Updates from July, 2012 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 10:38 on 2012/07/31 Permalink | Reply  

    Is the gay community graying too? This year’s pride parade is sponsored by Viagra.

     
    • Ephraim 11:43 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I think it’s more the recreational value, Kate.

    • Ian 11:52 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      But yes, gays do age. I’ve been told that 30 is like 60 in gay years.

    • Bill_the_Bear 15:49 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I don’t think it’s the first year that Viagra is a sponsor; I seem to remember them being a sponsor last year, and maybe even the year before.

    • Kate 09:31 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      It’s been pointed out to me that Trojan is also, responsibly, a sponsor.

    • William 11:27 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Unlike Viagra however, Trojan hands out free samples of their best products ;)

    • Kate 17:55 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      I guess you don’t need a prescription for ‘em.

  • Kate 09:08 on 2012/07/31 Permalink | Reply  

    The cenne noir, originally meant to be phased out this fall, will be kept around till next February.

     
  • Kate 09:07 on 2012/07/31 Permalink | Reply  

    Henry Aubin manages to find the asbestos lining even in statistics showing crime is down in Montreal.

     
    • Ephraim 10:16 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      There is no statistical correlation between crime reported and actual crime. It’s one of the first thing you learn in statistics classes. It’s too easy to get people to not report, or change the category of a report, ie petty crime, etc. Or people not bothering because they don’t see the point of reporting, like graffiti, smashed car windows, pick-pocketing, etc.

    • Kate 10:25 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      What’s the implication? The city’s festering with crime even if the numbers say it isn’t?

      Surely the Tories would be right in there emphasizing the prevalence of crime if the numbers supported it in any way. It’s been one of their most reliable scare tactics.

    • Ian 10:50 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Ah yes, the famous “unreported crime” trope. I believe Rick Mercer covered that one best: http://youtu.be/bdtuBFtU1t8

    • Ephraim 11:48 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      @Kate – What it basically means is that it’s a nice number to show the public, but essentially it doesn’t mean anything. Another way of showing it is to say… if no one officially complains about the Quebec government discriminating in it’s hiring practices, does it mean that it doesn’t? No, it just means that no one is complaining about it. There is no relationship between official complaints and actual discrimination.

      I once has a policeman tell me to stop calling when I saw drug sales. Sure… because if you don’t report crime, crime statistics go down. Doesn’t mean that the crime has stopped, just that it isn’t being reported.

    • Matt 13:43 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Don’t other cities experience the same problem of reported crime versus actual crime? When we compare statistics with other countries/cities, aren’t we assuming the existence of this flaw in data collection all across the board?

    • Alex 14:19 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Highly unlikely there is NO correlation btw the reported and the actual crime rate. They might diverge for a number of reasons, even by a lot. But I seriously doubt there is no correlation. If the factors anchoring that correlation (btw actual and reported crime rate) do not change over time, the variations in reported crime rate will parallel the actual crime rate. So trends in the reported rate will reflect the actual rate.

    • jeather 14:30 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Other countries may define crimes in different ways, and with different police priorities and legal systems there’s no reason to assume that the percentage of unreported crimes are the same for all crimes in all areas.

      (Also, Aubin’s article seems to be “well, StatsCan says we have fewer crimes, but more severe ones, but really we’re pretty safe overall”. And I don’t see the crime severity index, so I don’t know how various crimes are stacking up there.)

    • Chris 22:24 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I agree with Alex. Ephraim, are you sure you took that statistics class? Correlation is not black vs white, it’s a matter of degree.

    • Ephraim 15:05 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Yes, the correlation exists, but not statistically significant enough. The problem is simply a matter of not being able to measure how much crime is not reported or is reported in different ways. A robbery could be listed in many ways depending on what is taken, how much is taken, is a personal crime involved. So, if you are there it’s not burgulary or break and enter it may be a home invasion, instead. What is someone on the police decides to classifiy it as burgulary even though there was a rape. Or someone breaks my window at home and I don’t see the point of reporting it because the insurance won’t pay, but if I do report it, insurance rates may go up. There are just too many ways to manipulate the data. And that’s the point. It’s not like the correlation between pregnancy and giving birth. It’s more like the correlation between getting stopped for speeding in Montreal and accidents in Laval. Yes, they are related, but is that really significant enough to say that the more speeding tickets that I give in Montreal the less accidents they will have on the road in Laval? Not really.

  • Kate 09:00 on 2012/07/31 Permalink | Reply  

    Government is thinking of ending the fabled $7-a-day daycares. Moms with casseroles? We may see it yet.

     
    • John 10:03 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Well, that’s my luck right there. We finally get a space and the government proposes to end the programme.

    • Marc 10:04 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      You can deny the existence of inflation only for so long, then it bites you in the ass.

    • Bill Binns 10:05 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Gasp! The next thing you know, the goverment will expect parents to provide food and shelter for their own children as well.

    • Kate 10:23 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Turn it down, Bill Binns. Your “fuck you, I’ve got mine” attitude is both offensive and passé.

    • Kevin 10:25 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      It’s been $7 for what, 8 years now?
      Yeesh, governments should just be pro-active and set EVERY price to be cost-of-living adjusted. One real omnibus bill and boom done like dinner.

    • cheese 10:26 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I appreciate that you used the word “fabled” Kate, we have a little one and have been trying to get her into a garderie since the day she was born (almost two years ago). Not possible, there are not nearly enough places. We were offered a place at a couple of expensive (around $50 a day) establishments but even they were not up to scratch.

      The actual $7 per day places near us are very oversubscribed, with three year waits and really no way to get in unless you are a well known person in Quebec. The waiting lists are ignored and often “lost”. We are in the Plateau and though there seem to be a lot of day care facilities in reality it is seriously lacking in decent garderies at any price.

    • Ian 10:36 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Not always, cheese. Make sure you ask right when school gets out for summer and right before school starts again as this is when spots open up. Many garderies will also give priority to kids in the area. Be persistent, that’s how I got my eldest in anyhow, and my youngest gets in on the siblings-thereof dime. And yes, it’s a $7-a-day. I can accept that prices go up but an extra $3 a day is a lot out-of-pocket for many families. Once again we have to ask ourselves where our government’s priorities lie… it’s not that the money isn’t there, it’s that they choose to spend it elsewhere. On a note of caution, I know a lot of people in other provinces that one parent simply stays home because it’s not worthwhile to send your kid to daycare if you make less than 40k a year. No, $10 isn’t THAT much compared to $20 or $30 in private garderie but let’s be realistic – it’s this kind of death by a thousand cuts that is reshaping Quebec into yet another neoliberal “business first” shell of the social and democratic potential that was promised by the Quiet Revolution.

    • walkerp 10:37 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Just one more attempt to move money from the public to the private and continue exacerbating the separation between the rich and the poor in North America.

    • Ephraim 11:51 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      These programs need to be indexed, if only for the sake or protecting them. It’s a nice idea, but forgetting to index them eventually creates problems. Even if you index them just once a year.

    • Ian 12:10 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Great then, index them to the cost of living like most people’s raises.

    • paul 12:41 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Good move, the costs to run the daycares have been rising for years – everyone needs to pay their share, not just the general taxpayer. At least keep it indexed with inflation.

      Maybe with increased funding we could get more spaces for all.

    • qatzelok 13:29 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      If you want your kids to “come out right,” it’ll cost you. Because children are a private investment, just like antiques or collectible ornaments.

    • Ian 13:34 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Right, and my taxes shouldn’t go to the fire department because my house isn’t on fire. It’s called the social contract, folks. Our system requires funding toward the greater good through a widely distributed tax base. If you want to be a libertarian go live in a shack in the far north off the grid.

    • Bill Binns 14:24 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I would like to know how much daycare cost per day per child after the parent throws in their $7.00 vs. how much that parent earns per day at the job the daycare makes possible(they all have jobs right? You shouldn’t need daycare if you don’t have a job). I suspect the province is often paying $40.00 a day in daycare to free a parent up to go out and earn 60-70. Why not just pay people a salary to sit at home and raise their own kids? The parents would be no worse off. Their kids would likely be far better off and thousands of jobs would open up for people who are available to do them.

    • jeather 14:34 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Yes, there’s no reason for a parent to be unwilling to take 5 years out of the job market in the assumption that, once their child starts kindergarten, they will have no trouble finding a job again.

      (The problem with not indexing anything to inflation — with readjustments every 4 years or whatever — is that suddenly you need a huge jump.)

    • walkerp 15:27 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I love how people on the right are always going on about the nanny state but then have no problem knowing what is best for others:

      “The parents would be no worse off. Their kids would likely be far better off and thousands of jobs would open up for people who are available to do them.”

    • qatzelok 16:29 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      As usual, they do things better in the states. In the USA, if you can’t afford a private daycare, you just sit them in front of the TV all day and let Spiderman and Ronald McDonald raise them. And this makes them better consumers of all kinds of merchandise – win, win.

    • Bill Binns 16:39 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      In the States, people are forced to actually think through the decision to spend hundreds of dollars a week to store their kids someplace so they can go out an earn hundreds of dollars a week at a job. This is an easy decision in Quebec because daycare is paid for by magic Quebec dollars that fall from the sky in limitless quantities and always will.

    • Ian 16:44 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I suppose you have no idea how much all those people whose children are in garderie might be contributing to the economy as workers, eh, Binns? Or how having extra pocket money might stimulate spending and the economy, maybe even allowing young families to save for a house or a car instead of being wage slaves – further contributing to the economy? Or maybe how much having a bit more money earned improves the household and the conditions in which a child is raised? It’s like none of you realize that investing in kids is investing in Quebec. Oh wait, you don’t want to invest in higher education either – no surprises there after all. If the goal of the government is to save money for tightwads that don’t like to share and don’t give a damn about less fortunate people or the future of our society, it looks like the Liberals are on the right track.

    • Bill Binns 17:03 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      @Ian – This tightwad is currently “sharing” just under half of my income before I start paying sales taxes. This idea that subsidised daycare somehow pays for itself because it allows people to work is a shell game at best. If the govermnet has to pay $200 a week so that someone can go out and earn $400, this is a winning strategy? What about when the family has multiple kids?? I would love to know how many families are costing the goverment more money in daycare than they are earning at work. How often is double or triple the amount they earn? Somehow we never see these types of statistics. The important thing is that people are made to feel like they are taking care of their kids and contributing to society even of they are not. Is that the case?

    • Kevin 17:17 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      @Bill — the govt pays about $35/kid, more or less, depending on the size of the daycare. (and how is it even possible to earn $60 a day in a province where min. wage is $9.90/hr?)

      *******

      I’m rather unique in that I’ve had daycare in the USA and here in Quebec.

      In NYC I was shelling out $35/day and I had to provide my own food for the kid. Of course, I was earning New York money so that was affordable, but if we had just been on my wife’s scholarship it would have meant me staying at home instead. I knew several people with nannies, even if only part-time.

      Here we easily got into $7 daycare — and had no problems getting our second kid in under the little brother/sister rule. (It may have helped that my wife was on the board at the time, but since every second or third sibling gets in, it seems to be a universal rule)

      The daycare’s large enough, 60 kids, so we see a wide-enough range of parents. Most are professionals, earning $25-$60/hr. I’d guess less than 20% of the parents are earning somewhere around $15-20/hr.

      There are a handful, maybe 6 kids, from what the government deems less fortunate families, and the government pays the whole cost for them. The idea is that 1) The kids learn to socialize and 2) the parents have the chance to learn skills and try to find work.

    • Ant6n 03:20 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Omg getting a kid is a total get-rich-quick scheme…

    • Ian 05:51 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      “@Ian – This tightwad is currently “sharing” just under half of my income before I start paying sales taxes.” Oh, I get it – you’re well-off and are tired of the poors with their hands in your pocket. Boo hoo. I find it offensive that you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow exempt from paying taxes.

    • Chris 08:34 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Ian, saying “If you want to be a libertarian go live in a shack in the far north” is as silly as me telling you: “If you want to be a socialist, go live in Sweden.”

      Bill, everyone dislikes paying taxes for things they don’t directly benefit from. But subsidizing daycare is no worse than subsidizing the road network. 1/3 of Montrealers don’t have a car, but they too contribute to the billions and billions spent of road creation and repairs. I’m sure more of your taxes go to that than to daycare. But somehow I suspect you have a car, and don’t object.

      Lastly, I think part of the reason Québec has subsidized daycare, unlike neighbouring jurisdictions, is, to be blunt, to encourage people to have more children, especially of the pure laine variety.

    • Michel 09:24 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      For two and a half years, we had our son in private daycare, couldn’t get him into a CPE. Those daycares cost us $40/day. That $200/week puts such a huge strain on a family, both financially and psychologically. Good luck to you if you get laid off, which I did. “Oh, just take the kid out of daycare then.” Yeah, about that: try finding a job when you’re taking care of your kid.
      Furthermore, there’s no oversight on private daycares. There are two inspectors for all the private daycares in Quebec. Consequently, my kid was abused at his first daycare (look up Garderies Souriant G). Those places are run as a “for-profit” basis only, and there’s no regard for the kids. “Educators” come and go within a matter of weeks, there’s no attention brought to kids, etc.
      The lad has been in a CPE since last September. His educators have been working there for the past 15 years or so, there’s a strong foundation, a gym, etc.
      Were the government to stop funding these places, it would be a massive shame. Seems to me—though my memory may be fucked—that part of the social contract between Quebec and its citizens was that, because there was a negative population growth, that the gubmint decided to make it easier, i.e. less expensive, to have kids.

    • Kate 09:34 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Bill Binns: “In the States, people are forced to actually think through the decision to spend hundreds of dollars a week to store their kids someplace so they can go out an earn hundreds of dollars a week at a job.”

      So tell me, Bill Binns: no poor people in the U.S. have children they can’t strictly afford to have? Everyone takes the free market into consideration before indulging in unprotected sex?

      That’s very impressive!

    • jeather 09:51 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Even if you don’t have a car, you profit from a well-maintained and effective road network. Or you would, if we had that here. Equally, even if you don’t currently have a small child, you profit from an affordable daycare system. (Children are the ones who will support us, in aggregate, in the future; parents [which is, realistically, to say mothers] are well-served by not having to give up on careers and 5 years of earnings and work experience; people are well-served by having safe preschools with oversight. There are of course aspects of the system that don’t work — maybe 7$ is the wrong price, maybe there aren’t enough spots, maybe spots are given out based on who you know — but that doesn’t mean the entire system is terrible and we should go to this mythical ideal of a household entirely supported by a single income.

    • Bill Binns 09:55 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      @Kate, yes of course people are having kids they cannot afford. This is a longstanding fast track to a life of poverty. There are also many millions of people who work for a living, who spend more than five minutes thinking about what they want to do with their life and have kids when they are capable of raising them. How much money should we forcibly take from the second group to give to the first? How long before the second group doesn’t have enough money left to raise children responsibly and just decides not to do it all?

      If the story of the ant and the grasshopper took place in Quebec, come winter, the ant would have been villified as a cheap, heartless bastard and the grasshopper the poor victim who is starving to death through no fault of his own.

    • ant6n 11:05 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      In a responsible society, having a child SHOULD be a sure-way into proverty. Having kids is for rich people, after all. Let the market decide.

    • Bill Binns 11:23 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Was Googling around looking for info on the daycare thing and stumbled on this. http://nodogsoranglophones.blogspot.com/2012/05/7-day-daycare-defines-quebec-as-loser.html

      This explains my own position much better than I could (nice to know i’m not the only one). I love the cartoon at the top and the video that does a great job of explaining the broken windows fallacy.

    • walkerp 12:56 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      I’ve lived in several major cities in North America and Montreal far and away has the best social support for children. And it shows. Why do you think so many of our Olympic athletes come from Quebec?

    • walkerp 13:06 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      I read No Dogs or Anglophones from time to time, but I’ve never dipped into the comments section. Wow, is that ugly. That horrible anglo-Canadian resentment and small-mindedness that drove me from BC in the first place. Ugh. “I’m so angry that other people are getting good things and paying less for them while I work so hard” wah wah wah. It’s amazing how much hate is directed towards Quebec by people who are well-fed, well-sheltered and working. Bunch of losers. Why don’t you all move to the States and see what it’s really like to live in a society without a social safety net. I’m sure you’ll all love it since you are so industrious and self-sufficient. Ha ha, yeah, good luck with that.

    • ant6n 15:11 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      @Bill
      Besides a bunch of red herrings, rants, and the old trope about transfer payment, the article is not very relevant, and there are only maybe three lucid arguments there.

      And the broken window fallacy doesn’t apply; subsidized day care isn’t value destruction, it’s merely shifting wealth towards young families, which helps keeping them out of proverty and encourages having children. That’s a good thing, because you probably can’t fight the demographic change with immigration alone.

    • Jean Naimard 23:29 on 2012/08/02 Permalink

      Bill Bins is the proverbial «maudit anglais» from which we are labouring so much to get rid of.

    • Ant6n 01:57 on 2012/08/03 Permalink

      @jean
      no he isn’t. He is an immigrant, entitled to his opinion, and probably not interested in your crusade against English canadians

    • Montreal Resident 14:38 on 2013/05/22 Permalink

      Everyone here is forgetting just how much taxes people in quebec pay. We are the most taxed people for the services and quality of service we get. We are not giving people $7 a day daycare, people are paying for it in taxes. Nothing is free except dying.

  • Kate 08:55 on 2012/07/31 Permalink | Reply  

    Building Design magazine posts their dire preview of the 1976 Olympic installations with some interesting photos.

     
    • qatzelok 00:13 on 2012/08/01 Permalink

      Some interesting quotes too.

      “The easy going French-Canadian is the most proud of the monumental Olympic Park, for all its faults in costings and schedules.

      “Look at it,” said one as he stood on the site perimeter, “it’s like the Taj Mahal. It’ll be the Eighth Wonder of the World.””

      Oh those F-C’s and their credulousness.

    • Jean Naimard 23:31 on 2012/08/02 Permalink

      Oh, those M-A («maudit anglais») and their pompous haughtyness.

  • Kate 20:14 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    The Îles de Boucherville, the closest provincial (“national”) park to the city, will offer two camping areas although not this summer. It sounds like the government money (nice timing) is going to be used to add a lot of “aménagements” to the relatively small park, including a boutique, which I’m sure the endangered species will appreciate.

    As a species, we really cannot leave well enough alone.

     
    • Adam 21:18 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      Do you also think we should have left “well enough alone” on the spot where you live? Perhaps you’d prefer to live in the untamed wilderness, but most people would refer to what you’re describing as “poverty.” There is nothing wrong with making a park a nice and convenient place to visit.

    • Faiz Imam 00:23 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      I’ll wait to see a plan before concluding anything, but given the size of the park, questioning it is legitimate.

      While its a decent size, much of it is already used for various purposes, what are they using to make space for the camp sites?

      if i’m not mistaken, wasn’t there part of the island that was owned by some guy that was given for public use? or is that elsewhere?

      IF this make a good compromise, then i’m Ecstatic about this. I’m a huge camper and a new place, especially one so close is great. Of course is even more “fake” that most camp sites, but its one more natural destination in the Montreal area and is great from both a tourism and health perspective. WOOT!

    • Kate 09:37 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      You know, Adam, if you didn’t adopt such a hectoring, lecturing tone I would be more inclined to respond.

      Faiz Imam, a guy owned part of Île Charron and was going to build on it, but after public outcry Quebec bought his land back (for $15 million, a much higher price than they could once have bought it for, but that’s history now) and added it to the park.

    • Blork 09:38 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      According to what I heard on CBC Radio (and assuming I heard it correctly), the land was originally slated for private condo development. If that’s true, then using it for camping is definitely an improvement.

    • Kate 09:41 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      There are still two working farms on the more downstream bits of island, and on CBC this morning they had a clip of Pierre Arcand talking about getting their owners to apply to integrate their farms into the park. Or else I guess they’ll be dislodged eventually. I wonder how long their families have farmed that land (thinking of all the unnecessary dispossession that accompanied the development of Mirabel airport).

    • qatzelok 13:33 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Les Iles de Boucherville contain a huge parking lot, and yet the only way to get there by bike is to take a ferry. If you miss the last ferry on your bike, you have to ask someone with a car to “portage” you. The presence of this large parking lot brings in lots of suburban families, and this makes the islands feel a bit like the Toronto Islands minus all the activities there.

  • Kate 14:34 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Quebec’s sending a $3.45M bill to the consortium that was working on the Viger tunnel a year ago when the concrete paralume collapsed.

     
    • Ian 06:26 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      Great that the same jokers are working on the Turcot. I’ve often wondered why companies aren’t fined if their shoddy construction falls apart – looks like sometimes they are. Good!

  • Kate 13:52 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  


    Speaking of redesigning Canadian flags, these mindfuck flags are by mare on mlkshk – red and blue

     
  • Kate 13:36 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Lots of media chatter about the “meaning” of a summer election to Jean Charest. I would’ve thought it obvious: he knows voter apathy gives him the advantage, and people are more apathetic about politics in summertime. It’s no more subtle than that.

    I haven’t yet decided how much blog space to devote to the election. Inevitably a Quebec election and its outcome have a huge effect on Montreal, yet once you start talking the subtleties of off-island riding choices you sort of veer off topic. I guess I’ll play it by ear.

     
    • Kevin 10:26 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      My 2 cents – how much any individual promise or candidate will screw over the residents of this island ;)

  • Kate 13:32 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Here’s a fulsome description of the rue Gilford en vacances street closure abaft Laurier metro, a ruepublique project. I passed by Sunday and it was quieter but pleasant; the south side cafés were all open on a sleepy Sunday afternoon, and the north side has some play spaces for kids, a bicycle clinic and a Muvbox resto serving lobster rolls (nom!). Also picnic tables. If you’re going to close single blocks, this is a good one to choose.

     
    • Matt 14:32 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      Amen.

    • walkerp 15:13 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      We went and got some pretty darned good guédille à homard there on Saturday night. Very pleasant and the terrasses were all quite busy. It makes a ton of sense for that stretch of road as it kind of get neglected due to its location. Now it becomes a minor destination. They are going to have little talks held there as well on the history of the neighbourhood.

  • Kate 12:29 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    The Independent IE has a travelogue to Montreal and Quebec City today, leaving open the question why Irish tourists would seek “France… in Canada” when the real France is so much closer for them.

     
  • Kate 10:34 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    The only suspect in the murders at Notre-Dame psych ward last month will be spending more time at the Pinel Institute – he must be a fascinating subject for the forensic shrinks over there, having been in a psychotic state and with no conscious memories of anything he did. His trial will be delayed.

    The Journal finds an old girlfriend of Idelson Guerrier who talks about what an out-of-control violent guy he was.

     
  • Kate 09:49 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    The paving work on the Jacques-Cartier was finished sooner than expected because we’ve had such dry weather.

     
    • Bert 11:35 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      It seems to me that the “let’s just close the thing and get on with the work to be done” approach seems to work better than the “Let’s close half a lane, so that we can give back 100% of the lanes but reduced width” approach?

      This, along with the tunnel paralume removal activities (and a few other instances like overpass removal / construction) seems to work very well. Maybe we will learn, maybe.

    • Kate 12:15 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      They didn’t do either, exactly. They closed half the bridge a week ago and paved it, allowing one lane open in each direction, and over the weekend they did the other half. They scheduled both work weekends for the construction holiday to get the best weather with the fewest commuters, and put extra metro cars on the yellow line. Except for rain briefly delaying last week’s paving it went flawlessly.

    • Michel 13:35 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      I’m embarrassed to say that the lane closures on J.-C. led me to take the Victoria bridge for the first time ever. Nice ride, but didn’t enjoy the feeling that the car was swaying back and forth.

    • Kate 13:39 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      Yes, there’s something about the metal surface of the Victoria – you’re not the first driver I’ve heard deplore the way your car moves on that bridge.

    • Faiz Imam 13:44 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      I guess i’m in the minority, but i LOVE the way the car sounds and feels in the Victoria bridge.

    • Kate 14:24 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      Me too, Faiz Imam, but then I’ve never been the driver. You?

    • Matt 14:33 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      Just drove across Victoria bridge yesterday and thought it was lovely!

    • Bert 14:44 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      Gotta love the Vic’! I really miss the old days, where rush-hour traffic on the south-west side / lane was bi-directional!

    • Marc 15:12 on 2012/07/30 Permalink

      The Victoria and J-C bridges are the only ones I trust.

    • Kevin 10:29 on 2012/07/31 Permalink

      if you feel like the car’s swaying, odds are your tires are underinflated. Save gas, check your tire pressure.

  • Kate 09:30 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    We’re into the second week of the construction holiday and in limbo before the election announcement wrecks the summer for lots of people. Metro has some historical trivia about Côte-des-Neiges for us.

     
  • Kate 08:53 on 2012/07/30 Permalink | Reply  

    A designer’s shop on the Main that survived the waves of road construction to thrive; a profile of Tony Shoes, which has been on Greene Avenue for more than 75 years.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel