The STM Needs New Ways to Make Ends Meet

32 comments

1. Does anyone have any proof of STM’s annual finances? I can’t seem to find any sort of citations online. How do we know they actually carry a deficit every year? And besides, it’s a non-profit business, it’s supposed to run at a deficit every year or at least balance out to 0. By law the STM is not allowed to make a profit.

   Since it is public transport the books should be 100% open to the public and finances should be 100% transparent. Instead of politicians constantly TELLING us a company is making profit or is going bankrupt and needs more of our tax dollars they should PROVE it to us.

   Secondly, I don’t agree that building developments on vacant metro land is an ethical and productive use of space compared to creating public squares and parks on that same space. It would boost profits for the STM, sure, but it would take away from the overall value of the city. The value of Montreal as a whole is more important than profit itself.

2. Les terrains où se trouvent les stations de Métro n’appartiennent pas à la STM, mais à la ville. Si la ville les redéveloppe, la STM n’aura pas un sou.

   Non, comme dans toute administration municipale, le problème réside dans la pléthore de petits chefs et de boss de bécosses qui pullulent dans les bureaux. C’est là qu’il faut couper.

   La ville n’a certainement pas de leçons à donner à personne dans ce qui est de la pléthore d’administrateurs; et là, le blâme tombe directement sur les libéraux au pouvoir, qui, avec les défusions, ont forcé la duplication inutile des emplois.

   Il est grandement urgent de refusionner tout ça, et de façon ULTRA centralisée afin de faire une pierre deux coups: éliminer tous les emplois inutiles, et enlever aux banlieues le pouvoir de parasiter la ville-centre.

3. C’est complètement stupéfiant de voir des coupures de 40 millions pour un service essentiel, alors même que la STM a déjà investi 100 millions pour un centre de commande complètement inutile…

4. Niomi,

   There are *plenty* of metro station accesses that could handle more intensive development. A number of neighborhoods could really benefit. Is leaving large patches of vacant, under-used land really ethical and productive?

5. Some non-NDG/Plateau metro stations that could use intensification:

   Acadie – There is an empty field next to the édicule. Across the street is a gas station and a parking lot for a strip mall. All completely inappropriate for TOD.

   Préfontaine – Diagonally from the édicule was a fast food joint.

   Plamondon – A KFC, complete with drive-thru and parking lot, is diagonal from the exit.

   Assomption – Located in the middle of industrial tin huts and giant swatches of grass.

   Langelier – Strip malls across the street.

   Come to think of it, Montréal is pretty suburban. It expanded too late.

6. Niomi, you are such a tool.

   Here’s their financial statement. Incidentally, it took all of thirty seconds to find online:

   http://www.stm.info/english/en-bref/a-index.htm

   Shockingly enough, the board of directors holds a monthly meeting open to the public, so you could conceivably ask as to where you could consult their complete balance sheets and financial statements. Or you could consult their archives, which are again, open to the public.

   Secondly, saying that a non-profit is not allowed to run a surplus is somewhere between remarkably misinformed and clueless. Any surplus needs to be reinvested in business operations in order to retain its tax-free status, but it’s hardly “supposed to run at a deficit every year”. All of this is irrelevant because the STM’s corporate structure is unique, being governed by the Loi sur sociétés de transport en commun.

   You of course, know this, because you’re an accountant, right?

   And, repeating MB’s question, what value to the city do you see in vacant lots?

7. Mr. Anderson: if you had even bothered to take a look at the financial statements you would see that they actually make a decent profit every year, not including all those arbitrary adjustments made for amortization and interest etc.

   Page 18 of the financial statement for the period ending December 31, 2007 clearly indicates a PROFIT of $84,060,000. In short, the STM made $84 million dollars in 2007 and then made a bunch of fancy adjustments to the bottom line to make it look like they lost more money than they did when in fact, including only income and expenses, they made a huge profit of $84 million dollars. And these are the public books, God only knows how much money they made on their second (hidden and unpublished) set of books.

   Even WITH all those arbitrary adjustments at the end of the year, the STM made $7 million dollars in 2007.

   ***

   To address the argument regarding the vacant space around metro stations, my original post said that PARKS and PUBLIC SQUARES add more value to the city. I in no way opined that the land should lay waste and remain unused. It should be used, in ways that benefit the city as a whole.

8. Niomi: Well even if the STM HAD land to sell, it’s not about profit per say, it’s about having the means to invest in public transit, without necessarily hiking rates at the consumer level (which, admittedly, the STM seemed to be very keen on doing for the past decade, but I don’t think they were getting as much from the government back in those days).

   Michael: I admit Niomi didn’t do much research. But let’s try and keep things civilized buddy! =0)

9. Niomi: The STM certainly did NOT make $84 million in profit in 2007. Looking at the same page 18 you’re seeing, you seem to have missed the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from various levels of government that the STM could not function without. Even after adjustments, the $7 million “profit” is basically just unspent subsidies.

   Subtracting subsidies, no transit agency in North America, including Montreal, even comes close to making a profit, although the STM does perform well compared to most transit agencies in Canada with around a farebox recovery ratio of about 57%.

   Look here for a chart and sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

10. This is an interesting conceptual problem, though I’m convinced the only solution is for the STM to convince the population at large as well as the city of the socio-economic potential of the Metro system.

    If the land above ground is indeed largely owned by the city – as I believe the suggestion was made as far as Lionel Groulx and Mont-Royal are concerned – then the STM’s responsibility is to either convince the city to split the revenue from a commercial, residential or civic building on the site – such as the case with St. Laurent. However, having proposals and budgets ready to go would make this a more attractive offer.

    But when it comes to Metro entrances as an element of public space, such as Lionel Groulx in particular, then the STM needs to work with the city to provide a degree of aesthetic grandeur within the space to justify rent increases around. Consider if Lionel Groulx had the appeal of Dorchester Square, and it’s kiosk was a grand architectural statement? Consider as well that what Lionel Groulx needs is a much larger above ground kiosk, preferably with services above ground, multiple entry points and appropriate park lighting and structured trails. Dirt paths, poor arboreal choices – such as pine clusters which obstruct view – and the fact that most of the land is generally dark and out of sight combine to make the space a general under-achiever. Ideally speaking, police would not need to park their cruisers by the entrance, as the lines of sight and pedestrian access points would be clearly delineated, accessible and organic. Moreover, both the City and the STM need to reconceptualize the space as an urban park/square – thus, encourage its use as a gathering point and a pleasant place to sit and watch the world go by.

    Metro stations provide a source for social traffic integration, but when key classes within a society are not encouraged to use public transit, the whole system suffers. Thus, they must be kept clean and safe, and people – human traffic – makes them that way. Additional artisinal kiosks, additional consumer services below and above ground, additional presence of all varieties of people using and working within the system will invariably lead to far higher aesthetic expectations.

    Thus, it may not be as advisable to build above when so many legitimate jobs could be provided within. In essence – where is the underground, human-scale economy?

    A final point of consideration concerns the meeting of aesthetics and culture. The STM’s biggest drawback is that they have not convinced the rich or the upper-middle class to use their services. What could an infusion of culture do for our Metro? Oil paintings and gilded frames are not the order of the day – but demonstrate to me, the casual viewer, that art installations within the system are more than mere decoration. Inform me of the architectural and cultural significance of the station and encourage citizens to explore what Montreal is via the pride of its public transit system.

    In effect, stop aiming for mediocre.

    Most people know nothing of Metro de Montreal.com, but all the information could and should be made publicly available within the system, to the point where the Metro is a vehicle of culture inasmuch as it may transport the individual to and from culture. Such an infusion of purpose, such a declaration of the brilliance of form and function is what we so desperately need, and if the funding were made available to aesthetically and culturally transform the system, revenue in tourism alone may make back that $40 million.

    Finally, for your consideration, Matthew MacLachlan has proposed a cathedral styled Metro stop. Guy Concordia is the fourth most used yet last in terms of its aesthetic appeal. A renovation – perhaps entirely funded via private donation – needs to occur here. I would love to see Guy redone with vaulted cathedral ceilings and a general high-gothic degree of ornamentation. Further, seeing as Concordia is expanding their chunk of the Underground City, both the school and the STM would be very wise to develop a unique feel and form to Con-U’s branch – if for no other reason than to remind people that the UC is not just a massive shopping mall. I can only hypothesize, but if the two agreed to a station and series of tunnels done in the form of a cathedral and catacombs, I am certain the appeal of the Metro would be very far reaching indeed.

11. Arghhh…

    Read the revenue column again! Somewhere around 40% of their operating revenue comes from contributions from the city and province. And amortization and debt service are NOT “fancy adjustments to the bottom line”!

    The STM is about as far away from a self-financing agency as you can get, but they still need to balance their books. I don’t doubt that some of their budget falls through the cracks; however, your shrill accusations of massive fraud (this being the latest of several) are totally unfounded.

    **

    More relevant to the topic of the post, I don’t think more parks are inherently a good thing. I think part of the reason public squares/piazzas in Europe (or places like Washington Square Park in New York) are so inviting is because there’s a sort of critical mass with respect to local population density versus the amount of public space available. Much of Montreal’s public space is uninviting, desolate, and damages the urban fabric. (The random pocket parks on old vacant lots in St. Henri, the chilly pergola of Square Viger and the tertiary parks around it, etc…)

    Exceptions to the rule like Square Saint Louis and even Berri Square work because there exists intense development and land use around them. There’s a critical mass of activity to make these spaces feel alive, even precious.

    When my friends visit Montreal from the US, often times they’ll say something to the effect of, “Montreal doesn’t feel like a city.” And they’re right. The urban fabric is so torn, the neighborhoods are pockmarked by so much open space, the streetscapes cut off abruptly at underutilized vacant lots (or parks)… you get a sense of urban agoraphobia.

    Newurbanshapes is pretty dead on in calling much of Montreal pretty suburban. I think many of the objections in regards to land use that come up here (too high, too dense, not enough public space, tears the urban fabric) would be valid in the context of tall, dense, crowded, thriving metropolis like New York, Paris, or Hong Kong. But we live in Montreal, where half of our center is parking lots, and where (outside of the CBD) buildings above three stories are rare.

    We complain about suburban sprawl, and yet we throw up every objection imaginable to any sort of profitable development in the city center. We want more rental apartments available, but we institute remarkably strict rent controls that make condos more attractive. We want a denser city, but are unable to accept the socioeconomic and physical change that would come accompany it. If what initially fueled the spread of the suburbs around here was cheap gas and cheap land, it’ll be Montreal’s intransigence towards development and change that sustains it.

    I can’t think of another city that has so much potential, so much creative energy, so much vibrancy, and yet manages to shoot itself in the foot so often.

12. Sorry, just to clarify, the first part of my last post was in response to Niomi.

13. La station Lionel-Groulx est une disgrâce. Depuis plus de 30 ans, les gens doivent attendre l’autobus au quatres vents.

    Le terminus à Longueuil, au contraire, est aussi près de la perfection que possible: impossible d’y attendre l’autobus à l’extérieur; les gens doivent demeurer à l’intérieur à y faire la queue jusqu’à la dernière minute.

    Les terminus de la STM sont complètement crétins, on doit y attendre à l’extérieur. La seule exception est le terminus Henri-Bourassa; on me dit que ce terminus est aménagé comme ça parce que le conseiller municipal est un ancien président de Transport-2000…

14. I have 15 years of experience working in government finance and the private sector as well, and EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE OF THE COMPANIES I HAVE WORKED FOR HAVE FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, which is why I keep bringing them up. As in, the statements do not reflect the actual income and expenses of their respective companies. All of the books have been cooked. ALL of them.

    If MONEY or the lack thereof is the primary if not ONLY obstacle to building better cities, creating better architecture, and maintaining equitable rights for all living beings human or otherwise, then I think fraudulent financials is in fact the most important argument of all right now.

    I would estimate that 90% of the people who read Spacing Montreal would not be able to read a financial statement never mind make extrapolations from it. When the mass population can’t even read a financial statement, the very document stock exchanges and market activity is based on, the very document government use to justify spending, the very document military uses to justify military expenses, the very document the medical establishment uses to justify cuts to medicare programs.. until the masses actually understand the value of their own dollar, the difference between equity and profit, expense and deficit, concepts that anyone of average intelligence should be able to understand in this day and age (“I’m not smart enough” is a lame cop-out, “I’m too lazy” or “I just don’t care” are more accurate reasons for not knowing basic economics and accounting) then despots are going to continue doing exactly what they’re doing now: wagging the dog while they steal from the till.

    Everything wrong with the city of Montreal comes down to funding or a lack of it. As in, MONEY. There is no lack of ideas, technology, theories, creativity, intelligence, hard work, or any of the other elements necessary for good city building. The only problem is MONEY. We should be addressing the real problem (money) instead of creating excuses (ie. bureaucracy, semantics, straw men) so that we continue to ignore the real problem, MONEY (again, in case it isn’t clear enough yet).

    ***

    1. Subsidies are still income.

    2. Those arbitrary calculations after expenses and income are in fact arbitrary. Amortization does not reflect true value or equity. Deducting $90 million dollars in “amortization expenses” is ridiculous, it isn’t even a real expense. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

    3. The STM made $84 million in 2007, $43 million in 2006, $55 million in 2005.. and so on and so forth.

    4. Those arbitrary adjustments are made at the end of the year to justify more government sponsorships and funding. Anyone with any experience working with non-profit companies knows that if you don’t spend all the money the government gives you as a subsidy one year then the Gov won’t give as much the next year. As such, companies inflate expenses to justify subsidies.

    5. Attack the argument, not the person.

    6. Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Mr. Anderson continues to create new arguments that have nothing to do with mine, as have several other posters.

    My argument is this: the primary issue facing Montreal’s development and growth as a city today is a lack of proper funding and the well-known, well-publicized cronyism that plagues this city; cronyism that illegally diverts billions of dollars in funding every year which in turn retards the development of a healthy city, Montreal.

    Attack THAT argument please.

15. Niomi,

    I haven’t gone through the other portions of this debate, so I cannot say how I stand on these issues. However, when you said:

    “To address the argument regarding the vacant space around metro stations, my original post said that PARKS and PUBLIC SQUARES add more value to the city.”

    Why do you think that the parks and public squares will instantly become utilized or add so much more value to the city than…more city? There are enough squares in this city that barely get used (think those empty pocket parks in the Plateau and Centre-Sud).

    I don’t understand how adding *more* plazas in places that are desparate for more intensive development (i.e., places where thousands travel on a daily basis), is of such little value? Much of the city and its streets are part of our public space too, and the last thing anybody wants is a city full of nothing but plazas and the occasional pocket of activity. That’s been tried. We’ve already got a lot of public parks and squares, and they don’t always work. That’s something really hard to predict–let alone assume!

16. As I just read your most recent post–I’m not going to attack that argument. I have to say I agree with your bottom line. I’m curious what others have to say.

    …but I still disagree with the notion that simply increasing the number of plazas and squares can be some sort of panacea for the public realm.

17. I agree that there are some unused public squares in Montreal but I can’t think of any public green spaces or parks that are underused. In fact, Mount Royal and Jeanne-Mance Park, Jarry Park, Parc Lafontaine, the Parc Olympic, the Old Port, the Lachine Canal, all of these parks are overcrowded 3 out of 4 seasons per year.

    There are almost no outdoor public pools or immersible fountains for adults anywhere in the downtown core anymore and the ones remaining are being shut down or are also overcrowded. There may be no need for new public squares as such but there is a great need in Montreal for more parks and public green space, particularly with access to water.

    There are more vacant office buildings, warehouses, and residences than there are unused public squares or parks.

18. Actually, I can’t think of any unused public squares either.

    Could someone please list what they believe to be unused or underused parks and squares in Montreal?

    Do Montreal residents truly support building more offices and factories and condos vs. creating more squares, parks, and public green space?

    Really?

19. Niomi,

    1. No one is arguing that subsides aren’t income.

    2. For an operation with as much equity tied up in infrastructure as a public transit operator, a $90m dollar amortization hit is not necessarily excessive. Unless you have a better way to account for deprecation of assets, the onus is on you to prove that a 90 million dollar charge on net assets of 1,470 million is excessive.

    3. Yes, after bus, metro, and paratransit services. Even if you think they are cooking their books, you can acknowledge that other types of expenses exist.

    4. Perhaps, but you’ve shown us no ACTUAL evidence of improper accounting. Who knows? You could be whistleblower of the year– until then, we’re waiting.

    5. Given how much your arguments hinge on your personal experience, there’s a definite gray area.

    6. You have rebutted nearly every point I have raised, in this post and elsewhere, with shrill, moralistic accusations of corporate malfeasance. No one is arguing that corruption exists– I’m arguing that you can’t tar everything with the same brush.

    **

    I agree that cronyism is a major issue in Montreal. Faubourg Contrecoeur, SHDM, etc., are all shameful examples of the city’s inability to conduct proper business. However, here is MY argument: concern for the propriety of the city’s finances has devolved into a total distrust of private development. In saying that “I don’t agree that building developments on vacant metro land is an ethical and productive use of space”, you’re passing a moral judgment that has no place. Ultimately, the animosity towards investment that increasingly exists represents a threat to the health of the city as large as, if not larger than, corruption.

    Yes, cronyism exists, and, yes, money falls through the cracks. However, that doesn’t justify the bunker mentality that has prevented you– or anyone else– from offering any credible alternative to the status quo.

20. In regards to pointless parks:

    -The empty lot (apparently a park) on the northwest corner of Berri and Viger, the only obvious purpose of which is to make the Viger Square area more destructured than it already is

    -The pile of bricks at Ontario and Montcalm

    -The random, triangular blocks formed by de Maisonneuve around Place des Arts

    -The aforementioned empty lots in the Sud-Ouest that somehow became city parks, etc.

    These spots are awkward places of transition, are too small to constitute meaningful green space, and disrupt the urban fabric– not unlike the empty spaces around the metro entrances. They are uncomfortable voids that would do better to be filled in.

21. I would not suggest transforming Berri or Square Victoria whose entrances are within existing parks or squares. Perhaps Mount Royal metro should also be excepted as it is used as a market, bike parking area, and general hang-out spot.

    However, the fact is that many stations are neither income-generating NOR useful public spaces, and they don’t really have the potential to become great public spaces. Think of all the orange-line stations beside the Décarie expressway, or green line stops in the East End.

    There’s no reason that a development around Lionel Groulx could not incorporate some public space (trees, benches), along with, say, retail and office space on part of the property.

    As my STM-employed friend pointed out to me, Hong Kong is apparently the only profitable transit system and they acheive this through real estate development and property management.

    “Hong Kong’s secret has been to pay for the expensive necessity of public transit by marrying it with private real-estate development and the rapid densification of key areas of the city.”

    – Article in Vancouver Sun, 2008
    http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=20a14d89-b43c-4372-ae9f-ce2379e03262

    Hong Kong operating profit contributions:
    http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/investrelation/images/finhighlight_operatingprofi.gif

    If the admin infrastructure were in place for real estate development to fund transit, there’s no reason to stop at metro station areas.

22. “Actually, I can’t think of any unused public squares either.

    Could someone please list what they believe to be unused or underused parks and squares in Montreal?”

    Are you serious? *sigh*

    I recall showing the city around to some colleagues visiting from France…the discussion ended up focusing on Montreal’s public squares, which they felt were for the most part empty of activity (even Place-des-arts outside of festival season). I asked why they felt that way and it was either “there is nothing to do in them” or “there are too many, or they are too large for the number of people in the city.”

    Okay…these qualify as “unused” or “vacant” though I’m sure there are *many* more that would qualify as “underused”:

    Big ones:
    -Parc des Veterans
    -Square Viger
    -The lawns to the north of Place-des-Arts (I tried to sit and enjoy myself there once, but between the drifters and the traffic found it was impossible)

    Smaller ones:
    -virtually all of the pocket parks in Centre-Sud, many of the same in the Plateau, those in the Sud-Ouest. In Centre-Sud, I do mean virtually all of them are empty, vacant, and attract vice. This usually implies “unsuccessful” for a public space. I lived across the street from an “immersible fountain for adults,” and the only people who *ever* used it were drifters. Once I saw a couple kids playing in it, but they never came back.
    -many of the spaces around metro stations…None of us are arguing that *zero* of these places are suitable for creating a public space. Papineau station, for example, originally a temporary kiosk in a parking lot, was renovated into a public square. I’d say it’s half sucessful (the area behind the station, especially at night, I would call a failure–and it is beautifully designed).

    Blindly adding space everywhere you can in the city can very quickly lead to disintegration of the urban fabric, especially when the amenities that are capable of sustaining a vibrant public space are lacking.

    “There are more vacant office buildings, warehouses, and residences than there are unused public squares or parks.”

    That is not necessarily true, and you are comparing apples to oranges. Office buildings, warehouses, and residences are not public space. I believe there *IS* a shortage of affordable housing and rentable units…wouldn’t it make sense to encourage their construction at, near, or above transit stations? Or maybe we should tear down all those vacant buildings and put a nice public space with a lawn?

    It’s been done, Niomi, and it doesn’t work. Nobody wants to live in a city full of empty plazas.

23. Amortization is NOT an expense, it’s an arbitrary calculation to symbolize a loss or gain in equity. It does not symbolize a real value but an estimated one. Again, arbitrary. If it were an actual expense, like a loan payment based on an amortization schedule, it would included in the annual expenses.

    ARBITRARY:
    1. Based on individual discretion or judgment.
    2. Unrestrained by law; tyrannical.
    3. Determined by impulse rather than reason; heavy-handed.
    4. (usually of a decision) Not based on any objective distinction; almost made at random.

    ***

    Mr. Anderson, the “pointless” parks you mentioned are almost exclusively in low-income areas and as such are not properly maintained by the city of Montreal. If these parks were well-built and well-maintained people would use them more often. Believe it or not, folks on welfare like to hang out in nice parks and squares too, as do people who slave every week for minimum wage. Even the poor will avoid spaces that are unwelcoming. Isn’t it interesting? Poor people appreciate the same amenities as the middle and wealthy classes do. Imagine that!

    However, I think the entire Place des Arts area is badly planned and an inhospitable use of space, so I agree with you there at least. It’s just a bunch of concrete stairs and parking lots. There is no shade in the summer against the sun and the only positive elements are the water fountains and access to the metro.

    The only constructive ideas I can come up with to resolve the cronyism and financial fraud that plagues not only Montreal but virtually the entire planet is to publicize all financial records and educate the public, as well as starting a campaign to change our economic system into one that is based on Organic Economics rather than arbitrary economics. This is already in process, however.. Green Economics (aka Organic Economics) are being studied more intently than ever and many economists are pushing for change. It would require a complete overhaul of our financial systems, however, and you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be strong opposition from despots who depend on the current (fraudulent) system to maintain their monopolies.

    ***

    Alanah: Montreal’s public transit system is profitable, it makes an average of $50 million annually. Hong Kong is merely doing what the United States did in the early 1900’s when the US forced millions of migrant workers to move from the east coast to settlements across the country. The US managed this by building public transit and railways and “marrying it with private real-estate development and the rapid densification of key areas of the” country.

    John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” perfectly describes how this was accomplished – and its devastating effects. Hundreds of thousands of US citizens died as a direct result. The Grapes of Wrath essentially describes The Great Genocide of the U.S.A. in the early 1900’s, shortly followed by The Great Depression in the 1930’s.

    I should mention, it is not only Hong Kong developing their country in this manner but almost all developing nations at the moment.

24. I just have one question for Niomi:
    Are you Taxlady on the mtl lj?

25. http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=2762,3099612&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

    This is a great map. Notice how the smatterings of tiny pocket parks (essentially the same size as the open metro areas) roughly correspond to the more economically disadvantaged parts of the Sud-Ouest and the Centre-Sud. The Plateau has much fewer of the same.

    The Centre-Sud and the Sud-Ouest were unlucky enough to have their fractured urban fabric set in stone, either by grandstanding municipal politicians or misguided community activists. Walking around the Plateau, there’s dozens of recent developments that mesh seamlessly into the streetscape. Had the vacant lots on which they were built been declared parks, as happened elsewhere, the neighborhood would have been the worse for it.

    It should be noted that one of Robert Moses’ most visible legacies is the smattering of hundreds of small parks throughout New York. Tiny and awkward, most are at best forgotten, or at worst, avoided.

    **

    Niomi,

    Straight-line amortization is not abritrary. How else do you propose to account for asset deprecation? Or I suppose tangible assets like the bus and metro fleet maintain a steady value throughout their useful life?

    On the subject of poor neighborhoods, don’t turn this into a class-warfare issue. I’m arguing that the reason these parks exist is because their creation was a cheap, easy photo-op– it doesn’t change the fact that no one uses them, welfare case or not.

    Your response to Alanah, though… wow. I’ll leave that one to others.

26. Niomi,

    The events portrayed in The Grapes of Wrath deal with contemporary issues in agribusiness and a family devastated by the Dust Bowl. The US (who in the US you do not specify) did not force “millions of migrant workers to move from the east coast to settlements across the country.” Incentives were provided during the 1800’s, but as far as forcing people–nobody would be able to accomplish something of that scale. Not since Andrew Jackson was impeached for the Trail of Tears. Your Steinbeck reference makes it seem like you are confounding a lot of really complicated historical events to make a pretty extraordinary and inaccurate claim.

    For example:

    “The US managed this by building public transit and railways and “marrying it with private real-estate development and the rapid densification of key areas of the” country. / John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” perfectly describes how this was accomplished – and its devastating effects.”

    Um, The Grapes of Wrath has nothing to do with this. In fact, the whole journey to California is done on the road in a car. They are bouncing between informal slum settlements when they arrive–a very striking critique of the New Deal. The whole point of the novel is that nobody was prepared for this “rapid densification.” It wasn’t on purpose, there were no private real-estate developments for these poor people to go to. To read that from the novel is idiotic–it ignores historical reality.

    “The Grapes of Wrath essentially describes The Great Genocide of the U.S.A. in the early 1900’s, shortly followed by The Great Depression in the 1930’s.”

    The Grapes of Wrath took place in the 1930’s, not the early 1900’s.

    This Steinbeck novel has nothing to do with your dubious claims. Read it again.

27. Maybe the discrepancy between the 1900’s and the 1930’s is the result of fraudulent accounting?

28. > A mistake, I think. I recall reading — perhaps here — that Drapeau had also been considering monorails for the city, before becoming convinced that they were not pratical.

    En effet. Drapeau voulait un monorail, pour être absolument incompatible avec le réseau ferroviaire, car il ne voulait pas que le CN ou le CP prenne le contrôle du Métro… (Drapeau a toujours été opposé aux trains de banlieue, parce que selon lui, c’est à cause que les banlieues se sont développées. Il faut croire que le vieux snoreau était trop con pour remarquer que les autoroutes étaient bien pires…).

    Lucien l’Allier a finalement réussi à convaincre Drapeau d’avoir un métro sur pneus qui serait tout aussi incompatible avec les chemins-de-fer qu’un monorail…

    * * *

    Le métro n’est absolument pas justifié à Montréal. Sauf dans le centre-ville, la densité ne le justifie absolument pas. Ce qui aurait du être fait, c’est de moderniser le réseau de tramway qui était d’ailleurs excellent, quitte à les faire passer en tunnel au centre-ville. L’avantage est que si une des lignes, sur St-Laurent par exemple est bloquée, les gens peuvent passer sur St-Laurent.

    On se doute que le métro est encore moins justifié que ça à Laval… Pour le même prix, on aurait pu avoir une ligne d’un bout à l’autre du Boulevard des Laurentides, une autre sur St-Martin de Pie-IX jusqu’à Chomedey, et une autre sur Labelle qui, en entrant à Montréal, aurait fini à Côte-Vertu.

    Mais non, ça prenait du gros ciment.

    > The reason why tires were chosen is that underground railroads can be horribly noisy.

    C’est pas la raison. Paris a expérimenté au début des années 50 avec des pneus pour augmenter l’accélération, dans le but d’augmenter la capacité des lignes. Il n’y a aucune autre raison, la diminution du bruit n’était qu’un avantage auxiliaire.

    Depuis, les système de contrôle de traction ont fait suffisamment de progrès pour permettre les mêmes performances avec du matériel fer sur fer, au point que le métro sur pneus est carrément dépassé…

    > As my STM-employed friend pointed out to me, Hong Kong is apparently the only profitable transit system and they acheive this through real estate development and property management.

    Le réseau de Hong-Kong est profitable non pas parce qu’ils font des affaires immobilières, mais seulement parce qu’il n’a pas de compétition avec l’automobile. D’ailleurs, les tramways de Montréal était aussi énormément profitables avant la guerre, juste avant que l’automobile se généralise.

29. At a forum, the urbanist Raphael Fischler (of Mcgill), I think it was, brought up the need for a sort of “church of design” in Montréal to promote good neighborhood and building design, as it’s not too apparent that decision-makers, or the public, for that matter, are very aware of the idea.

    We can see this in the widespread romanticization of “Green space”. I call it “Green-coloured space” because that’s the usual amount of thought that goes into it.

    Look at the Parc-Pins interchange. I wasn’t at the planning meetings for the space, but when residential functions are expressly prohibited by the arrondissement, I wonder what’s left?

    Parc-Pins isn’t too sketchy (yet) but the Parc Jutras at Prince-Arthur & Clark is a right hobo hangout, which destructures the nice mixed-use & ground-level retail pattern of that part of Prince-Arthur.

    A private building (or even some decent social housing) would be nice. But the micro-parks probably ultimately play a sort of “land banking” purpose.

    One interesting project would be to record all of the trouble spots & deficient urbanism around Montréal on a blog with photos & commentary, through a New Urbanist lens, perhaps. With a willingness to begin to transform Montréal to make it more livable, rather than resignation to the current patterns.

    I remember someone commenting a while back that Avenue des Pins wasn’t a mixed-use street, but more of a thoroughfare for cars east of Du Parc. Well, who says it has to be that way?

30. Rufus – nah, ain’t me, I’m retired.

    newurbanshapes: I don’t think we should move the “hobos” or force them into housing, I think we should come to terms with the notion that some people are urban nomads and for whatever reasons, negative or positive, they choose (or are forced) to live on the street and we should darn well let them.

    In fact, I say there should be a law protecting these urban nomads from the general public within certain defined parametres. One of the main parametres being: if a resident of Montreal finds a space that is not being used by anyone else after 10pm they should be allowed to rest there until 6am and no one, not even the police, is allowed to ask them to move. FOR THE NIGHT. They can’t set up permanent camp, they can’t erect permanent structures, it’s a one-night rest area. Otherwise, let them sleep. Leave them alone. If they camp out in the park or around the metro (warm in the winter, the metro.. government funded too.. and often empty.. perfect for nomads), if they aren’t breaking any laws, they don’t disturb the peace, they don’t attack or assault anyone, they don’t panhandle, they don’t do or sell hard drugs, they don’t smoke in public enclosures, then leave them alone. Who else is using that land?

    What are the RATIONAL reasons for disturbing our homeless nomads? These interesting urban types have been around for thousands of years. Accept them. They’re here to stay. Treat them well and they will give back to the community in ways other people would never dream of, or want to do themselves.

    **

    Jean Naimard – You make some good points. Though.. Drapeau in retrospect turned out to be one of Montreal’s best mayors. When he said, “the Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby” he was absolutely right. I was born the year of the 1976 Olympics and grew up on Man and His World, La Ronde, Ile Ste-Helene, the metro system, all of Drapeau’s projects when they were brand spanking new. Terre d’Homme, the Old Port, the Lachine Canal all connected to the metro system or within a reasonable walk. Even as a kid I remember riding the metro and thinking to myself, “holy crow, this is beautiful“. It has inspired several generations of Montrealers, designers, and tourists alike. The projects Drapeau built for the 76 Olympics have brought in billions upon billions of dollars in residual income over the past 30 years.

    This is the Montreal that shaped my childhood and consequently my matured opinions on city-building, as well as my vision of a relevant and healthy Ville de Montreal. 30 years ago Montreal was at the cutting edge of technology and not only that but it was reflected and expressed by the city itself. The actual city of Montreal was cutting edge. Compared to the rest of the Americas if not internationally Montreal was, how do you say, the shit.

    I guess you just had to be there.

    The Pins-Parc interchange project turned out great. I was wary at first but it turned out better than expected. I think it’s beautiful, they’ve reforested a good portion of land while they were at it too. Urban reforestation is never a bad thing.

    Now if only McGill can handle their stadium expansion without deforesting any more of Mount Royal than they already have.. we can only hope.

31. Drapeau was extremely popular in ’67 because the fair was wildly successful, even if it barely broke even. The Metro was really something too. Then we got a major league baseball team, and oh baby we were top of the hill! But the Olympics did come at a terrible price, still Montrealers somehow guzzled it, not even being embarrassed at having an unfinished stadium for the world’s largest international event. I tend to recall Drapeau as a kind of madman who bulldozed neighborhoods, threw street people in jail for Olympic summer, and put us into a 30 year debt cycle.
    He did some good things for sure, but the odds were increasing all the time that these obsessive dreams of his would go all fall down, and they did.

32. “The 1967 International and Universal Exposition, or Expo 67 as it was commonly known, was the World’s Fair held in Montreal, Canada from April 27 to October 29, 1967. It is considered to be the most successful World’s Fair of the 20th century, with over 50 million visitors and 62 nations participating. It also set the single-day attendance record for a world’s fair with 569,000 visitors on its third day.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_67