Hydro-Quebec is considering the old Hôpital de la Miséricorde site for its downtown substation. The building on René‑Lévesque has stood empty for ten years and occupies a sizable piece of land, but was sold to a real estate promoter last year who may not be keen to hand it back over to the government.
I wonder how the owners of properties along La Gauchetière on the south side of the Miséricorde block are feeling about the idea.
A London-based company has won the $146M contract to replace the Opus card system.
Given how broke the STM is, I wonder how much money has been saved over the years by using OPUS cards instead of paper tickets and cash, if any. 146m seems a lot for an outfit that can’t even return to pre-covid bus schedules.
@Ian gotta count all the times people didn’t have to pay a fare because the reader was out of service (in my case – many, many times). $146M seems insane.
Meanwhile, when you are in many cities, including NYC and Sydney, you just tap your CC to pay your fare and tap out when you get off. It tracks how often and gives you the best fare, so it puts pending transactions to make sure the money is there, but if you take a lot of buses one day, it may take the daily pass, if you do it 3 days in a row, it may charge you just the difference from the daily pass. And if you go a week, it will take just the difference for the weekly pass. And a week can be any 7 day period.
According to the article the company hired to do the job is the same one NYC uses and this is the system. https://www.masabi.com/justride/
If the system already exists and only needs some customization, it seems excessive that it should cost $146M.
I’m hoping that this new system won’t be smartphone-only. I do have a smartphone, but I don’t always bring it with me, and when I do, I don’t constantly have it out in public. But the link that MarcG posted above seems to say that there will be cards available (smartcards, they call them.)
To the best of my knowledge, anyway. I don’t know much about technology.
They could save a whole lot of bother and confusion – while making the system more user friendly and phone-friendly – by getting rid of the price differential for people boarding from Laval and Longueuil. That requires a different kind of ticket, and for some users that means a separate OPUS card. I don’t know how they will manage that as a phone app, especially if there is no “tap in/tap out” system in place.
For example, if I board at Peel station and my destination is Laval, I’m supposed to use the A+B ticket, not an A ticket. How does the phone know, when I’m tapping in, what my destination is? Currently you basically need two OPUS cards; if you know you’re getting off at Laval or Longueuil then you’re supposed to use your A+B card. The A card will work, but you run the risk of getting busted in Laval or Longueuil if there’s a random spot check. (Those are rare, but not unheard of.)
Going the other way you MUST use the A+B card. Theoretically, I think you can use one card that has both types of tickets on it, and the turnstile in Laval/Longueuil will pick the right one, but then you face the first problem (above) when you are coming home. (BTW, my A+B OPUS has “A+B” written on it, so it is a different card; I’m not sure if you can put A+B tickets on a non-A+B card.)
Also: you can just use an A+B card (with A+B tickets) for everything, but then you’re paying the premium price for every on-island ride, and who wants to do that? Thus the need for two cards.
All that for what? So they can get an extra dollar per rider. But how much does it cost them to run this multi-zone system with all of its complications?
Of course none of this applies to users with a monthly pass. In that case it’s a no-brainer. It just works; your one monthly fee gets you all rides everywhere and A+B zone people just pay more for the monthly pass.
All that to say, good luck using your phone for transit. It will probably be straightforward for people who live on the island but not for the thousands of people who commute in from Zone B.
@EmilyG, there’s no way it would be phone only. That would just be an option.
Plus to Ephraim on using a credit/debit card – I commented on this over. year ago based on a London visit, just recently was in Marseille, same system – all these places also have dedicated cards if you want them, as well as options for single fare payments and passes. No need to reinvent the wheel here.
Even Toronto has something similar. In fact, it’s integrated with the suburban trains so you can go from Niagara Falls, Barrie, Oshawa, or Kitchener to Toronto and use all the local transit on the same pass system. It’s pretty impressive compared to the tiny access zones we have here.
I deal with tourists pretty much every day and when I explain to them what they need to do to get on a bus if they don’t have exact change, they more often than not elect to take a cab or Uber. I can’t really blame them. If they could just swipe a credit card and get on the bus, I’m sure many more visitors would take the bus to get around.
They really need to upgrade the turnstiles at the same time so not that many people jump them and ride for free.
Do we have figures on riding for free? How much do we spend on security teams checking fares, turnstile maintenance and so forth, vs how much we lose to people riding for free?
I don’t have the numbers to hand, but memory suggests we mostly police those things because society demands it, not because it means more money for the STM. In fact, it may be counterproductive.
Just got back from Vancouver. Even though we rented a car, we took the bus sometimes as it was easier to take transit, and TransLink made things easy by swiping with a credit card. I once asked for a transfer and the bus driver told me the data is stored in my CC, to just treat it like a fare card. I felt like a hick as I was so amazed. This system makes so much sense for occasional users who don’t want to deal with fare cards, exact change, downloading apps, etc.
McGill University is looking at spending between half a million and $6 million on rebranding itself. Stressful moves from the Quebec government, Middle East issues coming home to roost on the front lawn, and pressure from Indigenous groups over the Royal Vic project are all named.
Nothing is mentioned here about divesting from companies with ties to Israel (item from 2024) although it committed to “exploring” the possibility (also 2024). It’s not easy to find out whether they ever carried through on equally airy promises to consider divesting from fossil fuels.
Besides this would be washing their hands of James McGill, as discussed on the blog previously.
Making it clear that the university had a clear conscience on these matters would be the best rebrand, rather than cosmetic procedures costing millions.
Maybe if McGill ripped out its lawn and replaced it with a concrete waste land (like say, Westmount Square) protestors would find someone else to blame for all the failings of capitalism.
Pretty sure it has more to do with students feeling a responsibility for, and ability to influcen, the behavior of their school rather than the comfort of the premises.
I am not sure how the university can credibly argue that it’s underfunded when it’s spending $7M on branding. I am very sure that this kind of thing will encourage the provincial government to feel justified that the English higher ed institutions have too much money.
I’m not going to defend grossly inflated branding and marketing budgets, but given the majpor losses that McGill is facing for enrollment, they have to at least try.
Patrick Lagacé defends his paper’s decision to publish a letter from Gilbert Rozon with the argument that the paper has a tradition of allowing people criticized in its pages to respond. The item, Je ne suis pas cet homme, was posted Thursday.
I agree with Lagacé. It’s not about defending Rozon, or “giving him a platform.” It’s about the principle of the right to reply.
It is not the job of La Presse (or any media outlet) to judge, and they have provided no shortage of commentary on the topic. If they deny Rozon the right to reply – even if, as seems obvious, he is clearly guilty – then there is nothing stopping them from denying the same to you or me, whether we are guilty of something or not.
Sadly, principles like this (such as Voltaire’s famous “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it) are fading into the past as social media’s embracing and empowerment of judginess takes over the zeitgeist.
I find it interesting that it’s a rapist being given this “opportunity”.
I guesss rape isn’t as serious as, say, Richard Henry Bain’s attempted murder of Pauline Marois, since La Presse deeclined to give him the same liberal-minded benefit of the doubt.
I can’t wait for the op-ed from Karla Homolka.
Ian, bear in mind that Rozon is going through a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial.
Do you think that this distinction is sufficient to stripping a person of their “right to reply”? I don’t see how defending oneself in the court of public opinion is specifically tied to civil vs criminal, and I’m opretty sure Voltaire wouldn’t either. Maybe we could limit Homolka’s letter to explaining away her culpability for rape and leave out the murder part. Bain of course was prosecuted for his actions, his opinion surely deserves a fair audience under the philosophical standpoint of utterly unbiased equity that you propose?
All of those cases you mention are of people who are convicted. Rozon is not convicted (yet). What I am opposed to is the idea of muzzling people who are accused but not yet convicted. Anyone who is in favor of doing so should consider moving to the MAGA U.S. or some other fascist state where they will surely be happier.
And FWIW (not much, but not nothing) there’s also the matter of Rozon being something of a public figure, whereas those convicted criminals were unknown to the public before their arrests. Why that’s a (bit of) an issue is beyond the scope of this comment, but in general public figures are already part of the public discourse, so it is natural to provide them an opportunity to state their case no matter how ridiculous, because of that public discourse. Whereas some random criminal who isn’t part of the discourse doesn’t really have the same level of public interest. And it’s not about one person’s “rights” over the other; it’s about the media’s right to continue to engage in that discourse with firsthand testimony from the accused.
Nobody gave Bain a chance to reply while he was on trial, but whatever. I’m only using these as debating points, I ams willing to concede the point in those cases. But hey, in fascist MAGA USA they let a rapist pedophile become president and we hear his “side” all the time, lol. Maybe a more relevant example would be Jian Ghomeshi who totally assaulted a pile of women, got to tell his side a whole lot, and managed to escape conviction thanks to a very persistent and tenacious lawyer… and still thinks he’s the victim in all of this.
I don’t disagree that if someone has been throughly dragged by the media they should get a chance to respond, but I don’t think free speech absolutism does anyone any favours either. I don’t doubt for a second Rozon did it – do you? The condition of his soul is of no concern to me.
Would the same courtesy be given if the crime was different, or is this just another illustration of how society belittles women?
@MarcG, I have a feeling the same thing would happen if the issue were anything that fits into the so-called “culture wars.” If the accusations were about racism or homophobia, etc. I think we’d see the same (assuming the person were a public figure who has been in the spotlight the way Rozon was since long before the accusations).
I think it’s interesting and even useful to see a public figure expose his clearly delusional side of the story. As an armchair psychologist, I find it fascinating to see such a mind at work. It helps people understand the psychology of wealth and entitlement and to see that it’s not always as simple as “rich = evil,” that sometimes these people are not even aware that they are doing harm. It’s instructive to see the extent to which people can buy into their own mythology.
I’m not sure I understand your “culture war” point… your list seems to be groups who are victims of discrimination? Are you saying that if Rozon was being tried for assaulting employees who were BIPOC or LGBTQIA+ that he would still be provided with this megaphone, and that if his victims were white cis men that he wouldn’t?
No, I mean that La Presse’s decision to publish that piece was likely because of how it sees its role in public discourse, particularly about “hot-button” issues such as “me too,” trans issues, etc. (the so-called “culture wars” topics). It’s not specifically about “belittling women.” If he were accused of simply beating up white cis men then the whole matter probably wouldn’t be taking up as much cultural space and therefore La Presse would probably not be as inclined to give it such extensive coverage. (That probably also wouldn’t be the various op-ed pieces, so the whole conversation would be at a much lower pitch.)
By that logic, if he was on trial for shooting up a synagogue or mosque he would have been given the same grace, which I don’t think is true.
Well said Blork.
It’s just words folks. Feel free to ignore them, rebut them, mock them, or whatever. You needn’t choose to let the words offend or enrage you. .
@MarcG, no, because that would be a criminal charge. It’s different when it’s a civil lawsuit.
Also, bear in mind that what Rozon is “defending” isn’t his guilt or non-guilt; it’s about his perception of whether or not he did any wrong, and how his character has been portrayed by the media and the people who brought the lawsuit. (Personally, I think he’s full of crap and needs to get over himself. His article is basically just standard blah blah from an old white guy who feels done-in by wokeness.) But that’s a whole lot different from being given a platform for claiming you’re not guilty of serious criminal charges.
Another take via Urbania : Rozon is not a Victim
https://urbania.ca/article/derniere-heure-gilbert-rozon-nest-pas-une-victime?
Response by Léa Clermont-Dion in La Presse:
https://www.lapresse.ca/dialogue/opinions/2025-07-17/la-mauvaise-blague-a-assez-dure.php
I think anyone who defends Rozon’s right to have published that piece in the newspaper, should read The Rover’s piece on how they feel about that.
https://therover.ca/lettre-de-rozon-dans-la-presse-a-qui-profite-cette-fausse-neutralite/
Fake city work notices have been sent to flooded residents of Ahuntsic with wording obviously intended as rage bait: “vous serez sans doute ravi d’apprendre que deux nouvelles pistes cyclables seront aménagées dès 2025.” The document mostly looks official but the perpetrator didn’t know how to source the city logo.
Summer is fleeting! 
Weekend notes from La Presse, CTV, CityCrunch, CultMTL, Silo57.
The construction holiday is about to begin.
Taylor C. Noakes 21:32 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
They should repurpose the old hospital for new housing. It’s an architecturally and historically significant building. It shouldn’t be demolished.
There’s a parking lot across Berri from the existing substation, and it’s next to some follies that belong to the STM. Is there not an opportunity to fill in that space rather than eat into what should by all rights be affordable housing?
Kate 22:17 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
I am never sure whether the argument that it’s cheaper to build from scratch is true, or if it’s a convenient lie told by developers. But renovating that old building to modern standards would not come cheap, either way, especially as it has been left empty for awhile.
DeWolf 02:21 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
The Miséricorde site was sold to a developer specifically so that it could be turned into housing while keeping the original building. It would be insane to demolish a historically significant structure to build a substation. Especially when there is a literal field of grass that was originally being considered.
Kate 08:28 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
a historically significant structure
Is it, though? It looks to me like every other gray stone religious building I’ve ever seen, including the Sourds‑Muets, the convent beside the old Hôtel‑Dieu, the Gray Nuns building Concordia now owns, all those convent buildings in Lachine and elsewhere.
Robert H 10:15 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
I thought this quadrilatère had been settled. It was only recently announced that, after over a decade of lying dormant, La Société québécoise des infrastructures had come to an agreement with Alta Canada, a real estate investment company, to launch a multi-stage project to redevelop the entire block including the preservation of some of the older buildings and the construction of a 30-storey residential tower. Among the proposal’s features was housing for students and artists and space for social service organizations. I wonder what happens to this vision of the project, which does not yet appear on Alta’s website.
The land needed for the substation is supposed to be along De La Gauchetière, so perhaps there’s room to accommodate it and the proposed redevelopment as well. There has also been the suggestion that Hydro-Québec is cynically targeting this “inferior” site to make their original choice next to La grande bibliothèque look more reasonable. I hope this location doesn’t wind up sitting abandoned another decade as various parties try to come to some agreement as to what to do about it.
Ephraim 10:35 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
The building should have never been left to deteriorate. We need a law on maintenance. Abandoned buildings should have increasing tax burdens… you either do something with it, or the bill keeps on getting worse and worse until you can’t afford to hold on to it. After 1 year empty, we need to do something.
I do wonder if an architect could somehow develop a large housing unit that incorporates the existing building as an entry to a much larger tower, so what’s there, stays there, but becomes more of an entryway. We need housing. We need to force building more density.
Taylor C. Noakes 11:20 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@kate –
From Heritage Montreal: the oldest sections date to the mid-19th century, so it would count among the oldest still standing institutional buildings in the city. It’s representative of the institutional building style of the era, as much as the religious orders that supported various charitable efforts, in this case single mothers and orphaned children.
So while on the one hand, yes, it’s one of many that would fit a similar description, I think there’s nonetheless a strong argument favouring preservation.
If there’s any truth to the argument unmarked graves are on the site, all the more so, and they should investigate thoroughly (even if this means people might not be so enthusiastic about moving in to live there).
As to costs: it’s almost always cheaper to renovate than build anew. This building hasn’t been used for 10 years but AFAIK it’s not *abandoned* per se (so I don’t think it’s had the copper ripped out).
DeWolf 11:27 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@Kate Buildings don’t need to be unique to be significant. The ubiquity of these very imposing greystone religious structures is what makes them important because it’s a testament to the historic dominance of the church. They shape the look and feel of the city. If you start tearing them down here and there, soon enough there won’t be any left.
DeWolf 11:30 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
In any case I think Robert H is right on this one — this is a cynical move to make their original site look more acceptable. Kind of funny how they insisted they couldn’t build a substation any further than 500 metres from the existing one and now they’re suggesting a site nearly a kilometre away.
Kate 14:54 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
They could run an extension cord.
Ephraim 18:08 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@Taylor It is cheaper to renovate, to an extent. It makes it expensive to own and run, because we didn’t build to the same standards. And it makes is unaffordable housing. High ceilings are notorious to heat, not to mention lack on insulation, air leaks, etc. When you build to modern standards you can use geothermal heating and cooling, which will severely cut the monthly costs. So, while renovations may be cheaper, there may be more costs in the long run to maintaining it.
Kate 19:22 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
What it comes down to, I think, is the very expensive process of essentially putting up a new building with the façade of the old one tacked onto it.
Ian 21:27 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
Facadeism is quite inexpensive compared to renovation, but most architects abhor it, for obvious reasons.
Ephraim 21:57 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
I was more thinking of building in what appears to be a parking lot at the back, with the original building intact. There appear to be two. One at the front and one at the back.There is also a building in the back that doesn’t really match that is attached. That certainly doesn’t have to stay.