DOCSLIB.ORG

A Study of Car and House Ownership in the Face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Study of Car and House Ownership in the Face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) A Study of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) by Elli Maria Papaioannou A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Applied Science Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto © Copyright by Elli Maria Papaioannou, 2014 A Study of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) Elli Maria Papaioannou Masters of Applied Science Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto 2014 Abstract This research presents the design, implementation and results of a survey of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE). The CHOICE survey is a web-based survey that combines RP and SP components, and was designed to collect information of commuting mode choices, housing and neighbourhood preferences along with vehicle ownership choices of households with cross-regional commuters in the Greater Toronto Area. Investigations of the survey data revealed that for small increases in commuting costs people are willing to change to more efficient cars. As commuting costs reached higher levels, participants chose to relocate their home in order to commute shorter distances. This study provides evidence that vehicle ownership and especially residential location decisions are a complex process and are interrelated. The findings of this study show some of the possible reactions of households in the GTA in the face of extreme increases in transportation costs. ii Acknowledgments This two-year-long journey flew by and I am standing at the end of it today trying to think of all the challenges I faced, all the wonderful and bright people I met, all the things I learned, and all the friends I earned. First, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Khandker Nurul Habib, for his valuable guidance and genuine care. He is an enthusiastic teacher and a great person who treats his students as his children. I want to thank him for his help, advice and kindness. Many thanks to all my other professors for their important input: Amer Shalaby, Lloyd McCoomb, and especially Matthew Roorda for spending the time and energy as a second reviewer of my thesis. Second, I want to thank Dimitris Panagiotakopoulos, the programmer who not only helped in coding the survey, but with his patience and experience also played a definitive role in the outcome of the study. I also want to thank my friends and colleagues within the transportation group at the University of Toronto. Mohamed Salah Mahmoud offered his valuable help and support countless times throughout these two years, and I consider myself lucky for having the opportunity to learn from him. Many thanks go to Adam Weiss for offering his help during the development of the survey. Of course, these two years would not have been the same without my good friends and office- mates: Adam Wenneman and Nico Malfara; you two made my days in that office “brighter”. Finally, I want to thank my family: my mother and my brother for their support and love, and especially my father who throughout my life has not only been a parent but my mentor and my biggest supporter. Many thanks to my “sisters”: Lindsey, Lida and Theofili for their love and countless sessions of skype-laughter. And last but not least, I want to thank my Toronto-people: Lee, Holly, Jane, Kaisa and Aitor who together with the rest of the crew made these two years the most memorable and adventurous journey of my life. Elli Papaioannou September 2014 iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. xi 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Research Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 3 1.2 Thesis Layout ...................................................................................................................... 4 2 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Vehicle Ownership .............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Transit-pass Ownership ...................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Residential Location Choice and Travel Costs ................................................................... 9 2.4 Web surveys: Advantages and Disadvantages .................................................................. 12 2.4.1 Errors in Surveys ................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Revealed Preference (RP) and Stated Preference (SP) Data............................................. 16 3 A Survey of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) and the Background of the Study Area .................................................................. 18 3.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.1.1 The Greater Toronto Area ..................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 The Transportation Tomorrow Survey ................................................................. 23 3.2 Survey Sample Design and Target Population ................................................................. 23 3.2.1 Sample Size Determination ................................................................................... 24 4 CHOICE Survey Design .......................................................................................................... 26 iv 4.1 RP ...................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.1 Housing Information ............................................................................................. 27 4.1.2 Socio-demographic and Commuting Trip Information ........................................ 27 4.1.3 Vehicle Information .............................................................................................. 29 4.2 SP ...................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2.1 Experimental Design ............................................................................................. 31 4.2.2 SP1: Effects of Price Changes on Mobility Tool Ownership ............................... 31 4.2.3 SP2: Residential Relocation as a Reaction to Increased Transportation Costs .... 37 4.2.4 Comments on the SP Component ......................................................................... 42 4.3 Software ............................................................................................................................ 44 4.4 Recruiting .......................................................................................................................... 44 4.5 Sample Distribution and Representativeness .................................................................... 44 5 CHOICE Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 48 5.1 RP Descriptive Analysis ................................................................................................... 48 5.1.1 Household Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................... 48 5.1.2 Descriptive Statistics of Individuals’ Characteristics ........................................... 51 5.2 SP1 Descriptive Analysis: Mobility Tool Ownership ...................................................... 53 5.2.1 Fuel Consumption and Engine Type ..................................................................... 54 5.2.2 Vehicle Type ......................................................................................................... 55 5.2.3 Influence of Different Factors on Operation Costs ............................................... 56 5.2.4 Transit Pass Ownership ......................................................................................... 57 5.2.5 Relocating Decision .............................................................................................. 57 5.3 SP2 Descriptive Analysis: Residential Location Choice .................................................. 59 5.3.1 GTA Overview of SP2 .......................................................................................... 60 5.3.2 Conclusion of Residential Location Choice Descriptive Analysis ....................... 66 5.4 Dwelling Type Choice .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Old East York Profile: Prevention
    N58 – Old East York Profile: Prevention City of Toronto Toronto Central LHIN Old East York Indicators Count, Count, Count, ¦ (95% CI) ¦ Rate % % % ¦ ¦ Ratio* Mammograms (2009-2011) ª ¦ ¦ Women, aged 50-59 ¦ ¦ Total eligible population ** 152,883 65,948 609 ¦ ¦ % of all eligible women having a mammogram within last 2 years 54.5 53.9 58.1 ¦ (54.2-62.0) ¦ 1.07 NS Total eligible population using services *** 138,100 58,962 562 ¦ ¦ % of all women using services who also had a mammogram 60.3 60.2 63.0 ¦ (59.0-67.0) ¦ 1.04 NS Women, aged 60-69 ¦ ¦ Total eligible population ** 131,959 56,131 499 ¦ ¦ % of all eligible women having a mammogram within last 2 years 57.5 56.5 57.1 ¦ (52.8-61.5) ¦ 0.99 NS Total eligible population using services *** 121,953 51,444 468 ¦ ¦ % of all women using services who also had a mammogram 62.3 61.7 60.9 ¦ (56.5-65.3) ¦ 0.98 NS Women, aged 50-69 ¦ ¦ Total eligible population ** 284,842 122,079 1,108 ¦ ¦ % having a mammogram within last 2 years 55.9 55.1 57.7 ¦ (54.8-60.6) ¦ 1.03 NS % having a mammogram within last 2 years - Age-Adjusted † 56.1 55.3 57.6 ¦ (53.2-62.3) ¦ 1.03 NS Total eligible population using services *** 260,053 110,406 1,030 ¦ ¦ % having a mammogram within last 2 years 61.2 60.9 62.0 ¦ (59.1-65.0) ¦ 1.01 NS % having a mammogram within last 2 years - Age-Adjusted † 61.4 61.0 61.9 ¦ (57.1-66.9) ¦ 1.01 NS CI Confidence Interval.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighbourhood Equity Scores for Toronto Neighbourhoods and Recommended Neighbourhood Improvement Areas
    Appendix B Neighbourhood Equity Scores for Toronto Neighbourhoods and Recommended Neighbourhood Improvement Areas All Scores are out of a maximum 100 points: the lower the Score, the higher the level of total overall inequities faced by the neighbourhood. Neighbourhoods with Scores lower than the Neighbourhood Equity Benchmark of 42.89 face serious inequities that require immediate action. Neighbourhoods marked with "*" in the Rank column were designated by Council as Priority Neighbourhood Areas for Investment (PNIs) under the 2005 Strategy. For neighbourhoods marked with a "+" in the Rank column, a smaller portion of the neighbourhood was included in a larger Priority Neighbourhood Areas for Investment designated by Council under the 2005 Strategy. Neighbourhood Recommended Rank Neighbourhood Number and Name Equity Score as NIA 1* 24 Black Creek 21.38 Y 2* 25 Glenfield-Jane Heights 24.39 Y 3* 115 Mount Dennis 26.39 Y 4 112 Beechborough-Greenbrook 26.54 Y 5 121 Oakridge 28.57 Y 6* 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone-Jamestown 29.29 Y 7 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 29.54 Y 8 72 Regent Park 29.81 Y 9 55 Thorncliffe Park 33.09 Y 10 85 South Parkdale 33.10 Y 11* 61 Crescent Town 33.21 Y 12 111 Rockcliffe-Smythe 33.86 Y 13* 139 Scarborough Village 33.94 Y 14* 21 Humber Summit 34.30 Y 15 28 Rustic 35.40 Y 16 125 Ionview 35.73 Y 17* 44 Flemingdon Park 35.81 Y 18* 113 Weston 35.99 Y 19* 22 Humbermede 36.09 Y 20* 138 Eglinton East 36.28 Y 21 135 Morningside 36.89 Y Staff report for action on the Toronto Strong Neighbourhoods Strategy 2020 1 Neighbourhood Recommended
    [Show full text]
  • City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016
    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average price by percentage increase: January to June 2016 C06 – $1,282,135 C14 – $2,018,060 1,624,017 C15 698,807 $1,649,510 972,204 869,656 754,043 630,542 672,659 1,968,769 1,821,777 781,811 816,344 3,412,579 763,874 $691,205 668,229 1,758,205 $1,698,897 812,608 *C02 $2,122,558 1,229,047 $890,879 1,149,451 1,408,198 *C01 1,085,243 1,262,133 1,116,339 $1,423,843 E06 788,941 803,251 Less than 10% 10% - 19.9% 20% & Above * 1,716,792 * 2,869,584 * 1,775,091 *W01 13.0% *C01 17.9% E01 12.9% W02 13.1% *C02 15.2% E02 20.0% W03 18.7% C03 13.6% E03 15.2% W04 19.9% C04 13.8% E04 13.5% W05 18.3% C06 26.9% E05 18.7% W06 11.1% C07 29.2% E06 8.9% W07 18.0% *C08 29.2% E07 10.4% W08 10.9% *C09 11.4% E08 7.7% W09 6.1% *C10 25.9% E09 16.2% W10 18.2% *C11 7.9% E10 20.1% C12 18.2% E11 12.4% C13 36.4% C14 26.4% C15 31.8% Compared to January to June 2015 Source: RE/MAX Hallmark, Toronto Real Estate Board Market Watch *Districts that recorded less than 100 sales were discounted to prevent the reporting of statistical anomalies R City of Toronto — Neighbourhoods by TREB District WEST W01 High Park, South Parkdale, Swansea, Roncesvalles Village W02 Bloor West Village, Baby Point, The Junction, High Park North W05 W03 Keelesdale, Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Corso Italia W10 W04 York, Glen Park, Amesbury (Brookhaven), Pelmo Park – Humberlea, Weston, Fairbank (Briar Hill-Belgravia), Maple Leaf, Mount Dennis W05 Downsview, Humber Summit, Humbermede (Emery), Jane and Finch W09 W04 (Black Creek/Glenfield-Jane
    [Show full text]
  • Community Conversations: North York West Sub-Region
    Central LHIN System Transformation Sub-region Planning Community Conversations: North York West Sub-region April 5, 2017 Setting the Stage for Today’s Discussions Kick off sub-region planning & share the Central LHIN strategy; Bring sub-region communities together to strengthen relationships through collaborative networking; Listen and reflect upon experiences of patients and providers as they move through the system; Create a common understanding of sub-regional attributes related to their communities and populations; Generate greater context of sub-region needs and attributes through collaborative discussion; Set the stage to co-create the system collectively to identify gaps in care continuity during transitions 2 Central LHIN Community Conversation North York West Sub-region Agenda Time Item Presenters 7:45 to 8:30 am Registration & Light Refreshments Sub Region Community Wall 8:30 am Overview of the Day Welcome & Kick Off Kim Baker Central LHIN Sub-region Strategy: Transitions Chantell Tunney 9:50 am Sharing Experiences in Care Guest Speaker: Central LHIN Resident Cottean Lyttle Guest Speaker: Care Provider Dr. Jerome Liu 9:50 pm BREAK 10:00 am Building a Foundation: Information Eugene Wong 11:00 am Filling in the Gaps Group Work 11:25 am Wrap Up & Next Steps Chantell Tunney 3 Integrated Health Service Plan 2016 - 2019 4 Sub-region Strategy Building momentum, leveraging local strengths and co-designing innovative approaches to care continuity 5 Population Health – What does it mean to take a Population Health approach? Population health allows us to address the needs of the entire population, while reminding us that special attention needs to be paid to existing disparities in health.
    [Show full text]
  • Downsview Major Roads Environmental Study Report
    City of Toronto Downsview Major Roads Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report Prepared by: AECOM 30 Leek Crescent, Floor 4 905 882 4401 tel Richmond Hill, ON, Canada L4B 4N4 905 882 4399 fax www.aecom.com April, 2018 Project Number: 60306466 City of Toronto Downsview Area Major Roads Environmental Study Report Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name City of Toronto AECOM Canada Ltd. Rpt_2018-04-20_Damr_Final Esr_60306466 City of Toronto Downsview Area Major Roads Environmental Study Report Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): . is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); . represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; . may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; . has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; . must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; . was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and . in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Bathurst Manor
    Canadian Jewish Studies / Études juives canadiennes, vol. 31, 2021 181 Donna Bernardo-Ceriz A Jewish Tale of Suburbia: Bathurst Manor 182 Donna Bernado-Ceriz / A Jewish Tale of Suburbia: Bathurst Manor How does one tell the story of a neighbourhood? If examining the changing and de- veloping physical landscape, then records are in no short supply at various govern- ment archives: census records, municipal planning records, maps, assessment roles, directories, building surveys, and aerial photographs, to name only a few. Retelling the experiences of a community of people, however, requires a slightly different re- search strategy. Personal papers, photographs, letters, home movies, and oral histo- ries offer a glimpse into the lives of residents. Organizational records can provide insight into the cultural, religious, and social needs of a community and the services offered. But what if those records do not exist or cannot easily be located? The Ontario Jewish Archives (OJA) receive over 650 research requests each year. If we divide that by the number of working days (ignoring vacations, stat, and Jewish hol- idays), that equals 2.5 inquiries every day. Some of these inquiries are fairly quick and straightforward, and some are long, protracted research endeavours. We also receive over 50,000 unique users to our website each year; researchers whom we never in- teract with and whose research we never hear about. Of these research requests, a sizable number are related to Jewish spaces and shifting landscapes. “I’m researching the history of Kensington Market”; “Do you have any records on The Ward?”; “I’d like to study the small communities in Ontario”; “I’m interested in how Bathurst Street became the spine of Toronto’s Jewish community.” While these questions may appear well defined, it is the archivist’s job to determine what the researcher is actually asking.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Other* Dwelling Density Availability of Destinations
    21 24 116 130 2 35 36 50 49 48 27 131 22 34 37 117 129 3 25 51 52 47 46 4 132 26 38 53 118 1 5 33 40 128 135 134 23 39 45 6 29 113 28 32 105 133 31 41 42 119 126 137 7 8 30 103 127 136 115 112 108 102 43 125 100 138 140 11 10 110 109 101 99 44 9 111 107 104 56 55 139 106 124 Dwelling Availability of 91 92 97 54 120 density destinations 13 90 94 96 58 123 15 89 98 57 High - High 12 114 93 59 60 14 88 95 67 61 121 83 74 66 High - Low 87 80 79 71 68 69 62 16 75 64 122 86 84 81 78 76 65 Low - High 7372 63 85 70 Low - Low 20 17 82 77 Other* 18 19 0 2.5 5 km * Indicates DB belonged to the middle quintile of Neighbourhoods dwelling density and/or availability of destinations 1 West Humber-Clairville 25 Glenfield-Jane Heights 49 Bayview Woods-Steeles 73 Moss Park 96 Casa Loma 121 Oakridge 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone- 26 Downsview-Roding-CFB 50 Newtonbrook East 74 North St. James Town 97 Yonge-St.Clair 122 Birchcliffe-Cliffside Jamestown 27 York University Heights 51 Willowdale East 75 Church-Yonge Corridor 98 Rosedale-Moore Park 123 Cliffcrest 3 Thistletown-Beaumond Heights 28 Rustic 52 Bayview Village 76 Bay Street Corridor 99 Mount Pleasant East 124 Kennedy Park 4 Rexdale-Kipling 29 Maple Leaf 53 Henry Farm 77 Waterfront Communities- 100 Yonge-Eglinton 125 Ionview 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 30 Brookhaven-Amesbury 54 O'Connor-Parkview The Island 101 Forest Hill South 126 Dorset Park 6 Kingsview Village-The Westway 31 Yorkdale-Glen Park 55 Thorncliffe Park 78 Kensington-Chinatown 102 Forest Hill North 127 Bendale 7 Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview 32 Englemount-Lawrence
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto North Local Immigration Partnership
    Toronto North Settlement and Employment Strategy October 2012 F I N A L Submitted to Citizenship and Immigration Canada October 31, 2012 Table of Contents Welcoming Toronto’s Future ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 The Role of Local Immigration Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Toronto North LIP – History and Catchment ................................................................................................................................ 3 Toronto North Newcomer Demographic and Needs Profile ............................................................................................................. 4 General overview of Toronto North ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Area Boundaries ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Census demographics .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Missing Middle Housing in Toronto's Yellowbelt
    Filling in the Housing Gaps: Planning for Missing Middle Housing in Toronto’s Yellowbelt By Aria Popal Supervised by Dr. Luisa Sotomayor A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada July 31st, 2020 i ABSTRACT The City of Toronto is experiencing a well-known housing affordability crisis. As the fastest growing city in North America with the highest construction activity, expensive condominium developments in the City’s designated areas for growth, such as the downtown core, are dominating the housing market as the leading type of supply. On the other hand, Toronto prides itself upon being a city of neighbourhoods, by alluding to the other form of supply in the city as single-family homes or single detached dwellings. To contend with the convolutions of the housing market, a discourse of the Missing Middle emerged in the 2010s as a new angle from which to examine the housing affordability crisis in North American cities. The Missing Middle is a multifaceted term that generally refers to a need for more housing typologies that are in scale with single-family homes but are limited to four units in height; to be added as gentle or medium density to designated single-family neighbourhoods. I assess the Missing Middle as an approach, a strategy, and a discourse to moderate the housing crisis. By conducting interviews with interested city-builders, community members and vocal advocates for the development of Missing Middle housing in Toronto, this paper presents different views and perspectives on the limits and opportunities that such approach may provide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Epidemic: a Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto
    DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card November 2016 1 DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card Acknowledgements This report was researched and written by a working group that included: Michael Polanyi Community Development and Prevention Program, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Jessica Mustachi Family Service Toronto (Ontario Campaign 2000) michael kerr Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change Sean Meagher Social Planning Toronto Research and data analysis support provided by the City of Toronto is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was provided by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and the Children’s Aid Foundation. Design support was provided by Peter Grecco. We thank Ann Fitzpatrick, Said Dirie, Sharon Parsaud and Beth Wilson for their assistance with, and review of, the report. Data and mapping support for the transit section of the report from Steve Farber and Jeff Allen, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto, Scarborough, is gratefully acknowledged. Data support for housing provided by Scott Leon, Wellesley Institute. 2 DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Unequal Child and Family Incomes 8 3. Unequal Educational and Recreational Opportunities 14 4. Unequal Access to
    [Show full text]
  • Language Spoken Most Often at Home - Lingala by Census Tract
    Language Spoken Most Often at Home - Lingala By Census Tract Steeles Ave E Steeles Ave W d R t S y d t A e l l n b S R i i K o r 130 n m e 116 i n R e e f g r d n o f t n B 36 50 49 n u 21 s 24 o e e D 35 Y 48 d W y Finch Ave E 2 27 Finch Ave W R 129 d E e v d A R 37 s w l l 131 22 e i 34 i 46 117 v 3 M y 52 47 25 51 a n o B Sheppard Ave W D R 132 ex t Sheppard Ave E d S a t le t t 4 S 38 53 s B S l r 1 v e l d e u 118 e n h 128 t e H a N 5 40 a d J K i 26 d 7 g R B R 33 e n 2 h o t v s e York Mills Rd w g y Wilson Ave n v i A a t K a o y S k w r Ellesmere Rd r r h 2 e G a i d e d 134 D g 7 l P i n v R 45 R s i S H w t a 135 23 e A i r n e m L r i 39 a d a d a o v 28 t n M w 126 h R g 29 c a k o i l ixon Rd t n D 105 r i 6 c d n 42 V 137 l 127 a i c r 31 133 32 41 u e a 113 M M M 119 o v C d e m A R v h d g s c 103 A l n R r l i 30 i 8 i l n e B e p M 7 i u d n r K n e 136 o a v 43 115 D W 108 102 A e 112 100 125 v Eglinton Ave E 138 A W e n 44 v d A o 110 140 n t 109 99 R o g nt 101 th i n r l i Eg 10 l 9 107 106 56 55 fo Rd s n 11 I 111 n 124 a to 139 d D gs 41 Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-Y ork Mills 95 Annex R n 91 92 120 Ki e 54 123 42 Banbury-Don M ills 96 Casa Loma u n 97 43 Victori a Village 97 Yonge-S t.Clair 13 90 96 e 58 94 v 44 Flemingdon P ark 98 Rosedale-Moore P ark A 57 15 89 98 45 Parkwoods-Donalda 99 Mount P leasant E ast 114 Bloor St W 59 60 46 Pleasant View 100 Yonge-E gli nton 12 93 95 47 Don V al ley V illage 101 Forest Hil l South 88 Bloor St E 67 Danforth Ave 121 r 48 Hil lcrest Vill age 102 Forest Hil l North D 14 49
    [Show full text]
  • Community Resources for Hip & Knee Patients
    Community Resources Important: The University Health Network does not recommend one company or person over another and is not responsible for the care and services provided. Please contact the vendors directly to make sure the information is correct or to find out more about their product. This list does not claim to be exhaustive and some facilities/resources may have been inadvertently missed or not up-to-date. Equipment and Assistive Devices HOURS OF LOCATION NAME OPERATION Able Home Health Care 3537 Bathurst St. M-W 9-5 416-789-5551 (N. of Lawrence Ave. S. of Th 9-6 www.ablehomehealthcare.ca Wilson Ave.) F 9-4 Active Lite Mobility 2300 John St., Unit 3 M-F 9-5 905-764-0706 (E. of Don Mills in Thornhill) Sat 10-4 www.activelite.com AgTa Home Health Care 860 Wilson Ave., Suite 102 M-F 9-5 416-630-0737 (W. of Dufferin Ave.) www.agtahomecare.com Amcare Surgical 1584 Bathurst St. M-F 9-7 416-781-4494 (2 blocks N. of St. Clair Ave., Sat 9-5 www.amcare.ca W. side of Bathurst) Baygreen Home Health Care 8 Green Lane M-Th 9:30-6 905-771-0010 (Bayview Ave./ John St. in F 9:30-5 www.baygreen.ca Thornhill) Sat 10:30-3 Healthtime Living Specialties 1340 Danforth Ave. M, Tu, W, F 9:30- 416-693-7676 (E. of Linsmore Cres, near 5:30 www.healthtimelivingspecialties.ca Greenwood Ave.) Th 9:30-7 Sat 10-4 Home Medical Equipment 124 St. Regis Cres.
    [Show full text]