Updates from September, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 21:18 on 2017/09/28 Permalink | Reply  

    Denis Coderre and Valérie Plante will debate on October 19. A second debate in English will follow at another time.

    Thursday’s issues: Plante promised to simplify the process of applying for permits for minor renovation projects.

     
    • Ephraim 12:30 on 2017/09/29 Permalink

      Well, that’s a plus for her. Those permits are like pulling teeth.

  • Kate 19:39 on 2017/09/28 Permalink | Reply  

    Global notes a new piece of public sculpture installed at a corner of Concordia’s Hall Building.

     
  • Kate 19:32 on 2017/09/28 Permalink | Reply  

    Bagel bakeries are not the only emissions story in town: people in Hochelaga are still unhappy about the Lallemand yeast factory and its effluents even after abatements have been installed.

     
  • Kate 19:25 on 2017/09/28 Permalink | Reply  

    The IRIS think tank says that the benefits of free public transit would outweigh the costs by reducing traffic congestion and that at least students and seniors ought to get a free ride. The study author also says motorists are being subsidized at a rate more than six times higher than public transit users.

     
    • Taylor C. Noakes 19:34 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      Way too radical for Montreal; it’s vitally important for our city to ignore maths and facts if they fundamentally change our perspective.

      Not to mention, if we provide free public transit to all citizens, how will we distinguish between rich and poor?

    • Ephraim 19:43 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      Strongly believe in subsidies, but a few places have tried free and there are some real disadvantages, particularly in efficiency and costs rise because no one values it and vandalism increases as well as abuse of employees (for some odd reason). A minor charge, even if it’s just nominal is fine. Even at $20 a month, people will at least value it. Or maybe a percentage of costs, so if it does go up because of vandalism, etc, the passengers will realize it quickly comes back to them. But otherwise a great idea.

    • mare 21:16 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      I’d love free public transport, but the metro is pretty full right now, despite high fares. Busses can only make up for a fraction of the passenger increase if people don’t have to pay anymore and they might still get stuck in the traffic jams caused by drivers that can now afford to live further away from the city and still commute because there’s less traffic. Different modes of transport are all connected and changing something abruptly might have a different outcome than forseen. So first we need to make big (HUGE) investments in public transport infrastructure and then we can gradually make it free.

    • ant6n 23:30 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      Just make it cheaper. Also, offer STM fares for trains in Montreal.

      Capacity will always be a huge problem, and the next 6-8 billion dollars that we’re spending is simply not increasing capacity be enough (REM).

      I’d say we should start doing proper planning, use a fact and data based transit policy, follow industry best practices, and maybe follow our planning procedures (e.g. BAPE) rather than use laws to override them (loi 137).

    • EmilyG 09:00 on 2017/09/29 Permalink

      Good comments on this blog entry.
      Free public transit is a good idea in theory, but I imagine it’ll be even more overcrowded than it already is, unless they add more buses and metros.
      I’m in favour of reduced-fare public transit for certain people, for example those with a low income.

    • JaneyB 09:14 on 2017/09/29 Permalink

      Free transit sounds good on paper but STM would have to increase surveillance in a huge way. Lots of anti-social mentally ill folks would just move in and ever so quietly women and old people (the core riders) will drift away. Then everyone (er, the male planners…) will say ‘what happened’… I know it’s mean but fares act as an entry barrier for people too troubled to get even a bad job. I don’t like them but no one wants to address our mental health non-system and its effect on our public spaces.

    • thomas 14:19 on 2017/09/29 Permalink

      The experience of the city of Tallinn in providing free public transit has been decidedly mixed and has not decreased car usage (actually paradoxically it increased). If the goal is to reduce car usage the deciding factors seem to be improved transit punctuality/predictability and comfort.

    • Tim 19:17 on 2017/09/29 Permalink

      The easiest way to decrease car usage is to use tolls.

    • Dhomas 06:12 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      I completely agree with Tim. If I had my way, every entry into Montreal would have a toll. That includes every bridge, but also every “city” on the island that is not part of the city of Montreal (I’m looking at you, Westmount). The drivers from these other communities use Montreal’s roads and infrastructure daily, but pay little to no taxes to maintain them. Unfortunately, it is political suicide to impose a toll on existing roadways, so I don’t it will ever happen.

  • Kate 05:29 on 2017/09/28 Permalink | Reply  

    Not only was the heat wave unusual, we’ve also just broken a record for consecutive days without precipitation in September.

     
  • Kate 05:06 on 2017/09/28 Permalink | Reply  

    Valérie Plante wants to hold a referendum on the future of baseball in Montreal. Or, according to another story, she says Denis Coderre wants to sign a blank cheque to MLB.

     
    • ant6n 11:44 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      Why even hold a referendum. Just say no.

      A while back, John Oliver explained how stadiums are a way for Billionaires to extract Billions from the public (video). Often cities are pushed by the fans to subsidize the construction of stadiums, because the owners threaten to leave cities unless they get those subsidies.

    • Blork 12:11 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      I suppose it’s because they want to present it as the will of the people, not the will of the short-term dictators.

    • Faiz Imam 13:30 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      In many ways, advocating for a referendum is basically the same as saying no. I follow field of Schemes regularly, and most referendum proposals on this issue end in failure. especially if they are in any way specific. Multiple sports owners have cancelled their plans simply due to the government deciding to hold a referendum.

      It’s a politically smarter way to go than just saying no, you don’t alienate baseball supporters with a appeal to democracy.

      I think she’s gonna get a lot of success with her strategy.

    • John B 14:19 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      Calgary, which also has an election happening very shortly, just said “No” to the Flames, and they didn’t up & leave. They’re now saying they won’t negotiate anymore and will use the Saddledome as-is until it really doesn’t work for them. The implied threat is that they’re leaving at some point in the future, but I think they’ll just open up a new round of discussions in a few years.

    • Josh 15:02 on 2017/09/28 Permalink

      John B: Calgary is also very obviously the most profitable place for the Flames to be located, though. The owners there don’t have a lot of leverage – the idea that they’d seriously move to Seattle or anywhere else just isn’t credible.

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