(07-14-2020, 12:19 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Well now, all those folks who argue that bus ads are no big deal and don't affect one's transport can now put their income where their mouth is.

Also, I'm kind of surprised this didn't exist before...advertising has pretty much taken over our whole society... yech.

(07-14-2020, 12:19 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Well now, all those folks who argue that bus ads are no big deal and don't affect one's transport can now put their income where their mouth is.

Also, I'm kind of surprised this didn't exist before...advertising has pretty much taken over our whole society... yech.

(07-14-2020, 05:47 PM)jeffster Wrote: I have heard of this before. And as much as I would love to have a couple hundred extra dollars coming in every month, this would be a big 'no thank you'.

I am guess, depending on your car expenses, you should be able to write off 100% of car expenses, since your car is a moving advertisement. I could be wrong though. Doesn't make me change my mind though.

(07-14-2020, 06:05 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 05:47 PM)jeffster Wrote: I have heard of this before. And as much as I would love to have a couple hundred extra dollars coming in every month, this would be a big 'no thank you'.

I am guess, depending on your car expenses, you should be able to write off 100% of car expenses, since your car is a moving advertisement. I could be wrong though. Doesn't make me change my mind though.

I doubt about the 100% write off. I’m not a tax expert, but unless the only purpose of having the car on the road is to advertise, I believe one would have to do some sort of pro-rating calculation based on what fraction of the car is being used for advertising. I know for something like renting out a basement apartment expenses such as utilities need to be pro-rated. There is some room for arguing about the ratio (e.g., is it 50% because the building has two units, one of them rented; or is it 33% because one of the 3 floors is rented?), but writing off 100% won’t fly.

As to the advertising, I wonder what the endgame is here. I mean potentially most cars could have advertising on them; but how much impact would any of it have if almost every vehicle is a rolling billboard?

(07-14-2020, 07:13 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I know that advertising is a deductible business expense (i.e. you pay to advertise your business), but I would not see the basis for a deduction when third party advertising is placed on you car to generate income.

(07-14-2020, 09:05 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 07:13 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I know that advertising is a deductible business expense (i.e. you pay to advertise your business), but I would not see the basis for a deduction when third party advertising is placed on you car to generate income.

In order to earn the advertising income, I would hypothetically incur expenses. So if I were paid to drive around the city showing the advertising, I would expect the gas and maintenance to be deductible. But in this case, I think the idea is that one is driving around anyway so there wouldn’t be additional expenses. If the contract specified frequent carwashing, though, that might be deductible.

(08-29-2020, 10:17 AM)ac3r Wrote: GRT and Metrolinx have launched a new pilot project for on demand transit in Breslau and are currently seeking public input. According to the article, they'll launch it next year and it will run for about a year.

(08-29-2020, 10:56 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(08-29-2020, 10:17 AM)ac3r Wrote: GRT and Metrolinx have launched a new pilot project for on demand transit in Breslau and are currently seeking public input. According to the article, they'll launch it next year and it will run for about a year.

Transit is a complicated question, but I don't think on demand transit makes sense for anything other than a safety net transit option in places where scheduled transit cannot be provided due to broken urban planning.

It's disappointing that people keep seeing it as the solution which makes transit work...it's a sign of transit being broken.

(09-02-2020, 10:59 PM)jeffster Wrote:

(08-29-2020, 10:56 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Transit is a complicated question, but I don't think on demand transit makes sense for anything other than a safety net transit option in places where scheduled transit cannot be provided due to broken urban planning.

It's disappointing that people keep seeing it as the solution which makes transit work...it's a sign of transit being broken.

I think once Ottawa St N is extended, they could have normal service, if ridership calls for it.

(09-03-2020, 02:49 PM)ac3r Wrote:

(09-02-2020, 10:59 PM)jeffster Wrote: I think once Ottawa St N is extended, they could have normal service, if ridership calls for it.

Are they extending Ottawa Street N in the near future? Doing that would provide great access to the Breslau area and the airport. The iXpress bus that goes down Ottawa/Lackner could go over the bridge, through Breslau and then down Victoria again providing a really fast way for people to get deeper into the city.

(09-03-2020, 02:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(09-03-2020, 02:49 PM)ac3r Wrote: Are they extending Ottawa Street N in the near future? Doing that would provide great access to the Breslau area and the airport. The iXpress bus that goes down Ottawa/Lackner could go over the bridge, through Breslau and then down Victoria again providing a really fast way for people to get deeper into the city.

I hope not, it would only encourage further sprawl.  The Ottawa extension is in city plans, but it is in the "outside of the timeframe of the Transportation Master Plan" category.