Montreal City Weblog

Kate 09:46 on 2024-04-20 Permalink Reply  

• Ian 10:18 on 2024-04-20 Permalink

  The city really needs to focus on the fact that this is a tactic in the ongoing struggle with the Ministry of Transportation, and make this about the city VS CAQ.

  As it is, it’s just going to be perceived as “the war on cars” and making citizens pay for political decisions they only have any ability to affect at municipal election time.

  Whether you think there should be a “war” on vehicles or not, one thing that the “war on cars” people tend to forget is that all goods brought into Montreal are then distributed by trucks. In that sense this will easily be spun into a war on business, Also, any company with a Montreal-based fleet of commercial vehicles is going to very quickly move the fleet address off-island, actually decreasing city revenues – and those numbers are an order of magnitude higher than private ownership.

• DeWolf 11:13 on 2024-04-20 Permalink

  But this isn’t a city initiative, Ian, it would apply to all the municipalities in Greater Montreal. So a business wanting to avoid the hike in registration fees would have to move their operations outside the metropolitan area entirely.

  Also, the quotes in the article suggest that the various mayors are taking exactly the approach you recommend:

  // « L’augmentation de la taxe sur l’immatriculation des véhicules n’est pas une option souhaitée par la Ville de Montréal ni une baisse de service de transport collectif », a indiqué l’attachée de presse Catherine Cadotte.

  « Tout dépend de la proposition de financement du ministère des Transports de la Mobilité durable attendue impatiemment par les villes, les sociétés de transport et la population », a-t-elle continué. //

  The mayor of Laval is opposed to the hike but his line is that Quebec needs to step up:

  // Dans une déclaration écrite transmise par son cabinet, le maire de Laval a repoussé la solution fiscale. « Deux choses sont importantes pour moi. D’abord, rencontrer la ministre. Le temps presse », a-t-il dit. « Ensuite, il faut trouver une solution pérenne et conjointe. Si on n’y arrive pas, on va rentrer dans le cercle vicieux de la diminution de l’offre de service. Pour moi, l’augmentation des taxes c’est vraiment la dernière des options. » //

• Ian 11:51 on 2024-04-20 Permalink

  Nothing stopping anyone from moving their registration to anywhere outside greater Montreal, it’s a matter of licensing, not physical location of the fleet. There are lots of commercial vehicles in Montreal that are registered elsewhere, it’s not like they need to build a ring of parking lots north of Mirabel or whatever.

  I said “the city” in response to Kate, I did read the article, thank you.

• Kate 13:13 on 2024-04-20 Permalink

  My apologies for misstating the situation originally.

• Ephraim 09:02 on 2024-04-21 Permalink

  The city needs to think long and hard about this because there will be unintended consequences.

  Then again, in many places in Europe, only low emission vehicles are allowed and residential areas are sometimes limited to just residents, buses, taxis, ubers and delivery vehicles with 0 emissions.

• Chris 10:25 on 2024-04-21 Permalink

  “zero emissions” is a greenwashing phrase. The particulates from tires and brake pads is substantial, even from EVs.

• Ephraim 11:54 on 2024-04-21 Permalink

  I assume that means that you only buy local. No phone ,no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury like Robinson Crusoe, as primitive as can be.

• Ian 12:07 on 2024-04-21 Permalink

  and not even any coconuts to build everything out of.

• Chris 20:32 on 2024-04-21 Permalink

  A non sequitur if I ever saw one.

• Ian 21:31 on 2024-04-21 Permalink

  Only to people unfamiliar with Gilligan’s Island.

• Chris 08:44 on 2024-04-22 Permalink

  Ian, I was responding to Ephraim, should have specified that. I generally ignore your trolls.

• Ian 09:48 on 2024-04-22 Permalink

  Considering that you think Ephraim’s on-point remark was a non sequitur, I’m not surprised that you think I’m trolling you. Generally, your strong point appears to be false equivalencies, not cultural literacy, so please forgive my unfair assumption.