The newly rebuilt Mont-Royal metro station has been vandalized with paint twice recently. Calling it graffiti, as in this piece, is to elevate it – it’s just random splashes.
There’s no mention whether there’s video surveillance of the outside of the station, although maybe it’s time they installed some, if not.
A Concordia student came up with the missing wayfinding signs for the REM.
Transport minister Geneviève Guilbault addressed the story on radio, as well as the other story about the student who coded up an app to interface with the Opus card. She doesn’t sound impressed in general here.
Interesting how most of the media coverage until now framed those issues as shortcomings from the REM, when actually it was the ARTM’s responsibility all along. Those problems are neither new or REM-specific; they are network wide and have been known for years by the ARTM, the REM opening just made them more irritating and glaring.
Why should the ARTM have to spend money to direct people to an alternative for-profit service? Isn’t this an example of public money supporting CDPQ Infra profit? Is there anything stopping the REM from putting up signs?
Maybe CDPQInfra is going to force one of its subcontractors (operators, builders) to put up some signs without extra charge to them because its part of the project, then will turn around and demand 50M$ from the ARTM, or perhaps another new tax power, because its external to the project
Part of the core mandate of the ARTM is to develop and deploy integrated signage and wayfinding throughout services of the metropolitan area, whether it be operated by a state-owned enterprise or a traditional agency.
It’s an example of public money supporting the ARTM not actively disengaging from their literal mission of providing continuity across the services, easing user experience and promoting transit.
The STM and the REM cannot act on this alone — putting their own sign beyond what the ARTM prescribes at this point would be overstepping on the the Authority’s role.
The suggestion that the ARTM should unload their responsibility on a crown corporation is an interesting one, considering the CAQ’s plans to create another crown corporation for transit that will likely lead to a radical reorganization or the Authority or their outright dissolution…
The idea of collaborating with profit-making operators for the benefit of users, whether they be state-owned or private, does make me think of the ARTM current work on MaaS. Should they drop those plans since they would be paying for a channel that would in all likelihood direct some people to an alternative for-profit bike share, taxis and car share/rent services?
Anton, will you come to Canada consult for the ARTM? It’s just 10K a month, but it’s part time.
Are you offering work? I could be flexible. I’m on LinkedIn as Anton Dubrau, or firstname.Lastname at gmail com.
Mario Dumont draws the wicked Montreal straw Wednesday.
Is there really a gang at this Anjou park? Or are people having a moral panic about teenagers hanging around?
This story struck me as very sketchy. I didn’t watch the video in the article, but there was nothing there that actually said they closed the pool because of the gang activity.
This was TVA’s report two days ago.
CBC radio mentioned the situation on the news this morning, and conveyed a subtle sense that they didn’t think there was much to it. They’re not spelling out that the mayor of Anjou has form in dismissing teenagers – although he does.
On the other hand, they did talk to some neighbours who said they didn’t like how some young people with cars were hanging around. Whether these young people are criminal is another matter. Sadly, the perception may depend on the colour of their skin.
The report in La Presse the other day (https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/grand-montreal/2023-08-21/anjou/une-piscine-fermee-a-cause-de-presumes-membres-de-gangs-de-rue.php) said that the lifeguards and their supervisors were directly threatened by the supposed gang members, but the story comes from the mayor so caveat emptor…
I wouldn’t trust anything Luis Miranda says. The man is a scumbag.
@ Kate: “they didn’t like how some young people with cars were hanging around…”
Well, people with cars… is all that Anjou is. If this combination is a problem, then Anjou needs to be flattened and started all over again.
Maybe it’s time we admit that car-dependent suburbs are a giant failure?
Qatzi, you’re really tiresome. Either make a constructive suggestion or find a different horse to flog.
Despite warnings, this hasn’t been the summer of armed violence that was presaged. Police credit the trend to their seizure of more weapons this year than last.
The city is promising a report on a blitz of fire inspections that followed the fatal fire in Old Montreal in March.
A lot of stories coming out now are actions or statements by the city in response to complaints by what the press always calls the “official opposition” (even though the city doesn’t have an official opposition because it doesn’t have a Westminster‑style parliament, but let it pass). Ensemble must have decided to push hard on various dossiers before the rentrée.
Ensemble finally doing what an opposition party is meant to do. But while they seem to have staffers doing good work behind the scenes, their politicians are still sticking to the “whine like petulant children” PR approach.
The fact that the Plante administration is once again floating shutting down the road over the mountain suggests they do not fear Ensemble in the slightest.
Well the MAMILs with $10k bikes have to go somewhere since they made themselves unwelcome training in Mt-Royal cemetery, I suppose. What’s the point of having a powerful lobby group if you can’t get the administration to do your bidding? If they do shut it down, it’s going to make the rebuilt Chemin Remembrance interchange the most expensive bike path Montreal’s ever had.
“The call for tenders for the first phase of the work, i.e., infrastructure and urban technical networks, roads and landscaping, was won by the firm Eurovia Québec Grands Projets Inc. for a total amount of $43.25 million. The total project budget is $52.2 million.”
@Kate I either misconfigured the URL or href links are verboten – here is the article I tried to link to:
https://montreal.ca/en/articles/redevelopment-intersection-chemins-remembrance-and-cote-des-neiges-17672
Links are fine, but you may have mistyped and the link got eaten by the script. It’s OK now.
Thanks boss 🙂
It’s with a sense of déjà-vu that I see that the city is pondering banning all vehicles from the Camillien-Houde. The Gazette already has a riposte, getting the fire department to say it wouldn’t be safe.
The technology exists, and is widely deployed in Europe, for retractable bollards that could allow emergency vehicles, and maybe busses too, without allowing private vehicles.
In my anecdotal experience, car drivers seem even less able to follow the law on Camillien-Houde than elsewhere. I bike a lot, but am not in good enough shape to spend a lot of time on Camillein-Houde, so I’ve ridden up or down maybe 20 times in my life. Of those 20 times I’ve had 2 memorable interactions with cars: One a couple of weeks ago, a few minutes after the cyclovia, (closure to motorized vehicles), ended on a Sunday, a car didn’t give me space and nearly pushed me into the wall right near the second photo in the La Press article. This is the closest I’ve been to getting hurt by a car in years. The second incident was a couple of years ago when I was honked at because a car wanted to pass me – even though I was already at least 15km/h over the speed limit, I moved over and the car flew past me, probably doing 70 in the 40 zone.
The day I went out for the cyclovia there was a surprising number of people walking up or down the road as well, it seems like there’s an appetite to use it as a walking space, not just a cycling space.
The pandemic broke commuting, and combined with the massive reduction in traffic cops, it’s allowed everyone to behave badly.
Drivers going 20 under the limit in the left lane, cyclists going the wrong way on one-way streets, red-light runners, helmetless electric scooter riders weaving through cars, pedestrians stopping mid-crosswalk to look at their phones: the anecdotes are endless.
Road safety requires widespread and continued enforcement to change behavioural habits, not a two-week blitz.
> Road safety requires widespread and continued enforcement to change behavioural habits, not a two-week blitz.
This, 100%. Like in the discussion we had around school zone speed limits back when the girl was killed. It is possible to make it so people rarely speed, especially around schools, and mostly obey stop signs, but our governments and police forces have chosen not to do so.
I think you can get the fire department to say that pretty much everything is unsafe. One way downtown streets are unsafe, festivals that close streets are really unsafe, construction sites are unsafe, etc.
If closing Camillien-Houde causes so many problems then just make it a one way going up. The closed (15ft wide) lane could then be used as a multi-purpose path and walking path.
The research repeatedly shows that enforcement (and education) are mostly ineffective tools at making streets safer. What works is changing infrastructure: narrowing lanes, eliminating cut throughs, blocking unsafe turns, etc. If we block off Camillien Houde the same way we block off Mount Royal Ave, I guarantee road safety will increase way better than having a speed trap out there for a few hours once a quarter and then some TV+Radio+Facebook ads telling people to slow down. Automated cameras, if there are enough of them, are better, but Montreal is severely limited in how many are allowed and the political pushback would be way more than what we get when we remove cars from streets (most drivers would lose their licence).
Marco, I would not want to be a pedestrian on a 15-foot-wide path that includes cyclists racing downhill at 40 kph.
@ Nicholas: “The research repeatedly shows that enforcement (and education) are mostly ineffective tools at making streets safer. What works is changing infrastructure: narrowing lanes, eliminating cut throughs, blocking unsafe turns, etc.”
Thank you for stating the obvious – that we are up to our ears in the behaviorism that technologies require of us. Humans are not malleable puddy that can be made to act differently every time a new teck threatens our lives. Roads need to be reconfigured, and driving needs to be pushed out of reach of most people.
No amount of “education and ticketing” will make SUVs safe.
I agree with structural change, and if I am ever rich and idle I will write a thesis on the psychology of road use, but I also strongly believe that personal road vehicles will be with us forever and that road users need an enforcement:punishment mechanism to conduct themselves with care for others.
This seems like an own goal from Projet Montreal. Why not have multiple photo radar / red-light cameras throughout the route to enforce a 30 km/hr speed limit?
@thomas Especially since there’s *already* a photo radar/speed trap *on the mountain* that is extremely effective at getting drivers to go 30km/h (for the stretch it covers) – it’s even marked on Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/yAfFLqBF5uPJu5Cy9
Put one of these up every 200m on either side of Camillien Houde and see how quickly drivers adjust their speed.
Seems to me there are two fundamental ideas that get lumped in together but are really distinct: First, that there should be no road over the mountain, with the compromise position being that there should be some vehicular access to the top that doesn’t offer the opportunity to drive straight across. Second, that the mountain should be open to through traffic, but it should be much much slower and safer, prioritizing cyclists and pedestrians (it’s also worth pointing out that the notion of cyclists and pedestrians using Camillien Houde is quite different from those using virtually any other street in the city – the mountain is hardly a throughway for people not travelling in cars, it’s for leisure/sports). Valerie Plante has been mayor for almost six years, but I don’t think I could tell you which of the two ideas she prefers. If that were clear, the discussion of viable options would be much more fruitful.
Is there any good reason for allowing private vehicles on Camilien Houde? “It’s a nice drive” isn’t one. Nor is “It’s faster than driving around.”
Is there any good reason for converting public streets into playgrounds for a relative few cycling enthusiasts who can afford expensive bicycles to play Lance Armstrong with?
Tear out the asphalt and make it into a hiking trail, no bikes or e-toys or cars allowed. Ambulances can access the winding path up the mountain, emergency vehicles could still use an unpaved road. Anyone wanting to come to the park by bus could do it via Chemins Remembrance and Côte-des-Neiges. Anyone wanting to ride up the mountain could take the same route or go through the park.
To be honest I haven’t walked up the trail for years because a bicyclist ran over my kid once and yelled at us, it kind of ruined the vibe.
I believe the primary goal should be to enhance access to Mount Royal Park. The fact is, for many individuals, driving is the only feasible way to visit. Restricting vehicular access could lead to fewer people being invested in the park’s preservation and overall well-being.
JS
As stated by Dominique Ollivier when she was head of the public consulation group (before she became a Projet councillor), shutting Camillien Houde to cars increases traffic and hazards on roads around the mountain.
It also prevents families from visiting the park.
I can’t believe I’m being the radical ding dong today but really I see no value in this road even existing. I would love to see more urban walking and hiking paths. At present the only way to get up the mountain without dodging cars and bicyclists and scooters et cetera is to walk through the Outremont woods to the lower belvedere then take the winding path up from there, or walk through upper Outemont to Beaver Lake.
Like I said I’ve avoided the winding trail through the main park for years because there are too many aggressive bicyclists. I usually come up through the cemetery or the Outremont woods to avoid them.
It would be great if there was an even grade path just for pedestrians. The world doesn’t resolve around making every single place friendly to sport cyclists.
Sports cyclists have just as much right to use a world class sports facility in the Montreal region/a public road as do skaters, swimmers, runners, skateboarders, or any other type of sports. Happily the world doesn’t revolve only around people who simply hate sports cyclists all day every day.
I realize that was a knee jerk response, but road swimmers?
I’m not advocating banning bicyclists from public roads, I’m saying the road over the mountain should be made into a pedestrian-only path. Nothing but pedestrians, with the bare necessary minimum requirements for emergency vehicle access. No bikes, no skateboards, no scooters, no… swimmers.
Often there’s only one applicant for snow removal tenders, and this means the city or boroughs have no choice but to pay up.
There can’t be a large number of companies able to own and store all the necessary equipment and hire enough experienced people seasonally. But that question isn’t raised in this item.
I’ve heard it on good authority that the city maintains a backup fleet of snow removal vehicles. They could move to directly delivering the service without going through a contractor if they so chose.
I was going to suggest that, but am so befuddled by neoliberalism and its worship for the market that I assumed I’d be shouted down.
Three offer rule. If there is less than 3 offers, the city must PUBLICLY post the offer(s) and allow competing offers for 30+ more days. Partial offers can also be considered as a consortium. Companies will be asked to submit and if they refuse, they can be considered for exclusion for further contracts.
Also, any companies (as well as their directors and spouses) colluding to not compete, must be forbidden from bidding for a period of 20 years and the information handed over to the competition bureau for investigation and prosecution.
There’s no competition because it’s mobbed up.
What Bob said.
Right, that’s why you have to make rules to disclose if there are no competitive bids. Let the world see who bid.
Is the problem that the collusion is on the contractor side, so they divide up territories and agree only to bid on one each, so that the boroughs are stuck having to do business with the one outfit that’s made a bid?
But there’s still the issue I mention. How many firms here have enough machinery, storage and staff to undertake clearing snow from an entire borough? If you disqualify most of the existing ones for collusion, we’ll be up to our necks in it.
@Kate – And they will be sitting with equipment that they can’t use and is tough to sell
There was a similar problem with banning mobbed up firms or their shell companies from bidding on construction – around the time of the rebuilding of avenue du Parc. There were no firms big enough to be able to fulfill the requirements of the city RFPs for roadwork. That rule was quietly shelved, presumably to the great rejoicing of the plain brown envelope industry.
Reply