Access to François-de-Laval, a funny demonstration

We said: we won’t do it, find arguments.

This was not the first time that the idea of ​​removing this access had been raised; it had been raised at the end of the 1980s after a fatal accident involving a coach. Due to popular indignation, elected officials then promised to tackle the problem, but nothing was done. Same thing when a driver killed four members of the same family in September 2021 by crashing into their car stopped at a traffic light while waiting for it to turn green.

Given the scale of the human tragedy, the idea of ​​removing this access came back in force, and we installed a very lucrative photo radar in the meantime, knowing that it would not have slowed down the driver who was dead drunk .

This photo radar is the most profitable in Quebec.

But in short, the ministry had therefore promised to study the question of access and it delivered its verdict last Wednesday at a press conference: access will be preserved.

The Ministry of Transport presented itself with figures, tables, an Excel document and a map to show us that the decision was not taken lightly, that we have concrete arguments.

Basically, what we said was that closing this exit would have “significant impacts” on the municipal network, which would not be “suitable” for that.

Let’s see.

First, we calculated that there would – logically – be an increase in traffic at the next exit, at Boulevard des Chutes, and also at the previous exit, at Avenue D’Estimauville. To access this street, you must actually take the exit located at rue Henri-Bourassa, after which you follow an access road leading to D’Estimauville.

And from there, we can just as logically assume that motorists would intend to get where they were going via the access to François-de-Laval, therefore to the surrounding businesses, to the youngest child’s school or at a friend’s house. We can therefore assume that they would try to find the shortest route to get to their destination.

It’s perfect timing, my youngest just attends a school in the area and I take this famous – and practical – exit every morning. If there wasn’t one, I would have to exit at Henri-Bourassa, follow the Dufferin-Montmorency highway, turn left onto avenue D’Estimauville, then take boulevard Ste-Anne – the 138, parallel to the highway – for a kilometer and a half to arrive at exactly the same point.

A detour of just a few minutes on a four-lane road lined with businesses and office buildings.

But curiously, the Ministry of Transport imagined that motorists would scatter around Avenue D’Estimauville and Boulevard des Chutes, that this would pose a security problem in CHSLDs and schools which are not entirely on the path leading to the area which would be deprived of access. Why go back to the RPA Myriade in Sainte-Ignace-de-Loyola on your way to your appointment at the CLSC Orléans?

That does not make any sense.

Same thing for the Sainte-Marie Academy secondary school, where they even say they fear an increase in traffic, even though it is on a perpendicular street, zero in the direction of east-west traffic.

In all, officials identified 51 businesses and institutions which they grouped in an Excel file, with names in black, others in red, depending on whether the impact of the closure was positive or negative. And again, it’s not clear. If we can imagine that the Tim in François-de-Laval will sell fewer worker wraps, the effect on the Unibéton quarry is puzzling.

Details are surprising. We are concerned about the impact on the Hôtel Normandin Québec, in red. The only Normandin hotel in Quebec is far from there, on Pierre-Bertrand.

The Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola Church is in black, the Marcel-Bédard arena in red. Among the places, in black, for which we anticipate a “potential impact on its traffic” there is everything: Guillot auto center, the Le Far pastry shop, the Beauport borough office, the track parking lot coastal cycle path, the HMR laundry room, to name just a few.

We didn’t even take the trouble to identify them on the map, where we put an area in red near Avenue François-de-Laval and a few lots, also in red, scattered here and there.

In fact, the Ministry of Transport’s demonstration should have contained only one argument, the only one that is valid. It has been established that this intersection is not accident-prone.

“Basically, for 2016-2022: 20 accidents in 6 years at the crossroads of which 13 DMS (property damage only), 5 light1 serious and 1 fatal (driver offender was impaired by alcohol and drugs and who was traveling at a very high speed (between 130 and 146 km/h according to the coroner’s report).”

But nonetheless, if James Fletcher, Jackson Fortin, Emma Lemieux and Shellie Fletcher-Lemieux had left the highway a few kilometers before or after, without having to stop, their car would not have been hit by Éric Légaré.

Photo radar wouldn’t have changed anything.

The idea will perhaps come back to the group, when it comes to concretely planning the fourth phase of the Promenade Samuel-de-Champlain, for which many, including me, dream of an urban boulevard. This project recently announced by the government may have played a role in the decision not to remove access until we rethink the sector.

Mind you, it would be very simple to block access, by simply placing concrete walls to close the opening between the tracks.

The primary goal of this exercise was to see if it was relevant, from a road safety point of view, to remove this access. We ruled no, end of debate. No need to drown the fish with arguments that seem to come straight out of a hat and which leave a strange impression, that we have worked backwards, starting from the conclusion.

Two and two, how much do you want that to be?

To respond to this column, write to us at [email protected]. Some responses may be published in our Opinions section.