I think a full dTon is excessive, given that the overhead for a fully functional breakaway hull is only 2%. Earlier in the thread I suggested 1 ton per 10 staterooms to make staterooms ejectable.I just looked at real life escape pods and the B58 fully enclosed ejection seat is an eye opener. Taking up no more space than needed for the normal seat it is pressurised allowing ejection at high altitude and contains survival gear and supplies (sufficient for 3 days on the arctic ocean completely unsupported). From that it looks like a 0.5 DTon escape capsule should be able to have similar performance (the air requirement is higher but life support in Traveller is quite low impact). We can be more efficient than 1960's tech.
Setting aside an additional DTon per stateroom is not beyond credibility. The cost is also negligible amortized over the life on the mortgage. The biggest hit would be the opportunity cost of the loss of 1Dton of cargo. There would be no ongoing life support costs as the pod will only need replenishing if it is used (and then it will likely need complete replacement anyway).
Aside from "most commercial starships are usually 100D from habitation", the other situation where ejecting may be better than staying would be in a fleet situation, where timely recovery is possible. Naval fleets are also more likely to face immanent ship destruction, although even so staying with the ship or getting to the small craft would usually be best.