Updates from November, 2024 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 21:06 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

    In other news: biggest story right now is the Trump tariffs but no one is yet certain how this will play out • A new nationalist group has spawned in Quebec • A chartered plane made a belly landing at Mirabel on Wednesday morning • Mayor Plante is being harangued to keep order after Friday night’s demonstrations, despite persistent suspicions that the casseurs are agents provocateurs, and Premier Legault is threatening to send in the SQ to establish order • A hearing continues into whether 52 alleged victims of billionaire Robert Miller will be allowed to proceed with a class action suit; he is alleged to have up to 100 possible victims.

    Taylor C. Noakes on the misapprehensions about the protests. Isabelle Hachey on the fear of cones.

     

    • Kate 17:12 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

      Ste-Catherine Street will be dug up between Peel and St‑Marc next year to repair the infrastructure. Some sections will be pedestrianized – as shown on this La Presse map – which of course some merchants don’t want and Ensemble doesn’t like, and one radio personality says is open war on the car!

      I gather from radio that we’re seeing, once again, complaints that nobody was consulted, while the city can demonstrate it tried to consult at every stage. This is a familiar chorus.

      Once again: a city council doesn’t have an “opposition”!

       

      • yasymbologist 17:25 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

        My canned response for this kind of scenarios is to ask them to grow up and accept the fact that it’s not only you avid motorists are paying for the roads in the city.

      • anton 18:18 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

        how is there not an opposition? It’s a parliament, there are parties. Some parties are in charge, others are not.

      • Kate 18:33 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

        Canada and its provinces operate on the Westminster system, in which there is a formal opposition. City councils do not. Journalists tend to talk as if there’s an opposition but it’s a mirage.

      • Kevin 19:02 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

        Ensemble Montreal does refer to itself as an opposition party.

      • Kate 19:19 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

        It can call itself the Klingon High Council if it likes.

      • DeWolf 22:36 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

        The city conducted a public consultation on this very topic in 2022 and 2023. Here’s the report:

        https://ehq-production-canada.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/d73427fede197ae8463bbdd3fef0e62d256f7014/original/1694188602/9b401597129b4e12603970ba0dfdffb0_2023_Rapport_Consultation_Lot_3.pdf

        It’s funny to hear some people complaining about pedestrianization being an ideology when their own opposition to it is based on feels and vibes.

      • DeWolf 22:47 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

        Speaking of ideology, check out the JdM article in particular. You have the Sports Experts guy who somehow believes that most of his Ste-Catherine Street customers are driving right up to his business and parking out front, despite there being no parking on Ste-Catherine and only a limited amount on Mansfield (which won’t change). Then you have a generic complain about the city killing downtown from the notoriously dodgy owner of a fancy French restaurant on Peel. And finally you have the PR guy for another French restaurant on de Maisonneuve:

        «Ce n’est pas une piétonnisation commerciale comme en Europe où on invite les commerçants à s’installer. Là, c’est une piétonnisation passive, avec des bancs et des plantes où vont s’installer des itinérants», croit le directeur des communications du restaurant, Federico Sanchez.

        Has Mr. Sanchez ever been to Ste-Catherine Street? Does he think they’re tearing down all the buildings and replacing them with parks?

      • Annette 02:14 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

        Chancellor Gowron demands removal of all sidewalks on Ste-Catherine Street to eliminate vehicular obstacles.

      • Kate 10:16 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

        DeWolf, you could do a rock-solid study demonstrating that most shoppers along Ste‑Catherine had arrived by public transit or on foot, and some store owners would refuse to believe it. They can’t believe that everyone doesn’t drive everywhere, because they do.

      • MarcG 10:35 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

        They would claim that the studies are funded by Big Pedestrian

      • Joey 11:28 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

        Now that the first stretch is basically done, it’s clear how little roadway has been left for cars – whether they pedestrianize it or not, Ste-Catherine will quickly become a street drivers try to avoid.

      • jeather 11:43 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

        When was Ste-Catherine not a street drivers avoid? Not since I got my license 20 years ago. It might be something you want to avoid more than before, but it’s always been a last resort street.

      • Uatu 13:07 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

        Meh. Much ado about nothing. I remember when you could drive through Chinatown. Nobody seems to care about that anymore.

      • Anton 14:07 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

        Mmmh. It seems opposition is a reasonable term. They can call themselves Klingons, but I wouldn’t call them Klingons. But if they call themselves opposition, I‘d use that term as well. Opposition is a generic term for the members of a parliament that are not in power and opposing the views of those in power, in particular the party with the most seats. The term is used for other parliaments besides the Westminster flavor. There does not need to be a formal structure in place to recognize some sort of „official opposition“ for the term to have a meaning that should be widely understood.

      • Uatu 06:06 on 2024-11-29 Permalink

        Anyone who doesn’t have Gowron’s bug eyed stare is just a Klingon pretender anyway lol

    • Kate 16:51 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

      Three men on trial for a triple shooting homicide in Rivière‑des‑Prairies in 2021 have been found guilty after ten days of deliberations.

       

      • Kate 16:43 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

        In a classic distraction move, the CAQ is talking about writing a Quebec constitution by 2026. Maybe we can discuss what colour the deck chairs should be.

         

        • Mark Côté 14:11 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

          Well-executed mixed metaphor of bike shedding and rearranging the deck chairs. 😀

      • Kate 16:42 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

        Police are looking for a suspect in a road racing crash October 4. The crash victim, who wasn’t racing, died a few days later.

         

        • JP 22:13 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          Can’t the at-fault driver just say who he was racing against? Am I missing something? Would that be tattle-telling and thus breaking some kind of “code of honor”….?

        • walkerp 15:04 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

          Just guessing but maybe it was spontaneous. Two men of small girth and even smaller character pulled up next to each other at a light and started revving.

      • Kate 11:25 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

        The city has raked in record amounts from its parking meters, and stands to make more in 2025.

         

        • Ephraim 11:53 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          Has anyone ever read through their annual report? Revenue in 2023 was $60.7M and costs were $59.7M. Does it even mention the costs/expenses in the article and NET revenue? And that all that activity brought in… $1M. Is this really worth it? Or am I reading it wrong?

        • Jonathan 12:00 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          My assumption is that the costs include the transfer of profits to the city of Montreal and so the books are balanced in that way.

        • rob 12:29 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          I`m reading it like Ephraim. Here`s the report from 2023 – see page 45. https://www.agencemobilitedurable.ca/images/rapports/Rapport_annuel_2023_Agence_de_mobilite_durable_de_Montreal.pdf

          The credit card companies are making more profit than the city.

        • Joey 13:56 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          A quick glance at the financial statement shows a debt to the city of about $24M, which I assume is the net revenue to the taxpayer from parking meters.

        • Ephraim 12:42 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

          The document on page 46 shows a statement of Financial Position. This is the equivalent of a Balance Sheet but for a not-for-profit entity. The $24,422,916 is a debt to the city of Montreal… a loan.

          If you examine the documents, the revenues are: $60,732,873 (page 45) and the costs of operations are $59,732,873 (page 45 & 55). The largest cost was $41,932,940 (page 55) which points to note 14 which simply points out that this includes $612,355 in monies contributed to employee RRSPs.

          And further, it explains (note 7) that they received $1,420,194 from the city for certain objectives. That were recorded as revenue.

          Now, on page 59 in note (c) it says that AMD… by July 1 of the following year, the agency must transfer the total paid parking revenues collected for the City to the City’s bank account. From this amount, the agency deducts: Management revenues billed to the City and any amounts paid to the City for invoices issued by the City. Which suggests that the city should be getting $73,600,416 but NOWHERE in that whole document do I see where that $73M is accounted for. But it suggests that it’s the $56,804.725 in revenues and paying the city $31,266,794 for borrowed employees (Am I reading this right? or is that loans to employees… but why would they be making loans to employees?)

          Incidentally, the city of Montreal charges a fee for paying by credit card on their app. I’ve been waiting for a lawyer to sue them because of this. Quebec consumer law doesn’t allow you to charge for credit card usage, only to discount for not using a credit card. I’ve been expecting a class action lawsuit to be filed one day. (But maybe my interpretation of the law is wrong… I am just a layman)

        • nau 22:15 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

          @Ephraim I could be wrong in my interpretation of the French and how public service accounting works but I think the problem is you are assuming that the money collected at parking meters is revenue for the Parking agency but it isn’t. The agency collects the parking meter money which is entirely revenue for the City. The City pays the agency to manage the collection of parking meter money which is the agency’s revenue de gestion of $56,804,725. The entente-cadre also allows the agency to keep $1 million per year for special projects (see note 6) that’s why in both 2023 and 2022, the agency has exactly $1 million in “profit” (which would never happen if these were operational amounts). So what note 13c on page 59 is saying is that the agency owes the City the $73M it collected on the City’s behalf minus the revenues de gestion of $56.8M and some other fees already paid regarding bills invoiced by the City (amount not identified). So ignoring the unidentified amounts that’s $16M at the end of the year that the agency owes to the City. Since it doesn’t have to pay that to the City until July 1, 2024, that amount has to be on the agency’s balance sheet as at Dec. 31, 2023, likely in the Amount owing to the City line item of $24M mentioned by Joey.

      • Kate 11:22 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

        CBC reports positive feedback by Vélo Québec and the SAAQ on the ban on most powered vehicles on bike paths. For balance, they found an electric unicycle rider who doesn’t like it.

         

        • CE 11:43 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          I’ve definitely noticed an improvement on the bike paths (as a cyclist) and sidewalks (as a pedestrian) since the scooters were banned.

        • jeather 12:49 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          Honestly I wanted a lot more info on electric unicycles.

        • thomas 13:32 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          It seems insane that an electric unicycle can travel 70 km/h.

        • Blork 14:29 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          I cannot imagine a more unsafe vehicle than those electric unicycles. They sure look like fun, but I can’t imagine the rider has very precise control, especially for quick dodges or fast stopping. Especially at 70 km/h! (The electric unicyclists who say it’s OK because they wear protective clothing are missing the point; the danger is for other people.)

        • MarcG 15:47 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          Blork, don’t you know that your right to safety is superceded by other peoples’ desire for freedom? If you don’t like it then you can stay at home or wear a helmet when you go outside.

        • jeather 16:01 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          I’m sure the damage caused by electric unicycles to other people vastly outweighs the damage caused by cars, SUVs, etc.

        • Kate 17:21 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          I went to donate blood at Tohu a couple of weeks ago, and as I approached, a young man came rocketing out of the area on an electric unicycle, sped across Jarry and Crémazie then disappeared into the distance. This was around midday with plenty of traffic on both streets. I suppose as a circus person he could be expected to have exceptional balance, but it did look like a vulnerable vehicle among all the cars and trucks.

        • Blork 19:23 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          @jeather, it’s a matter of scale. Online discussions by owners of electric unicycles almost always agree to the inevitability of crashing while riding one. (It’s no coincidence that most riders dress in full body armour.) If every car, SUV, etc. on the road inevitably crashed we’d be in a very dangerous world indeed.

          That said, for your entertainment here is a 15-minute compilation video of electric unicycle crashes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77WFrQYfytg

        • jeather 20:42 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          That’s amazing. You have people crashing doing offroad stunts, which, well. And people falling down on ordinary pavement. Surely this is riskiest to the unicyclists?

          But I absolutely have no skin in the game re powered bikes/mopeds/unicycles/whatever, I would just like to suggest that safety standards worrying about what happens when a unicycle hits a pedestrian are great, and we need standards worrying about what happens if an SUV hits a pedestrian. (This is very difficult to do without the US doing the same, obviously.)

        • Tim S. 22:30 on 2024-11-27 Permalink

          Jeather, I absolutely agree about SUVs, but it’s worth considering that for the most part SUVs stay on the road. All kinds of wheeled vehicles are now hopping on to sidewalks, park paths and other spaces where pedestrians used to feel safe (many featured in Blork’s link), and well, I would like them to not. Banning them from bike paths seems to be the shortest path to getting them out of those other spaces as well.

        • Blork 00:53 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

          Not to mention that SUVs must be registered and their drivers must be trained, licensed, and insured.

        • jeather 09:22 on 2024-11-28 Permalink

          Roads are shared, they aren’t just for cars — not the ones where pedestrians or cyclists are at risk, anyhow.

          I swear I am not trying to make electric unicycles legal in a bike lane or on a sidewalk, strict limits on motorized vehicles on those two types of surfaces make a lot of sense, which is what they just did. I just wanted to know more about what an electric unicycle looked and moved like and why people want to use them for commuting. I got answers to the first two.

      • Kate 09:39 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

        A Weather Network meteorologist predicts a heftier winter than the last although not a “blockbuster”. Of course the possibility of a white Christmas comes up, as it always does, even in French, but it’s too soon yet to make any predictions on that. The Gazette’s piece from MeteoMedia also pines for a white Christmas. That song has a lot to answer for.

         

        • Kate 09:15 on 2024-11-27 Permalink | Reply  

          A fire Wednesday morning that CTV simply calls a suspected arson and the Gazette also described in an anodyne fashion is given out by TVA as at an immigration services centre.

           

          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