FACTUAL - what the CIMA report really says!

What the CIMA study says;
Has Mayor Stuart Read the Report he so Often Cites?

Montreal West (MW) Mayor Campbell Stuart and other pro-barrier figures often cite the CIMA study on Cut-Through Traffic on Ainslie Drive and Easton Ave (2002) to justify their actions in erecting a traffic barrier where Broughton Avenue turns into des Erables Street and crosses into Lachine. This corridor has been the principal road access onto Hillcrest, Rosewood, and Mount Vernon Streets in Lachine for about 100 years.



The CIMA traffic study involved: monitoring of traffic on various streets in MW and in Lachine at different times of day; evaluation of this traffic flow; presenting of various scenarios for how to deal with the traffic issues; and offered eight (8) recommendations. Analysis of license plates allowed determination of the amount of non-resident (cut-through) traffic going through this part of MW. Most notably the study found that the maximum traffic flow on any street studied during a one-hour period was 121 westbound vehicles (on des Erables from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m.) with 58% of this volume being non-resident traffic (p. 3). This volume fell to 52 vehicles per hour at the height of the evening rush hour with 81% of that being non-resident traffic (p. 7). To put this into perspective, the CIMA study notes that the City of Montreal does not consider traffic flows of less than 250 vehicles per hour to be worthy of mitigation measures (p. 11).

The CIMA study discusses the possibility of a “half-closure” (i.e. one-way traffic east allowed only) of the Broughton/des Erables corridor (p. 22) and also of a “full closure” of this corridor (p. 24). The CIMA study cites one ‘pro’ and four ‘cons’ associated with a full closure, noting that such a barrier would: cut interactions with the residents of Lachine; impede emergency vehicle access; do nothing to reduce traffic speed in MW; and do nothing to improve pedestrian safety around Royal West Academy (p. 24). The study’s recommendations involved eight measures, including a half-closure and NOT a full closure (p. 28).

The study also recommended a re-paving of MW’s section of Milton Street between Avon and des Erables, noting in 2002 that this street surface was then “at the end of its life” (p. 24). Somehow, MW interpreted this to mean that a full closure should be put in place in early June while the resurfacing of Milton Street languished until mid August, 2008. Recommendations to increase the speed limit on Milton from 30 kmh to 50 kmh have yet to be enacted.

Mayor Stuart and his supporters insist that “barrier” is the wrong word to use to describe what they have erected to block traffic flow on the Broughton/des Erables corridor. Yet the CIMA study clearly defines a “full street closure” as a “barrier placed across a street to (completely) close the street to through traffic, often leaving the sidewalks open” (p. 26).

At the June 23 MW Town Hall meeting, Mayor Stuart was asked where in the CIMA study is the erection of such a barrier justified. He replied that he didn’t have a copy of the study with him, and couldn’t remember the page number, but that it was in there. Unless Stuart has a different version of the study than has been distributed publicly, his statement is simply not true. Has Stuart actually read this study that he so often cites?

John Symon