I recall inquiring about them some 30 years ago only to get inconclusive answers (and never been bothered since for not having one)…

Indeed they are not. It's no surprise, they're not good enough for us frenchies either!

Agree with Fagstein, the fact that they are linked to an english university (and then get referred to as english hospital) doesn't really make them english hospitals. I went to Royal Vic twice and everything was in french. Everyone I dealt with happened to be francophones. There MUST have been some anglos working there but I didn't find any (wasn't looking for them tough).

The city pays for street infrastructure in general, and it benefits people in general. As an occasionnal driver, I can appreciate the space freed by cyclists and the purer air. Cars lined bumper-to-bumper is the only outcome of discouraging cycling as a viable mode of transportation.

It's ironic to see people take for granted that modern roads are a car infrastructure and think that bikes are on the roads almost "by accident". It's the bike lobby that got the cities to improve road conditions and provide us with something better than a muddy horse track. THAT paved the way for the automobile decades later. Bikes were there first. Whenever you ride your car on a paved road (or even a crushed stone road), you should remember that you're using an infrastructure built for bikes first and foremost, not the other way around. Unless you're ready to go back to horse-drawn carriages and muddy street, you should acknowledge the bicycle and what it gave you. The street is HERS, the car is the intruder if there is one. Oh, and rubber tires and most of early mechanical inventions necessary for the birth of the car comes from cycling too, just so you know.

ps: Chateau Ramezay still has a great exhibit on bicycing in Montréal in the 1800s including its bastard child: the car. The very first Quebec car is on display there (actually built in France and imported). Interesting fact: to get carriages drivers to shut up about it not belonging on city street, the very first Montreal car-driver asked the city for a licence. Since it wasn't horse-powered he couldn't get a horse carriage license, but as a self-propelled mechanical device, it got a bike licence. He paid exactly 1$ (like all cyclists of the time) for his "bike" licence. That was the first and last time a car registration paid for city infrastructure and that was over a hundred years ago. The following year the province took over the registration for that vehicule (That licence number is Q1 btw and it was painted on the car itself). For years after that, thousands of cyclists continued to pay the city for their bike licence that paid to improve the quality of roads, both for themselves and that former cyclist turned motorist.
He never did again however and neither have you.

There aren’t any English hospitals in Quebec.

 Oh! Silly me! Of course!
The St-Mary’s hospital is lithuanese, the Montréal General Hospital is Albanian, the Voyal Victoria Hostpital is Peruvian and the Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital is, well, Jewish.
Sorry to have so misrepresented things. I won’t do it anymore. My bad.

What a waste of perfectly good tax dollars!!!

I think the day will come when cyclists will have to pay registration fees. I know I had to pay $15 to register my bike in Cornwall back in the early 80's, and I seem to recall having to do the same in New Brunswick in the 70's.

Now mind you, those were mere municipal licenses that were mainly used to keep track of stolen bikes, but the precedent has been set long ago.

Motorists need to be more mindful of cyclists when they drive. I have seen so many motorists try to bully cyclists onto the sidewalk, or honk their horn at them when they are already keeping as far to the side as possible.

Cyclists also need to change their attitudes. I know how hard (and tiring) it is to come to full stops at stop signs and red lights, but simply blasting through them is not a realistic option. If bikes are traffic, they must obey traffic laws. If they are not traffic, get them off the public roads.

And I have seen a lot of cyclists insist on using St-Joseph in Lachine, despite the fact that there is a bike trail next to the road. That is just plain inconsiderate, unless they happen to be moving faster than the cars. But considering that there are 20-some stop signs along St-Joseph, I don't see how any cyclist can remain legal without obstructing traffic. Use the trail.

1. Your typical family of 4 won't ever be caught doing a weeks worth of groceries on a bike.
2. I don't see anyone biking to Best Buy, or your local mom and pop electronics store. Buying at TV from a 'small retailer' vs. a Big Box store doesn't make you more likely to bike there.

Re: Mandatory registration. It also has the same effect on tentative drivers. But, we need to register cars because we need (believe in, rather) no-fault insurance and we need to make sure that only people who have the proper skills drive , as well as the knowledge of the rules of the road are buying/registering and using cars. I don't see why cycling is any different.

If cycling remains a leisure activity, then fine, registration is unnecessary. But, if you expect 10% cycling share in transport, then we are talking about the same level as motorcycles and last I checked they are registered/insured.

Also, I believe that the concept of increasing cycling will reduce cars on the road is a fallacy. I can't say I have numbers to back this one up, but logically, most dwellers of central boroughs, DON'T have cars to begin with. Putting them on bikes doesn't reduce the number of cars on the road, it just increases the number of bikes with no additionnal revenue to pay for cycling infrastructure.

Investment in more efficient public transport is far more important than cycling infrastructure at this point in the city's development.

The impacts on local businesses would be impressive, allowing small retailers to regain some of the ground they lost to the big box behemoth where grocery shopping resembles stocking your bomb shelter in preparation for a nuclear holocaust.

Mandatory bike registration, licensing and helmet laws have been proven to limit the expansion of cycling to more tentative riders.

I doubt Montreal will ever have as many people cycling through the winter as you see in Copenhagen, but what they lack in snow they make up for in freezing winter rain blowing off the North Sea into your face.

The Proposed NEW bike paths are not such a bad thing, though including "shared roads" as part of a bike path is just greenwashing. Some indication as to which route to take to a nearby bike path is good (which is what those little bike and arrow symbols mean to me) but they are not in themselves part of a bike path.

A couple of weeks ago I wanted to do a similar photo-essay about the de-Mainsoneuve path, from around St. Laurent all the way west to past Concordia there was a time that you could not go a two blocks without some construction (of nearby buildings or tunnels or unknown), obstruction, or obstacle either completely blocking the path or making it more dangerous to use than the street. It's a bit better now, I think there's a stretch of three blocks that has no problems.

It's great to have bike paths, but better to have some that are usable!

PS: the reason I did not take pics is because my camera packed it in.

* I say allegedly because it was supposed to have been built in the 90s and I don't believe it will be built - until I see at least a couple floors up. But that's a whole other debate. :)

But, "Bikes are the future"? Are you kidding me. Bikes are an alternative form of transport for all but the most dedicated (read: eccentric). I love to bike, but let's be realistic, 4-6 months year bikes are not the ideal form of transport.