02-24-2018, 09:29 PM
(02-24-2018, 09:12 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Fair enough, but that's true for all wrap ads, not just this particular one.
True, but there is something about a wrap ad for wrap ads that feels worse.
Please keep in mind also that ad revenue is typically not a large component of transit income. I couldn’t quickly find actual numbers but I would be surprised if it covered more than a few percent of expenses. So it doesn’t make sense to significantly worsen the transit experience for the sake of advertising. It would be a different calculation if the ads allowed for free boarding, or for an entire rapid transit line to be run at no cost to the Region, or something like that.
Personally, I think window-covering wrap ads should not be done, except that if some small component of the ad extends over a small fraction of the area of the window, I would allow that. For example, if an ad has a hockey stick and the hockey stick extends across the window I would be OK with that. But not more than maybe 10-15% of the glass area should be covered.
Also note that there is no expectation that the road network contribute to its upkeep by selling advertising (or collecting fares). 100% funding out of taxes is fine there, apparently. It’s not clear to me why transit is considered so different.