Glencrest Ave. is a death trap

Residents of Glencrest Ave. in Côte Saint Luc are outraged at the impending death of all their children.

You might think Côte Saint Luc is a relatively safe, quiet place, being an urban peninsula that isn’t on the way to anywhere. And a where-is-that-again street like Glencrest would be a pretty quiet, low-traffic place in that quiet, low-traffic town.

But you naive baby-killing street-racing maniacs either don’t care about children or you don’t understand the nature of the problem here.

Glencrest is immersed in traffic. People can’t cross the street safely anymore. And yet while the city says it is looking into the issue, the death trap continues to threaten the lives of innocents and residents are prisoners in their own homes, too afraid to step outside.

The evidence is irrefutable: according to a count by a city engineer, Glencrest sees 150 cars … a day.

That’s one car passing through this five-block street every 9.6 minutes.

We must rise up and hold these heartless politicians to account until this street is once again safe for our children.

31 thoughts on “Glencrest Ave. is a death trap

  1. David Pinto

    Given that, according to Google maps to which you have linked the item, Glencrest is all of five blocks long and does not connect with any main streets — unless you consider the Baily Road to be a main street — how can it be immersed in traffic? Where, exactly, is all this traffic going?

    Reply
    1. morcego

      150 cars a day is not a lot of traffic, that’s the point. There’s about ten minute between each cars if you spread them evenly throughout the day (granted, they probably aren’t). I wish my residential street only had 150 cars a day! Pretty much everybody in town would!

      This is closer to a hallucination rather than a NIMBY because the traffic is not there yet! Most residential 2-way streets probably have closer to 150 an hour during the day time before we consider them to have a lot of traffic. (150 an hour is slightly more than one car each way for every 60 seconds)

      Reply
  2. Kevin

    Assuming all the traffic is done in 8 hours that means one car goes by every 3 or 4 minutes.

    “News” like this is why The Monitor shut down.
    They’re less credible than the whackjobs newspaper that Rorschach reads in Watchmen.

    Reply
  3. SMS

    Hold up your hand. Rub your middle finger with your thumb. You see that? World’s smallest violin. Or in this case, fiddle…

    Reply
  4. jon

    I really think the some of the above comments are being a presumptious.

    First of all. If you read the (original) article – You will see that the city of CSL is simply looking into the matter. And I believe one of the cities elected officials has commented that 150 cars per day should not be seen as excessive.

    Secondly, as most of you arent familiar with the street itself -nor the posted speed limits (that can have an impact on how the traffic situation is looked at) as well as what the residents of that street are aiming to accomplish.

    For instance; there are some suburban streets in Montreal that are deliberately blocked off from traffic in one direction so as to keep automobile traffic to a minimum (and I dont believe anyone should have issues with that goal necessarily…). If the families on that street choose this option so that their kids are safer crossing their street or playing street hockey – this is their perogative.

    Finally with regards to CSL complaining…. Well I can remember when the forced merger took place in Montreal. And one of the new boroughs that made it a point to fight against the unpopular mergers was (at the time – the former)residents of CSL. So I have no issues with such complaints actually.

    Reply
  5. Jean Naimard

    While we speak about Côte-St-Luc, there seems to be two exclaves that are between Hampstead and Montréal; one would be the west side of McDonald’s avenue between Aumont and Langhorne (Dupuis), and the other between the railroad tracks and the extension of Vézina street (if it continued into Hampstead).

    Why is that? Was Hampstead carved-out of Côte-St-Luc and they forgot those bits???

    Reply
  6. jon

    jean neimard,

    Hampstead is a town that is much older than most towns (cities) on the island of Montreal. Why would you assume it was “carved out” of CSL? Have you read much about the history of the island?

    Reply
    1. Jean Naimard

      Hampstead is a town that is much older than most towns (cities) on the island of Montreal.

      Er, Hampstead was founded in 1914. That’s not very old. And Côte-St-Luc was spun-off from Montréal in 1958.
      That there are pieces of Côte-St-Luc lying on both side of Hampstead mightily looks like it was sloppily carved out from Côte-St-Luc, like when a (Hampstead-shaped) cookie cutter is used on a piece of dough that leaves dough on the outside… (But it seems it’s not the case).

      Why would you assume it was “carved out” of CSL? Have you read much about the history of the island?

      Why do you think I’m asking??? Not everyone has a PhD in Montréalology

      Reply
      1. jon

        I believe at least one of the possible “exclaves” (though by definition it may not be an exclave of CSL) that you may be referring to (though I will have to look this up on a map to give you a decent answer) were officially awarded to CSL during mediation or court actions taken by Hampstead and CSL sometime in the 1970s.

        I was very young at the time but I recall it being a bitter battle to claim this bit of land (im thinking at least the part that runs parallel to the hypodrome and railroad) was the parcel of land mostly in question.

        Truthfully I will have to look this up to verify my hunch.

        Reply
        1. Jean Naimard

          I believe at least one of the possible “exclaves” (though by definition it may not be an exclave of CSL) that you may be referring to (though I will have to look this up on a map to give you a decent answer) were officially awarded to CSL during mediation or court actions taken by Hampstead and CSL sometime in the 1970s.

          I was very young at the time but I recall it being a bitter battle to claim this bit of land (im thinking at least the part that runs parallel to the hypodrome and railroad) was the parcel of land mostly in question.

          I remember some time in the late 70’s or early 80’s hearing about some kind of land swap between Montréal, Mont-Royal and Hampstead and/or Côte-St-Luc precisely in the area of Blue Bonnets (surely by “hypodrome” you don’t mean “under-road”??? ;) ) because there was some disconnected municipal territories.

          Truthfully I will have to look this up to verify my hunch.

          Please do, I’m really intrigued; hopefully, the abovementionned land swap may be a good pointer for you.
          About those Côte-St-Luc exclaves, I biked past one recently, on McDonald avenue, and I could not help but notice that only high-rise buildings have been erected there. This sounds to me like a douchebag attempt by Côte-St-Luc at getting bigger tax revenues by putting high-rises somewhere and (let’s use urban planner/economist talk here) externalize the inconveniences to Montréal and Hampstead…

          Reply
          1. jon

            You got me… Yes its the Hippodrome (not hypodrome). Horse racing sucks anyway.

            Now as far as the Macdonald exclave (which I did not even know existed – kinda interesting). However, Ill be frank with you; I have never developed apartment blocks; though I am a capitalist by nature.

            That being said; (though I detect your cynicism) I would urge you to withhold any judgments until you find out the actual circumstances and history of this particular exclave!! You have to admit very often – the details of an event or “happening” can be different from what we imagined.

            Additionally, I do not believe it would be a horrible sin or even a “douchbaggery” – lets say – if CSL decided that the use of this land for the development of apartment buildings (for greater revenue).

            You have pointed out that this may have been done at the expense of Hampstead, Montreal. It sounds like you may be more aware of these issues than I. Though again I defer to the actual facts-details surrounding the case…

            One of the things I would like to know for example- What year did the exclaves become part of CSL? How and why did this initially take place (what context)?

            I for one will not prejudge. You have me kinda curious about this. I will look online for any info – though I doubt much exists if was parcel of land was given to CSL when it was incorporated in 1958. If you find out any info – I would be interested in what you find…

            Reply
          2. Jean Naimard

            You got me… Yes its the Hippodrome (not hypodrome). Horse racing sucks anyway.

            :) And it’s dead for good, now (I hope — striking wood)

            Now as far as the Macdonald exclave (which I did not even know existed – kinda interesting). However, Ill be frank with you; I have never developed apartment blocks; though I am a capitalist by nature.

            Although I fart in the general direction of capitalists, I must admit that I harbour dreams of being a high-rise developper… I am absolutely fascinated with appartment blocks of the kind you find in Côte-des-Neiges around the Université de Montréal and my fancy has been caught by this particular appartment block which must be the most exquisite residential building in Montréal: it has it’s own separate entrance to Parc Mont-Royal via nothing less than a bridge! But I disgress.

            That being said; (though I detect your cynicism) I would urge you to withhold any judgments until you find out the actual circumstances and history of this particular exclave!! You have to admit very often – the details of an event or “happening” can be different from what we imagined.
            Additionally, I do not believe it would be a horrible sin or even a “douchbaggery” – lets say – if CSL decided that the use of this land for the development of apartment buildings (for greater revenue).

            I call it “douchebaggery” because Côte-St-Luc has some high-rises, but they are few and quite apart. There, however, they are one against the other. Obviously, they do not tolerate them when very concentrated when the nuisances (the shadows and the updrafts) will affect other Côte-St-Luc inhabitants. But when all you have is wall-to-wall high-rises, the nuisances will fall on the other neighbouring municipalities, hence the douchebaggery: the people in Hampstead and Montréal have NO SAY AT ALL WHATSOEVER in the zoning which produced that abnormal concentration of density, and Hamptead and Montréal are stuck dealing with the traffic.
            This is why the forced mergers are a good thing; with only one city, the local zoning issues that can dump on the neighbouring municipalities can no longer exist, even through different boroughs, as a recent judgment stated that the boroughs boundaries are not impermeable to zoning decision processes; the judgment was regarding the illegal synagogues in Outremont which the city tried to railroad through. (OMG! I must be an antisemite, I linked to something that criticizes hassidim!!!)

            You have pointed out that this may have been done at the expense of Hampstead, Montreal. It sounds like you may be more aware of these issues than I. Though again I defer to the actual facts-details surrounding the case…

            Well, I look at the facevalue of things. You have a given development model, and you have a situation that dumps the nuisances of that said development model onto others. So, if it walks like douchebaggery, if it quacks like douchebaggery, it must be douchebaggery…

            One of the things I would like to know for example- What year did the exclaves become part of CSL? How and why did this initially take place (what context)?

            <aol>Me too</aol>!!!! Hmmm. /meesa guess I’m gonna write to the Côte-St-Luc archivist.

            I for one will not prejudge.

            Oh, I will. When I see a rich suburb with capitalists inside, my idea is already made-up! :) :) :) :) :)

            You have me kinda curious about this. I will look online for any info – though I doubt much exists if was parcel of land was given to CSL when it was incorporated in 1958. If you find out any info – I would be interested in what you find…

            Well, I guess I’ll ask the Côte-St-Luc archivist then. Let me know about what you find, I’ll keep you posted with mine.

            Reply
  7. MoWester

    I drive on this stretch of road regularly.
    It is uased when you come off of fleet to get to CSL road.
    There is hardley any traffic that goes through. The problem is that residents think that just because they don’t want traffic on their road, they can complain and get it changed. That is what the current CSL council does.
    Try living on Ballantyne or Strathern in MoWest where people speed down these roads to avoid Westminster. The same can be said for Netherwood in Hampsetad.

    Reply
  8. jon

    (In reply to Jean Naimard)

    You have mentioned that the main drawbacks for Montreal and Hampstead with regard to the apartment building along Macdonald in CSL are “the shadows and the updrafts”. No offense but I think this is nitpicking and I will explain the reason.

    The apartments themselves are not huge highrises. In fact, I am very familiar with the area and know people who have lived in these apartment buildings. I used to take long walks along Macdonald and found this stretch of the avenue pleasant personally. I know of noone (except for you) who has raised these issues…

    Secondly, You bring up a different issue. The forced mergers. I will not accuse you of being an ardent nationalist (though you might be). In my view, those like Louise Harel who pushed through the mergers did so in order to serve her own purposes of diluting the voice of minority communities in Quebec and more specifically in Montreal. Now we can argue the merits of such an action and whether it is morally or politically “ethical”. I personally find it distasteful on a number of levels.

    To me Montreal is a very distinct region in the province of Quebec. Its demographic makeup is very different from the rest of the province. Montreal has a very different cultural makeup throughout compared to that of Lac St Jean -Saguenay or Quebec city for example. And I would say that in Montreal- generally Montrealers are tolerant and progressive (which I like).

    To give you an idea of what those like Louise Harel want- she is still not satisfied with the anger she created in various regions of Montreal and in fact has pushed or the boroughs to be less powerful and less “sensitive” to the various ethnic groups. Her statements with regard to the burough of St Laurent with its eclectic mix (typical of the island) illustrates her disdain for the character of Montreal.

    I regard much of what I hear about those “pesky” Chasidim to be much of the same gratuitous criticism leveled primarily in my own view by those who tend to prefer homogeneity in society. There are some in this province that tend to push such a view. I find this rigid outlook creates more problems then it solves.

    One last point. You mentioned forced mergers (despite the fact such an action may be viewed as anti-democratic) will solve zoning “issues”. Again I really feel the idea forcing through such changes without taking heed of what people in Montreal and the various regions and towns on the island of Montreal desire to be not just insensitive but showing great contempt for much of the citizenry. Such an action had an overall negative effect I believe. I think people living in the various cities and towns on the island are much more fortunate than lets say the (newly created) borough of St Laurent.

    Reply
    1. Jean Naimard

      (In reply to Jean Naimard)

      Thanks for “resetting” the thread level so we can continue to answer… :)

      In fact, I am very familiar with the area and know people who have lived in these apartment buildings. I used to take long walks along Macdonald and found this stretch of the avenue pleasant personally. I know of noone (except for you) who has raised these issues…

      Well, I only have biked 2-3 times on that street and I was hypothetizing with regards to experience next to high-rise buildings. As I said, those buildings surely affect the life of the Hampstead residents immediately behind those buildings (what? Me caring about Hampsteadites? :) )…

      Secondly, You bring up a different issue. The forced mergers. I will not accuse you of being an ardent nationalist (though you might be).

      I am, and I will not shy from it (just look on other threads here) as you’ll (bluntly) see below.

      In my view, those like Louise Harel who pushed through the mergers did so in order to serve her own purposes of diluting the voice of minority communities in Quebec and more specifically in Montreal.

      (Obligatory rolling of eyes). The mergers were done to correct the fiscal mess in the Montréal region. Such a thing was 40 years overdue; it was first discussed years before the election of a “separatist” goverment ever became a dream, way before the first subway train ever turned it’s first wheels. Other issues such as land use had to be addressed, precisely because of many ridiculous situations.
      Let’s have another go at it:

      In my view, those like Louise Harel who pushed through the mergers did so in order to serve her own purposes of diluting the voice of minority communities in Quebec and more specifically in Montreal.

      So? It’s no different than the federal government anglicizing immigrants, in order to minorize the french. Minorities deserve respect, yes, but only if they don’t dominate the majority. Why should minorities that do not acknowledge the existence of the majority deserve any respect?

      To give you an idea of what those like Louise Harel want- she is still not satisfied with the anger she created in various regions of Montreal and in fact has pushed or the boroughs to be less powerful and less “sensitive” to the various ethnic groups. Her statements with regard to the burough of St Laurent with its eclectic mix (typical of the island) illustrates her disdain for the character of Montreal.

      There is no need for particular sensitivity to  “ethnic groups”. They are expected to conform to french expectations; they can keep their cultures, yes, all we ask of them is that they speak french so they can be properly informed of the issues that the english media will **NEVER** cover or cover fairly, either by calculation or simple cluelessness (and it works, because with the first generation of french-schooled immigrants coming of age, we see them side more and more with the french).
      Of course, some “ethnic groups” do not conform to french expectation and they assimilate to the english; those are treated just like the english are.

      I regard much of what I hear about those “pesky” Chasidim to be much of the same gratuitous criticism leveled primarily in my own view by those who tend to prefer homogeneity in society. There are some in this province that tend to push such a view. I find this rigid outlook creates more problems then it solves.

      No. What really happenned is that the forced merger pissed the english because it made them live in a french city; from the majority in their little west-island ghettoes, they became a minority in the world’s second largest french city. Englishes being subjugated to french? Oh! The humanity!!!
      And the best illustration of this is that they **STILL** voted for the demergers after they were deliberately made unpalatable by the Charest goverment who saw the folly behind de-merging when, for example, they instituted the arch-nemesis of anglo-saxon bourgeois: representation without taxation. Nevertheless, even with that, they still voted for the de-mergers. “Better paying taxes without representation than becoming french”!!!
      The demerger votes were nothing more than the expression of the distaste of the english for the french. Only the most english suburbs demerged (Montréal-Est is the exception that confirms the rule). Those who stayed in Montréal were more french than english.

      One last point. You mentioned forced mergers (despite the fact such an action may be viewed as anti-democratic)

      They were very democratic: implemented by a democratically-elected majority government that simply had the political courage of doing what had to be done. The law is extremely clear (and the supreme court said so): municipalities are created by the provincial government (unlike Canada, which is the total opposite as it was created by the confederating provinces). This is a very big, real, legal distinction.

      will solve zoning “issues”. Again I really feel the idea forcing through such changes without taking heed of what people in Montreal and the various regions and towns on the island of Montreal desire to be not just insensitive but showing great contempt for much of the citizenry. Such an action had an overall negative effect I believe. I think people living in the various cities and towns on the island are much more fortunate than lets say the (newly created) borough of St Laurent.

      (Note to Fagstein: look how I am plugging your website below!!! ;) ;) ;) ;) )
      Citizenry can be very contemptible when they sink to nimbyism; there are many examples such as the Kirkland gate, the L’Acadie wall of Mont-Royal shame, the Montréal-Ouest street blocking capers and the failed attempt to legally separate boroughs of Montréal*. Those reasons alone are very good reason to destroy and crush those little ghettoes and borg them in the great Montréal collective.
      * I can however understand Fagstein not touching this issue with a 50 foot pole, he wouldn’t want to piss-of his bosses at The Gazoo

      Reply
      1. Fagstein Post author

        A lot of reasons were given to fight municipal mergers, mainly focusing on how local governments are more accessible than giant bureaucracies. I don’t recall “becoming French” as being one of those reasons. It certainly wasn’t for the people in Montréal-Est and demerged municipalities in the Longueuil, Gatineau and Quebec City regions.

        Reply
        1. Jean Naimard

          A lot of reasons were given to fight municipal mergers, mainly focusing on how local governments are more accessible than giant bureaucracies. I don’t recall “becoming French” as being one of those reasons.

          ¿DUH? Of course it hadn’t been mentionned explicitly!!! I mean, what would have happenned if the west-island said “we don’t want to become french”???

          It certainly wasn’t for the people in Montréal-Est and demerged municipalities in the Longueuil, Gatineau and Quebec City regions.

          Montréal-est was for petty reasons, in Longueuil, well those who de-merged were snobs who could not stomach being Longueuil (which is the low-rent south-shore city). As of Gatineau, I am not aware of the specifics, and for Québec, well, from what I understood, the mergers reached quite far and that little village who demerged didn’t really need to be merged.

          Reply
          1. Fagstein Post author

            ¿DUH? Of course it hadn’t been mentionned explicitly!

            So it was all a secret conspiracy? I don’t think anglophones are making a secret of their frustrations with the government and language law. Why would they all decide to hide their motivations behind this and come up with the same cover story about wanting a more local government?

            Montréal-est was for petty reasons, in Longueuil, well those who de-merged were snobs who could not stomach being Longueuil (which is the low-rent south-shore city). As of Gatineau, I am not aware of the specifics, and for Québec, well, from what I understood, the mergers reached quite far and that little village who demerged didn’t really need to be merged.

            You reject any suggestion that maybe all of these suburbs might have had similar reasons for not wanting to merge with their larger neighbours? Everyone has their own different reason and there couldn’t be some common element?

            Reply
  9. simon

    Actually i agree Glencrest gets lots of traffic, It’s the shortcut from Fleet to CSL Road..its an enticing option. So many Domino’s cars speeding through the stop sign and during rush hour its worse.

    here’s a novel suggestion..

    Rxtend the 1 way on Baily Baily way eastbound *all the way to the cavendish circle* , getting rid of this shortcut option. People cannot turn on Baily from the circle period. All residents benefit from lower traffic. The Only downside is that people in the area need to enter via Merton instead which is a slight inconvenience , but it de-motivates people from taking the shortcut.

    Win for all residents.

    Thoughts?

    Reply
  10. Peter

    As a resident of Hillcrest Ave. in Lachine (the Border between MoWest South-West sector and Ville St. Pierre/Lachine) it comes as no surprise that this has become an issue in CSL. After all, according to the Mayor of MoWaste and many residents on Easton, Broughton, Ainslie et al., “excessive traffic” is defined as all “non-borough resident” traffic. Using “Safety concerns” as a Trump Card this narrow-minded definition justified erecting an Emergency Vehicle Only Barricade on Broughton/des Erables between Them and Us, forcing Us to use one of the steepest hills on the Island of Montreal 24/7, 12 months of the year. Now that this border-crossing has been thoroughly demarcated MoWest borough residents, as of late, assume they have the right to block this Emergency access by parking in a “no parking” zone which further endangers the residents of VSP/Lachine who’ve been experiencing excessive delays from Emergency Response vehicles ever since the Barricade was erected. Two separate traffic studies have been conducted over the past eight years and neither found numbers excessive enough to justify closing the border which leads one to question their motives.

    For further background on this issue please visit http://devilshill.blogspot.com/. It’s not the best Blog in the sphere but it certainly outlines the consequences of Borough Autonomy and the impact on surrounding communities.

    Reply
      1. Peter

        And we appreciate the coverage you’ve given our issue. Just to let you know, the much-delayed Appeal to have the barricade removed is finally being heard on Sept. 16th., so you’ll be hearing from me again.

        Reply

Leave a Reply