Updates from September, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 14:29 on 2017/09/30 Permalink | Reply  

    The Beaverton hits the target on Uber in Quebec.

    • ProposMontréal 16:30 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      I used Uber maybe a dozen time in the last two years in Montreal, It was worth the price. That being said, one of the GREAT advantages of their action is force a stagnant industry like taxi to improve their quality of service, which was slowly getting better. Now, they can simply go back to sucking!

    • Ian 17:20 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      I like Téo better – same service as Uber, all electric cars, and I know the drivers are treated better. “Disruptive” services like gig work are predatory capitalism at its finest, taking advantage of workers while flouting all regulation and worker’s rights while getting rich hand over fist. Not that Taillefer isn’t going to make a mint off this, but at least his employees are actually employees with all the rights and protections that entails included a guaranteed wage. Gig work is a lousy way to make a living, I know this from personal experience as a day labourer in my youth.

      Hopefully with Uber out of the way Téo can expand its service area!

    • Ephraim 11:17 on 2017/10/01 Permalink

      Teo is fully insured, drivers have been trained, all on salary and paid at least $15 an hour, all electric cars, etc. The drivers are friendly and professional. Actually better service than Uber with drivers who have had their police records checked. And cars that clearly identify the driver, so you can’t have people posing as Uber drivers to commit assault (See http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/23/man-allegedly-poses-as-uber-driver-sexually-assaults-woman-cops for one example, but there are so many more.)

      You would think that Uber would be embracing having their drivers vetted by the police considering how many assaults that have been involved in. (See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/uber-london-ban-sexual-assault-california-case-police for examples and how easy it is to get around it… http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-around-background-checks-1596982249)

    • Chris 13:03 on 2017/10/01 Permalink

      But Uber is cheaper that Teo, right? All that other stuff people don’t care about.

    • marco 14:18 on 2017/10/01 Permalink

      @Chris – I had three bad experiences with uber and deleted the app. I always take Teo now and gladly pay the extra buck or two for a professional driver and an electric car.

    • ant6n 14:58 on 2017/10/01 Permalink

      Uber has gotten expensive from the aiport, anyway. A long time ago I paid 25$ or so. Now that it’s officially, it was barely less than 40$, so might as well take a cab (although late at night the wait for an uber may be shorter). (it would be nice if the 747 ran every 20 minutes to 2am).

      Do you have to pay tip on Teo?

    • Kate 17:15 on 2017/10/01 Permalink

      Teo calculates and includes a 15% tip but the user can adjust that up or down before agreeing to the total.

    • Dhomas 20:49 on 2017/10/01 Permalink

      Uber has gotten more expensive since the “pilot project” began about a year ago.

      I know for me, the reason I use Uber is not because of the price, but because of the convenience. No cash, no credit, just an app. No waiting for a cab to arrive (sometimes in the cold), you can see your car coming from the app. Forgot something in the car? You can track down and contact your driver easily (drivers are also given a 15$ reward for turning in objects to Uber’s lost and found). Have a complaint about a driver? You can give a rating, right in the app.

      I would use Téo more, but I am in the fringe of their coverage area, so it always takes them awhile to get a car to me. The other reason I (and certainly many others) use Uber over local, homegrown solutions is because Uber works pretty much everywhere I travel to.

  • Kate 09:43 on 2017/09/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Denis Coderre is insisting the unpopular Pierrefonds development project must proceed, even though the OCPM report says firmly that the project, which would pave over one of the island’s last remaining green spaces, has a problème majeur d’acceptabilité sociale. Neither article gets into another issue, which is that we saw this spring how building on wetlands in that part of town is simply a stupid and doomed thing to do.

    • mare 11:28 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      Why do we even have these review processes if they’re largely ignored?

      Does Coderre is ‘friends with brown envelope benefits’ with any of these developers? Looking at previous Montreal mayors it’s a legitimate concern.

    • ant6n 12:09 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      I dunno, maybe it’s to divert the energy of activists into a a controlled process that in the end can be shut down. It can be incredibly frustrating to spend a lot of energy on this kind of participation (tens or hundreds of hours of work), only to get shut down by our arrogant politicians with one liners like “Le BAPE n’est pas le pape” (5 seconds work).

    • Ali Bear 12:59 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      Maybe Coderre sees himself as “the Pope” of urban sprawl. If so, it’s time for some heavy-duty Protestantism.

    • SMD 00:40 on 2017/10/01 Permalink

  • Kate 09:27 on 2017/09/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Nearly twenty years after they were subjected to relentless noise from work on the Ville-Marie, people who can prove they were living in a perimeter around Guy and de Carillon may be able to collect a payout from a class action suit. De Carillon is so tiny I can’t even find it on Google Maps.

    • LJ 10:13 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

    • Kate 11:11 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      Thank you! I had the idea it should be intersecting Guy Street, but it’s some considerable distance to the west.

    • Benoit 11:15 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      Looking at the Streetview, I was surprised to see what looks like an underpass at the north end of avenue de Carillon. I wonder what it connected to.

    • steph 12:11 on 2017/09/30 Permalink

      @ Benoit: Carillon used to connect to Pullman street (north of the train tracks) to reach St-Remi. Pullman was fenced off to the between Carillon and Angrinon. The whole area is now part of Turcot construction, I have no idea what it’s currently like.

    • Max 01:48 on 2017/10/02 Permalink

      Benoit: Good eye. As steph said, it went across the mouth of the yard to Pullman. Plus a ramp ran west from the de Carrilon underpass giving access to some sidings a bit west of the interchange. You can see the 1978 arrangement here.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc