19 per cent year-over-year as of September 2023 to $67,817.

www.thestar.com

I understand it comes from them, no argument with you directly.

But their value seems too high, and does not match my experience. So, I went to the source: first to the Ratehub report, and then to the Autotrader paper.

And here I see a problem: Ratehub's calculation assigns very high values to Depreciation and Interest (combined almost $700 per month), based on an the average price of new car = $67,817.

But, someone in the situation we are discussing here - cannot afford a place in town and has to buy one in the suburbs - would need to be crazy to spend so much on the car. Those people would be buying new cars for $40k or less, or sufficiently reliable used cars.

Thus, for our purposes we should cut the Depreciation + Interest from almost $700 to about $300, and then we get a better idea of what it really cost. Their costs in other categories are generally reasonable.

 

[innsertnamehere]

You might be excluding the depreciation cost (you paid for the vehicle and the vehicle is gradually losing its value, eventually you will need to buy a new one), as well as the opportunity cost (you could invest the money instead of purchasing the car, and would earn some profits on your investment).

But I agree; $1,387 seems way too high if we are talking about a person who wants to keep the car spending to a reasonable minimum. When everything is taken into accout, I believe the monthly cost will be somewhere between $700 and $1,000.

The thing with old cars is that they basically don't depreciate, and when they do, it's by very, very small amounts.

I mean the "investment potential" Is true for literally any amount of money you spend. I don't think that's really fair. It's not like you get 0 utility out of a car either - it has value in the mobility it provides.

When you consider that the median car on the road in Canada is 12 years old (yes, that old!), that means the vast majority of people are not owning and operating new vehicles. For someone considering whether or not to own a car, I doubt the option is a $50,000+ new vehicle or no vehicle - it's likely a $5-10,000 vehicle with low depreciation costs. A 12-year old, "normal" car, is rarely worth more than $10,000 or so. Assuming you drive it for 6 years before replacing and get a scrap value of $500, that's a depreciation of $130 a month. If you buy something that "barely runs" (what I had until very recently), which had a resale value in the $3-4,000 range, you get a depreciation of like $50 a month.

My breakdown was something like this:

Depreciation - $50
Maintenance - $50 (annual oil change for $100, plus $500 a year for other random stuff like tires, new battery, etc.)
Insurance - $80 (liability only as the car is not worth insuring)
Gas - $200
Parking - $20 (assuming the odd time you have to park somewhere paid)

That gets you to about $400 a month.

In my case, I owned that vehicle for 4 years. Total costs were actually closer to:

Depreciation: $20 (purchased for $2,000, sold for $1,000)
Maintenance $20 (4 oil changes, one replacement of the battery and alternator for $500, one replacement of windshield wipers for $40)
Insurance: $80 (liability only, no speeding tickets, clean record)
Gas: $125 (40,000kms over 4 years at 10l/100km and an estimated average gas cost of $1.50/litre over the 4 years)
Parking: ~$50 (a bit higher as I drove in the city quite a bit and had more regular parking bills, and had paid parking for $150/month for the first 3 months of ownership before moving somewhere with free parking)

Total: $295 a month.

 

[Rainforest]

Look at the smashed screens I posted in the other thread?

Eh I don't think it's fair to add opportunity costs or any "imaginary" costs. By that logic my car costs me negative amounts because of the time saved, and the fact I earn more with a job that needs a car.

If the car helps you earn money, then of course those extra money should be accounted for.

The above comparisons only make sense when we compare two options that are equally feasible: live closer to your office job and pay more for the dwelling but save by not paying for the car, or live further and pay for the car but save on the cheaper dwelling.

If your job essentially requires the car, or your workplace is unaccessible without driving, that's an entirely different situation.

 

[Rainforest]

My breakdown was something like this:

Depreciation - $50
Maintenance - $50 (annual oil change for $100, plus $500 a year for other random stuff like tires, new battery, etc.)
Insurance - $80 (liability only as the car is not worth insuring)
Gas - $200
Parking - $20 (assuming the odd time you have to park somewhere paid)

That gets you to about $400 a month.

In my case, I owned that vehicle for 4 years. Total costs were actually closer to:

Depreciation: $20 (purchased for $2,000, sold for $1,000)
Maintenance $20 (4 oil changes, one replacement of the battery and alternator for $500, one replacement of windshield wipers for $40)
Insurance: $80
Gas: $125 (40,000kms over 4 years at 10l/100km and an estimated average gas cost of $1.50/litre over the 4 years)
Parking: $50 (a bit higher as I drove in the city quite a bit and had more regular parking bills)

Total: $295 a month.

I feel that's the opposite extreme; if you have a 12-year old car for under $10k, you maintenance will be quite a bit more than $50 monthly ($600 per year). Unless you are lucky to own an exceptionally reliable one.

But anyway .. this is not a used cars forum. My original point was that the reported $1,387 car-ownership estimate was too high for the purpose of our discussion. Too high by how much, is another matter.

 

[Bojaxs]

I drive a 2015 Honda Civic, which is paid off, and it certainly doesn't cost me over $1000 a month to own it. Probably more along the $500-$600 range. That's including annual repairs. Plus as @turbanplanner pointed out, it allows me to get to a job that pays me more vs not having a car, taking transit, and most likely being stuck working a minimum wage, service job.

 

[PL1]

I drive a 2015 Honda Civic, which is paid off, and it certainly doesn't cost me over $1000 a month to own it. Probably more along the $500-$600 range. That's including annual repairs. Plus as @turbanplanner pointed out, it allows me to get to a job that pays me more vs not having a car, taking transit, and most likely being stuck working a minimum wage, service job.

???

We don't own a car, take transit to work, and make many multiples of minimum wage. Having a car does not equal or guarantee a higher wage.

That said, being car-free works for where I live and work in the city, and is a choice. We have two kids at university out of town, so we rent cars (traditional and Turo). Being car-free won't work for everyone.