The presentation by the Quebec government of a new version of the project for a third road link between Quebec and Lévis leads the Public Policy Committee of the Association of Quebec Economists to recall two simple principles.
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
We are first of the opinion that the government should not go ahead with the third link project in Quebec, or with any other major project for new infrastructures anywhere in Quebec, before carrying out analyzes details on the benefits and costs of various alternatives. We also believe that project completion timelines for new infrastructure should be spread out over time to avoid further delaying repair or reconstruction work on existing structures.
We are aware that all regions of Quebec have significant needs for the rehabilitation and modernization of their public infrastructures, whether roads, public transport systems, educational institutions or health establishments. . This is one of the concerns that has guided our committee in its pre-budget opinions for the past few years, and we do not question the need to improve ties between the two shores in the Quebec region.
Solid analysis
However, we are of the opinion that the information made public in support of the new version of the third link project, in particular a simple survey and an index of bridges per inhabitant, does not constitute a solid needs analysis for a project of this magnitude. It should be remembered that Quebec has adopted a rigorous process for a major public infrastructure project based on two phases. The pre-project phase includes in particular a study of needs, the determination of available options and their evaluation to lead to the choice of the best long-term solution. These steps then lead to the development of the business case.
Treasury Board guidance specifically states that “the current situation and the resulting need must be supported by measured and verifiable evidence.” It is therefore imperative to carry out detailed analyzes of alternative options for the third link project, such as the use of dynamic lanes on the Pierre-Laporte bridge, or the possibility of running a commuter train from Charny on the Quebec bridge. , to name a few.
The use made of traffic volume forecasts to justify the project must also be questioned. According to a 2018 survey, only 9% of trips from the South Shore have the La Cité-Limoilou borough as their destination. The government also indicates that 76% of trips are made in a work context. However, the literature shows that it is these trips that are the easiest to convert to public transit. In addition, all of this data was collected before the pandemic and does not take into account the permanent impacts of telework on travel.
We are also concerned about the financial risks associated with the chosen solution, the cost of which is very preliminary estimated at approximately $6.5 billion, in 2022 dollars. A 2012 infrastructure management study by KPMG identified five factors that could lead to cost increases: premature announcement, incomplete definition of needs, insufficient degree of precision of studies, accelerated completion schedule, and absence of contingencies and provisions for risk or inflation.
In its current form, the project ticks several boxes of a potential loss of cost control.
We must also repeat our previous messages regarding the prioritization of the maintenance of existing infrastructures. The data from the Québec infrastructure plan (PQI) show a continuous increase in the asset maintenance deficit, which has thus increased in five years from $17.6 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2022. These figures show that the government does not does not carry out, and this, year after year, a volume of maintenance and repair work sufficient to stop the deterioration of existing infrastructures, the road network being at the top of the list in this respect.
To this must be added the current context of labor shortages and the resurgence of inflation, which makes it even more essential to properly assess the limits to the capacity of the construction industry. The Quebec government has not demonstrated how several large projects for new infrastructure, the third link in Quebec, the new version of the REM de l’Est in Montreal and all other projects of this magnitude, can be integrated into the QIP at the horizon of 2030 without having to reduce the already insufficient pace of maintenance work and thus accelerate the deterioration of existing infrastructure.
The need for detailed analyzes of alternative solutions for major projects and the prioritization of the maintenance of existing infrastructures transcend electoral deadlines. These are prerequisites for the performance of the Québec economy and the health of its public finances in the coming decades.