Grand River Transit

[tomh009]

I’m not sure it makes intuitive sense to me, either, but it’s not the opinion of the article’s author, no. It was the conclusion of the study the article concerned. Apparently, according to the findings of that study, there’s a big difference between offering two equal subsidies, and offering no subsidy at all. They agree with you that “some people” would take transit if their employer subsidized it to the same tune as parking, but that those some would be very few.

Now I went and actually read the article, and that's projecting a little bit since it only dealt with the tax subsidies.

So the article is comparing (tax credit for driving + free parking + paid transit) with (tax credit for either driving or transit + free parking + paid transit).  We are already at the second scenario (no tax impact from driving vs commute), the question is making the actual use of transit free (which the study did not look at).

[Pheidippides]

Tomh009, do you know if the company identifies that parking as a taxable benefit on employees’ tax slips?

I don't think they do.  In fact, I don't know of any local tech company that does.  (And, yes, I know that CRA considers it a taxable benefit, but I would be compliance on that is very low.  And CRA will first go after such benefits in Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver where parking could cost $500+ per month.)

I do like the idea of offering the TravelWise pass as an alternative.  I'll try to bring this up at our office sometime, even if I think that the take-up rate will be fairly low, knowing where people live.

Actually the CRA has gone after the benefit locally, it went after the Region of Waterloo. I think it owed upwards of $800,000 for a three year period the CRA audited.
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...df#page=34
"The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) undertook an income and expense audit of the Region of Waterloo in 2007-2008 and determined that there was a taxable benefit for employer provided parking at six locations. The CRA determined that there was a fair market value (FMV) for parking at several Regional locations in Kitchener, including 150 Frederick Street, 235 King Street, 50 and 77 Queen Street, at 99 Regina Street in Waterloo and at the Region of Waterloo International Airport."

[MidTowner]

A huge but simple factor is how close you are located to a major transit route, and how close your work or destination is located to the transit stop.

In my mind if I lived centrally say the Barrel Yards, and worked Downtown, the choice to take transit would be an easy one. However if you live in East Stanley Park and commute to North Waterloo it's a great challenge.

I am even trying to plan my new bike route, but there are very few options to cross the highway easily.

This is a lot like Jarrett Walker’s ‘Be on the way’ principle. Really, people should be factoring this in when they move- and since people only do that from time to time, part of the solution needs to be reaching them and helping them factor transportation more into their residential decisions when those decisions are (only occasionally) made.

A lot of the neighbourhoods in our Region would only support transit at a very high modal share. Even if there were a direct bus from East Stanley Park to North Waterloo, in your example, it would mostly be empty: driving a car would still be quicker, and since people already require a car in East Stanley Park for everything else (like getting to the grocery store or a restaurant), they’re not likely in the position to divest themselves of a car. As Zanate said, when you have the opportunity to give up a car, transit makes a great deal of economic sense. Otherwise, the incremental costs of any given car trip (most visibily, the cost of gas, which is cheap, since parking is nearly always free-of-charge) is always going to seem cheaper than transit, and is probably going to be faster, too.

We need to establish more “major transit routes” (really, I think the King Street corridor is the only one in the Region), but that might be counter-productive in the near term if they are underused because they service sprawling areas where most people have cars and if cars continue to be cheap for the user.

[tomh009]

I don't think they do.  In fact, I don't know of any local tech company that does.  (And, yes, I know that CRA considers it a taxable benefit, but I would be compliance on that is very low.  And CRA will first go after such benefits in Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver where parking could cost $500+ per month.)

Actually the CRA has gone after the benefit locally, it went after the Region of Waterloo. I think it owed upwards of $800,000 for a three year period the CRA audited.
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...df#page=34
"The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) undertook an income and expense audit of the Region of Waterloo in 2007-2008 and determined that there was a taxable benefit for employer provided parking at six locations. The CRA determined that there was a fair market value (FMV) for parking at several Regional locations in Kitchener, including 150 Frederick Street, 235 King Street, 50 and 77 Queen Street, at 99 Regina Street in Waterloo and at the Region of Waterloo International Airport."

Yes, CRA is doing selective enforcement, going after large employers with many employees in locations where parking is typically not free.  All those locations have pay parking available, so it's easy for CRA to say that there is a taxable benefit.  On the other hand, at BlackBerry HQ (near RIM Park), for example, there is only free parking, no paid parking, so even though there are a lot of employees, the fair market value of a parking spot is much more difficult to establish.

[Viewfromthe42]

Actually the CRA has gone after the benefit locally, it went after the Region of Waterloo. I think it owed upwards of $800,000 for a three year period the CRA audited.
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...df#page=34
"The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) undertook an income and expense audit of the Region of Waterloo in 2007-2008 and determined that there was a taxable benefit for employer provided parking at six locations. The CRA determined that there was a fair market value (FMV) for parking at several Regional locations in Kitchener, including 150 Frederick Street, 235 King Street, 50 and 77 Queen Street, at 99 Regina Street in Waterloo and at the Region of Waterloo International Airport."

Yes, CRA is doing selective enforcement, going after large employers with many employees in locations where parking is typically not free.  All those locations have pay parking available, so it's easy for CRA to say that there is a taxable benefit.  On the other hand, at BlackBerry HQ (near RIM Park), for example, there is only free parking, no paid parking, so even though there are a lot of employees, the fair market value of a parking spot is much more difficult to establish.

Compare that to my north waterloo employer. We pay to lease unused parking from multiple adjacent businesses in order to let employees park (at no direct cost to them). If you bike, we did buy a bike rack. If you take transit, well, you take transit.

[MidTowner]

In the case of RIM, if parking is provided for free to others, it’s not a taxable benefit. Are there restrictions in that lot? I think that, even if it’s just visitors who are given free parking, it’s not considered to be a taxable benefit to employees. If your employer is located in an industrial park and the park isn’t attempting to dissuade visitors or members of the public from parking there (even if those people are just hypothetical), the parking you get as an employee is not a taxable benefit.

In Viewfromthe42’s case, it seems like it maybe should be. Maybe report your employer to CRA’s snitch line? (Just kidding)

[Viewfromthe42]

In the case of RIM, if parking is provided for free to others, it’s not a taxable benefit. Are there restrictions in that lot? I think that, even if it’s just visitors who are given free parking, it’s not considered to be a taxable benefit to employees. If your employer is located in an industrial park and the park isn’t attempting to dissuade visitors or members of the public from parking there (even if those people are just hypothetical), the parking you get as an employee is not a taxable benefit.

In Viewfromthe42’s case, it seems like it maybe should be. Maybe report your employer to CRA’s snitch line? (Just kidding)

Considering the way BlackBerry purportedly policed parking in the Philip lots (albeit next to a big draw in UW), I can't imagine it's a free-for-all at RIM Park, either.

[tomh009]

No, but fair market value is still harder to establish than in a location where paid parking is available.

[Pheidippides]

A clear timeline about CST from the transit hub update to planning and works next week:
"GRT plans to reconfigure its bus network around ION and phase out the Charles Street Terminal by 2019."

[tomh009]

A clear timeline about CST from the transit hub update to planning and works next week:
"GRT plans to reconfigure its bus network around ION and phase out the Charles Street Terminal by 2019."

Excellent!  That will be a super-premium development opportunity once the terminal has been closed, being next to an ION station, across the street from Victoria Park, and very much in the downtown core.

[clasher]

A clear timeline about CST from the transit hub update to planning and works next week:
"GRT plans to reconfigure its bus network around ION and phase out the Charles Street Terminal by 2019."

Excellent!  That will be a super-premium development opportunity once the terminal has been closed, being next to an ION station, across the street from Victoria Park, and very much in the downtown core.

Yeah, it will really change the whole neighbourhood without so many buses passing through, I wonder how much different the bus system will really be after the move... exciting times!

[MidTowner]

A clear timeline about CST from the transit hub update to planning and works next week:
"GRT plans to reconfigure its bus network around ION and phase out the Charles Street Terminal by 2019."

Meaning the King and Victoria station will be up and running by then? That doesn't seem too likely.

Very exciting to get a date on the disuse of the Charles Street terminal. I bet the changes to the bus network will have to be pretty significant- nearly every Ion station should have at least one feeder route to it, that would mean big changes.

[BuildingScout]

Meaning the King and Victoria station will be up and running by then? That doesn't seem too likely.

It depends if it gets built in normal time or RoW construction time. One year planning and two years construction should normally be more than enough for a project this size. .

[tomh009]

Meaning the King and Victoria station will be up and running by then? That doesn't seem too likely.

It depends if it gets built in normal time or RoW construction time. One year planning and two years construction should normally be more than enough for a project this size. .

That's right.  Three and a half years from now, it should be quite possible to have the station operational, even if some of the other parts of the complex are still under construction.  But this really depends on when they get the project started.

[Smore]

I hope they consider that getting permits for work along the tracks might take time and could result in a delay in the project...