Cavendish “an extension without a road”
The extension of Cavendish Boulevard will be a bike path and a tramway – and not a road for cars – according to the latest scare story from the Gazette. As mentioned in this piece, the linking of the two segments of road named Cavendish has been under discussion for more than half a century. The Gazette illustrates this weekend’s piece with the same photo used in June 2023 on a Cavendish story, and we’ve discussed the matter before on the blog.
The city toponymy site says the road was named after “Frederick Charles, lord Cavendish”, a man who had nothing to do with Canada, and not for Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire who was Governor‑General from 1916 to 1921.
In fact, there’s nobody called simply Lord Cavendish, because British titles don’t work that way.
The city ought to start claiming that it’s named for Henry Cavendish, who discovered hydrogen.
(I suspect Devonshire Road in TMR was named for the G‑G but, since it’s not in Montreal, it isn’t listed on the toponymy site. We do have Devonshire Park in the Plateau but the site only says “rappelle la présence d’une ancienne école dans le secteur” – a school which was probably also named for the same Duke of Devonshire.)
bob 15:42 on 2024-08-04 Permalink
Perhaps they were both named after the 6th Duke (William), like the banana that replaced the Gros Michel.
Kate 15:46 on 2024-08-04 Permalink
Which is cooler – hydrogen or bananas?
Ian 16:43 on 2024-08-04 Permalink
That’s a hard choice. Hydrogen is more essential, but cooler? Tough call.
anton 05:56 on 2024-08-05 Permalink
So Montreal has been talking about building modern trams for 20…30 years or so. Usually they should be built wherever buses have become too full, too unreliable, too slow. But Montreal is not proposing to put the trams on the busy bus corridors, in some dense neighborhoods. Instead, the proposal is to put them in a rather suburban area, where today buses don’t actually run that often, along an axis that’s not the dominant direction of traffic — a tram to replace a car link that’s viewed as necessary because the neighborhood it serves is somewhat locked in by railways.
I mean, I guess it’s understandable the city wants to not encourage more car use, and doesn’t want this to become a sort of through-fare. But perhaps there are different ways to go about it. Perhaps a toll?
I think a tram may really be better used elsewhere.
anton 05:58 on 2024-08-05 Permalink
…think about it a bit more, perhaps the idea is that by linking the Cavendish extension with a tram, it’s a way to make sure that bridge never gets built — just like all the other tram proposals — without having to declare it openly.
Blork 11:50 on 2024-08-05 Permalink
I agree with @anton that a tram does not seem to be what that area needs. As far as I know, 100% of the noise about “connecting the two sides of Cavendish” is to divert some of the car traffic from the Decarie interchange. (The wisdom of that is a separate question.) It’s not about moving non-car passengers from one side of the 40 to the other.
I mean, who would those passengers even be? People from CSL going to IKEA? (Who goes to IKEA without a car to lug your stuff back?) People from VSL going to visit their Jewish grandparents in CSL? You’re going to build a tram for that?
If it were a proper road instead of a tramway you could at least run buses back and forth, and that could be useful because it would service people from VSL who want to quickly zip over to Royalmount or other places in TMR/CLS, or you could run an express bus from Namur Metro to the airport via Côte-de-Liesse without going through the Decarie circle.
But a tram, with a locked-in and limited route? Why?
Kate 12:10 on 2024-08-05 Permalink
I go to Ikea by bus, and have been known to haul back smaller pieces of furniture in their big blue bags.
I think the tram thing is a red herring.
Ian 12:43 on 2024-08-05 Permalink
I used to go to Ikea without a car. You can call a taxi or have stuff delivered if it’s too big to carry
Blork 16:05 on 2024-08-05 Permalink
Just my luck that THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WHO GO TO IKEA WITHOUT A CAR just happen to be in here. 🙂 Still not enough to warrant a tram line unless IKEA wants to subsidize it.
Ian 18:34 on 2024-08-05 Permalink
I like the meatballs, what can I say 😀
Kevin 11:02 on 2024-08-06 Permalink
The only time I went to Ikea without a car was when I lived in NYC, and Ikea was in New Jersey. They had a special shuttle bus from Penn Station, and the store had special announcements telling people they had to be in line at a cash by a certain hour or they were not getting home
Now that they’ve opened a store in Brooklyn, they have a ferry https://www.nywaterway.com/ikea.aspx
Ian 20:06 on 2024-08-06 Permalink
That’s actually kind of cool, I love NYC ferries – plus you can get meatballs 😀
Worth noting, you can also order for delivery. It’s a bit spendy but worth it for larger items even if you have a car.