Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes and no. If you aggregate the value of the benefit across all TTC stations, it is certainly a material chunk of change. TTC should be maximising its revenue, so if cars can be parked there, maybe they should be charged for this.

That said, it would be inflammatory to staff relations to retract the benefit, and there are likely legal grounds to prevent the TTC from doing that (google the term 'estoppel'). It's a battle I would not pick to fight....but no harm in reminding TTC workers that they are enjoying a benefit here.

The taxable benefit aspect is interesting. Having endured the odd CRA employer's audit in my time, this might actually meet a threshold that they would attend to. (Mum's the word!)

One does notice that TTC employees seem to park on every available bit of land, including boulevards and places where parking isn't desirable. There may be good reason to enforce parking rules a bit more. This will likely lead to the finding that there are more employees' cars than space available. Again, maybe better not to open the box.

- Paul

The problem is that if you need to aggregate it in order to see the value there probably isn't all that much to derive it from on a site to site basis. And like you've said, I have far, far greater issue of employees parking where they shouldn't be parking.

Personally, I don't have a huge issue if having minor levels of parking (a few spaces) help to increase efficiency and on time performance of staff.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Er, most shift workers in quasi-industrial jobs have access to free company parking lots, unless they don't drive. Certainly transit workers (e.g. bus drivers) have free parking at the depots. So I am not sure what the complain is about.

Company parking lots are a taxable benefit - unless there are far fewer spots than the number of employees. Or anyone can park there.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Company parking lots are a taxable benefit - unless the amount of free parking exceeds the number of employees. Which isn't the case for TTC subway stations.

Well, for the operation of that given station it probably is. I mean, look at it this way - how many in station staff do we expect, 1 to 3 (and varying at different times - e.g. cleaners, whatnot)?

AoD

 

[muller877]

Er, most shift workers in quasi-industrial jobs have access to free company parking lots, unless they don't drive. Certainly transit workers (e.g. bus drivers) have free parking at the depots. So I am not sure what the complain is about.

AoD

Most people that work near a high-order transit line do not have free parking. I'm not talking about those people that work in a transit desert nor the bus operators who have to get to the bus depot. I'm talking about s0meone who has the ability to take a fairly efficient transit system 24/7 to work.

It's part of the culture of entitlement of the public sector.

How many people who work around Wellesley subway have free parking? It's well over $100/month. Won't it be great to put a concrete highway barrier along the east side of the bus bay and create a hundred covered bike spots? (with 2 spots in the back for maintenance vehicles)

How about out at Caledonia. 4 car sharing spots literally right next door to the subway. If I live downtown I can take the subway/LRT (or GO Train) to Caledonia, get off, grab a ZipCar/Cars2Go/AutoShare to go shopping in the Castlefield design district for some new lights, flooring, etc. Opens up a whole range of design options that are currently not available.

And makes the city more livable for all, not just a few entitled workers.

 

[nfitz]

Well, for the operation of that given station it probably is. I mean, look at it this way - how many in station staff do we expect, 1 to 3 (and varying at different times - e.g. cleaners, whatnot)?

I'm reading the rules again - I may have not been accurate he situation if not an industrial park.

See Revenue Canada - http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/tmbl/prkng-eng.html

Employer-provided parking is usually a taxable benefit for an employee, whether or not the employer owns the lot. The amount of the benefit is based on the fair market value (FMV) of the parking, minus any amount the employee pays to use the space. You have to include any GST/HST that applies to the value of this benefit.

We do not require you to include a benefit in your employee's income in the following situations:

• A business operates from a shopping centre or industrial park where parking is available free of charge to both employees and other people.
• You provide scramble parking. Scramble parking is still a benefit to the employee, but in the absence of the ability to accurately assign a value to the benefit because of the random or uncertain nature of it, a benefit is not included in income.

Examples - Scramble Parking
Example 1
Scramble parking

• Where there are 35 parking spots and 60 employees who want parking.

Example 2
Not scramble parking

• There are enough parking spaces for all employees who want a parking space on a daily basis but it is "unassigned parking", meaning employees are not assigned to a particular parking space.
• There are 50 parking spots and 52 employees wanting parking. Therefore, most employees will find a parking spot every day.
• There are 100 employees and 75 parking spots. All employees are provided with a parking pass but 30 employees do not drive to work. Therefore, only 70 employees want parking spots on a daily basis.
• There are 400 parking spots and 600 employees wanting parking. The business runs 3 equal shifts over a 24 hour period. Therefore, not all employees want parking at the same time.
• An annual company-wide meeting results in a significant number of employees being unable to find parking on the day of the meeting due to the attendance of teleworkers and shiftworkers, but on regular workdays, most employees are able to find a parking spot.

​

So oddly enough, if not enough spots ... then non-taxable. If more than enough spots, taxable benefit. Though if anyone can park there because it's an industrial park - then not taxable. Perhaps this is why most companies don't have "No parking unless you work here or are visiting" up!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Most people that work near a high-order transit line do not have free parking. I'm not talking about those people that work in a transit desert nor the bus operators who have to get to the bus depot. I'm talking about s0meone who has the ability to take a fairly efficient transit system 24/7 to work.

Is the system that effective 24/7? I mean, the system open at 6:00 am and shuts down at what, 1:30am - that's the worker demographic I am targeting. Unless they can travel by subway to open/close the subway...

How about out at Caledonia. 4 car sharing spots literally right next door to the subway. If I live downtown I can take the subway/LRT (or GO Train) to Caledonia, get off, grab a ZipCar/Cars2Go/AutoShare to go shopping in the Castlefield design district for some new lights, flooring, etc. Opens up a whole range of design options that are currently not available.

And makes the city more livable for all, not just a few entitled workers.

Let's not pretend we could have easily created space for zipcar or some form of autoshare in the station design process if that was the intent. The way you've presented the argument made it sound as if the presence of the TTC lot prevented that from happening.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Is the system that effective 24/7? I mean, the system open at 6:00 am and shuts down at what, 1:30am - that's the worker demographic I am targeting. Unless they can travel by subway to open/close the subway...

Shame there isn't a frequent night-bus that parallels most of the subway route.

I don't see the operating hours of the subway as a reason that TTC employees shouldn't see this a a taxable benefit; or instead that it be metered for use of TTC employees only.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm reading the rules again - I may have not been accurate he situation if not an industrial park.
...
So oddly enough, if not enough spots ... then non-taxable. If more than enough spots, taxable benefit. Though if anyone can park there because it's an industrial park - then not taxable. Perhaps this is why most companies don't have "No parking unless you work here or are visiting" up!

That's like the craziest rules - it basically creates a two-tiered system whereby tax-free parking is legitimized, for all intents and purposes for certain classes of properties/businesses and not others. Where is the fairness in that?

AoD

 

[nfitz]

That's like the craziest rules - it basically creates a two-tiered system whereby tax-free parking is legitimized, for all intents and purposes for certain classes of properties/businesses and not others. Where is the fairness in that?

The rule basically is that if anyone and their dog can park for free, then there's no value. But if not, you have to pay, unless your employer has only a few spots, and it's first-come first-served, rather than reserved parking.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The rule basically is that if anyone and their dog can park for free, then there's no value. But if not, you have to pay, unless your employer has only a few spots, and it's first-come first-served, rather than reserved parking.

Yeah I know that's in theory - but from a benefits perspective (i.e. just being able to park) it's kind of problematical.

AoD

 

[kotsy]

Correct, they do have some bloody deep stations and long escalators. The layer they've bored through isn't rock however, but a clay seam - which in many ways is better than rock. Easy to mine, under pressure, and extremely impermeable. The layer however changes depth south of the Thames, which is a reason their Tube hasn't extended as far south of there.

Worth noting to those that don't know, but London also uses two types of rolling stock: Subsurface and Deep Tube trains. Also that 55% of their Tube is actually on the surface.

Some of the deeper stations like Covent Garden are only accessed by industrial sized elevators with a spiral staircase for emergencies only.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yup, additional examples of full or partial elevator access:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Glen_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HKU_Station

Depth we're dealing with isn't that big a deal. Amusing that they actually put in decorative tiling for an emergency staircase.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Some of the deeper stations like Covent Garden are only accessed by industrial sized elevators with a spiral staircase for emergencies only.

The signage seems to be getting more dire. I haven't walked down that one, but I've walked down Russell Square where the sign says there's 175 steps rather than 193, and it was more a warning than a "do not use" back then. Still, those are pretty extreme examples on the system.

 

[salsa]

Most newer subway systems around the world have deep stations with machine-bored tunnels (eg. Montreal has some insanely deep ones). I personally don't think it's that bad with escalators.

However it's also that Eglinton itself is pretty hilly in places. Also this line has to go underneath the current subway lines and be constructed while line 1 is operational.

I'm aware that deep stations are inevitable with TBM construction. It doesn't mean I will be happy with the outcome (which is a dramatic departure from how subways used to be built in this city). It also doesn't excuse the abysmal transfer between the GO train and LRT that I pointed out, which so far no one has addressed. I understand there are arguments to be made against cut and cover construction on urban streets (too much underground infrastructure in the way, etc), but the Scarborough subway will be built by TBM as well. Even the Spadina extension is being tunnelled through the middle of nowhere, where perhaps it could have been at least partially above ground. I can't think of many cities in the world who are using the most expensive construction method even in the most far-flung suburban areas.

 

[44 North]

Even the Spadina extension is being tunnelled through the middle of nowhere, where perhaps it could have been at least partially above ground. I can't think of many cities in the world who are using the most expensive construction method even in the most far-flung suburban areas.

Exactly. It makes no sense. The area is mostly low density industrial, highway-like, and it's ugly as all hell. The Vaughan portion particularly. The section between Sheppard to north of Finch, and from Steeles to Hwy 7 should've been run in the open air (elev, trenched, etc). I'm quite confident no other city would ever consider building the costliest of all transit infrastructure in such an environment...Toronto really stands out in that regard.