Montreal West argues this isn't about building a wall between rich and poor (there's no restriction on pedestrian travel), but the only issue is safety. I couldn't find any evidence of a problem when I checked it out two years ago. But it seems to be enough to convince people that it's necessary. And that's why it's the same argument used by other cities who erect barriers between neighbours.

View Fences among municipal neighbours in a larger map

This Google map shows a handful of examples of traffic barriers that happen to land right on municipal boundaries. They range from a concrete block with do-not-enter sign to a locked fence.

Most cases aren't quite so conspicuous. Look at an aerial map and you can draw boundaries between cities (or former cities) by simply looking at where the roads stop connecting to each other, where two streets run parallel to each other for a long time without any connecting streets. It makes it easier to justify separating cities physically when there are limited access points to block off, as is the case in Montreal West.

And then there are all the connections that aren't built because of a mixture of NIMBYism and other fears: the Cavendish extension, the second bridge to Nuns' Island.

We won't solve these issues through lawsuits. We'll solve them when people in their suburban fortresses realize that road safety will be achieved by traffic calming, better urban planning, increased public transit and more transportation options.

Putting barriers between neighbouring cities only serves to divide us.

Related Posts

• Montreal West wins this round
• What are you doing driving on my street?
• Great Wall of Montreal West goes back up
• Suburban border security
• The other Cavendish extension

Without any warning and while still in court, Mtl West put them up in the middle of the day. People came home greeted by a security guard and the barricade. Quite military like. Lots of emotion on Hillcrest yesterday. Lachine has not had their appeal read yet (deadline was May 30th, we submitted on time), so Montreal West had no business putting anything up as we are still in court.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, Montreal West put up a barrier on this street leading downhill to Ville-Saint-Pierre (it's one of only two road links between the two neighbouring but elevationally unequal towns). Lachine protested, then sued, and a judge ruled in Montreal West's favour. Now it's in the appeal stage, and Montreal West wasn't supposed to put up a barrier until the appeal process had been exhausted.

Looks like that's not the case.

Instead, Montreal West put up three "do not enter" signs marked "emergency exit only" (the fact they used "exit" instead of "entry" says something too) in both directions, and Lachine is taking them to court ... again.

Related Posts

• Montreal West wins this round
• What are you doing driving on my street?
• The barrier stays
• It’s a war zone out there, apparently
• Few campaigns in on-island suburbs (UPDATED)

The dispute is over concrete barriers Montreal West put up at the border between the two towns in March. MoWest said it was to curb dangerous traffic that speeds through town as a shortcut to Highway 20 West. Lachine/VSP said it was class warfare, designed to separate the rich residents of Montreal West from the poor working class down the hill.

Of course, they're both right.

The barrier will stay down until the appeal is decided.

Related Posts

• What are you doing driving on my street?
• The barrier stays
• Great Wall of Montreal West goes back up
• The other Cavendish extension
• It’s a war zone out there, apparently

But at the other end is a similar connection waiting to happen. This one is much shorter and doesn't cross any tracks, but residents are complaining of the same problems.

The issue, as the Chronicle explains, is pure suburban greed. Residents in the northern part, a middle-class neighbourhood of western Cartierville with some very affluent areas, are panicking at the thought of cars taking their boulevard. I'm not quite sure where all this traffic is supposed to go. To the west is the Bois de Saraguay, followed by Highway 13, and to the east is Sacré Coeur Hospital followed by Laurentian Blvd. But hey, outrage doesn't have to be logical, right? Maybe they just don't like ambulances on their street.

We've seen all this before. James Shaw Street in Beaconsfield, where residents oppose a connection to Highway 40. Broughton Road in Montreal-West, where residents ludicrously complain of giant nonexistent trucks barrelling down the twists and turns of the residential streets to reach a far-off Highway 20. Not to mention at least some opponents of the other Cavendish extension.

Their logic is simple. They have no problem using the streets other people's homes sit on to drive their SUVs to and from work. But if those other people want to use their streets, suddenly it becomes a child safety issue. Their street deserves protection. Their street must remain a dead-end. For the good of their children.

In case you couldn't tell by my sarcasm, it's hypocrisy pure and simple. Greedy suburbanites who want the government to legislate a de facto gated community and have the entire world built around them.

Fortunately, the borough sees right through their arguments. Next time you want to live on a street without traffic, make sure you choose one without "Boulevard" in its name.

UPDATE (Sept. 23): A follow-up story from the Courrier's Catherine Leroux

UPDATE (Sept. 28): A video posted to YouTube shows traffic on the street, but except for some drivers failing to make complete stops at stop signs, nothing particularly incriminating.

Related Posts

• Making the case for a quieter Toupin Blvd.
• The Toupin Blvd. plan
• The Toupin Blvd. “solution”
• What are you doing driving on my street?
• RadCan needs geography lessons

James Shaw Street in Beaconsfield, the Cavendish extension, and now residents of Montreal West are upset because one of their roads is being used by people who are not them. And their arguments just don't hold water.

Here's the story: Montreal West put up concrete barriers at Broughton Rd. and Easton Ave. to prevent traffic from crossing their border with Ville St. Pierre. According to the MtlWesters, it's because people are using Devil's Hill (Broughton/rue des Erables, depending on what city you're in) as a shortcut to Highway 20. According to the VSPers, it's nothing but class warfare, separating the less affluent Lachine residents from the rich homes that are literally at the top of the hill.

A quick look at the area and it's hard not to take Ville St. Pierre's side on this. First of all, while going through this area does indeed lead to Highway 20 via Norman street, I'd hardly call it a shortcut. First you have to get to Broughton, which is difficult because the intersection of Broughton and Westminster is now a raised sidewalk (the red mark in the map below). Then you have to navigate the forced turns and one-way streets designed to make driving through these parts as difficult as possible.

Finally, even if you make it through to VSP, you immediately hit another forced turn (on weekdays) from which there is no escape but back where you came from.

The only solution is to take Avon Rd. (which everyone else calls St. Jacques) down to Milton and then through to Norman St. This route isn't blocked by MtlWest's plan, because it doesn't go through their residential streets. It's also silly, since just continuing down Avon/St. Jacques leads you straight to the highway through the other part of VSP.

Today, with the barrier out of the way, I passed by that area to see what the traffic was like during the afternoon rush-hour. It was non-existent. Anyone who knows the area knows you can't get to the highway for the reasons listed above, and anyone who doesn't isn't going to bother wasting their time trying to find a shortcut.

So giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're not hallucinating anything, how is it that cars are taking this route? I have a few suggestions:

1. Bad signage. Coming down Westminster or through other streets in that area, you see a sign that reads "Aucun acces autoroute 20 / No access highway 20 / via Ainslie ou/or Easton". To someone not intimately familiar with Montreal West's geography, the sign is meaningless. Wouldn't it be simpler just to tell people where the highway is? If they don't follow that instruction, it's their own fault for getting lost.
2. Bad intersection. The corner of Avon (St. Jacques) and Westminster is a 5-way intersection. Someone heading west on St. Jacques sees signs for "Westminster S", "Avon", "Brynmor", "Easton" and "Recreation" (not a street name, but it looks like one). Easton, the bad street that leads into this secluded paradise, sits right next to Avon, the good street that leads into Highway 20. Because the two are parallel and right next to each other, drivers are easily confused about which leads to the highway. Especially coming down Westminster, you're told to turn right, but there are two rights and despite their best attempts at signage, it's not intuitive which is the correct one.

But hey, I'm not a civil planner, what do I know? Keep using our roads and not allowing us to use yours. Keep driving by my apartment at all hours of the night and then yelling at me when I so much as sneeze in your neighbourhood.

Montreal West is already surrounded on three sides by railway tracks. Aren't they gated enough?

P.S. To Lachine mayor Claude Dauphin, who asked: "Where else in Canada have you heard of a municipality that erects barricades to cut itself off from its neighbours?" -- have you never driven down Acadie Blvd.?

Related Posts

• Montreal West wins this round
• The other Cavendish extension
• The barrier stays
• Great Wall of Montreal West goes back up
• West Islanders are never happy