Even with a smaller scale and lower costs, the third link is not a relevant project for the region and will not help reduce congestion between the two shores, experts say.
• Read also: A 3rd link at $6.5 billion for 2032
• Read also: 3rd link: “My report is outdated”, says Bruno Massicotte
The newspaper consulted several experts to find out their analysis of the new version of the third link presented Thursday by the Minister of Transport, François Bonnardel. Far from being convinced, they indicated that the new version is “of the same thing”.
“Copy paste. A motorway project to reduce traffic congestion cannot work. Point”, reacted Jean Dubé, economist and full professor at Laval University.
Marie-Hélène Vandersmissen, director of the geography department at Laval University, confirms that very recent studies demonstrate this. “Adding road capacity does not reduce congestion. The speed of movement increases at the beginning, but because of this ease of movement, drivers flock and we quickly return to a situation of congestion.
Less public transport
Mr. Dubé also notes that “the place of public transit seems less important in this proposal than in the previous one” and he wonders about the success of a request for funding from Ottawa. Minister Duclos also recalled Thursday that Ottawa no longer funds new highway projects.
Fanny Tremblay-Racicot, of ÉNAP, points out that improving public transit does not involve adding such infrastructure. “In addition, the increase in road capacity will directly compete with this new public transport offer.”
According to her, these “titanic” investments “could be better invested, for example in the maintenance of existing bridges, in the improvement of the Quebec-Lévis crossing and in a provincial rail strategy”.
Urban sprawl
As for the fear expressed in particular by the mayor of Quebec, Bruno Marchand, the experts are unanimous: it is certain that a third link will lead to a phenomenon of urban sprawl, particularly on the South Shore. When ministers speak of “balancing” development in the east with respect to the west, it is precisely a question of urban sprawl, claims Mme Vandersmissen.
In terms of form, the presentation did not convince Jean Mercier, a retired professor specializing in transport and public policy. “Mr. Bonnardel was sent to the slaughterhouse to defend the new version of the project. [Il] looked nervous and at times uncertain and did not respond convincingly to questions. His answers were sometimes confusing and contradictory. […] Even motorists may not be happy.
No analysis
François Des Rosiers insists: it is “aberrant” that the project has “never been the subject of an analysis, even summary, of its relevance in the light of data on inter-river travel”. The specialist in urban and regional economy describes the project as an “anachronism”.
In the absence of needs studies, “the vast majority of criticisms associated with the initial project remain,” adds Dominic Villeneuve, assistant professor, specializing in transport and mobility. The minister, he says, pleads that the interrival traffic will deteriorate. “These are the justifications necessary for a significant improvement in the public transport link between the two cities, not for an increase in motorway capacity.”