Posted at 2:00 p.m.
Rigor
Well done, Mr. Lévesque. You breathe into this debate (but can we speak of a “debate”?) a rigor that is sorely lacking. You rightly point out that before embarking on megalomaniac projects, we should prioritize investment for the maintenance of existing infrastructures.
Claire Minguy
Hat !
Hats off to the Public Policy Committee of the Association of Quebec Economists for this clear presentation full of common sense. The attachment of the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) to the proposed third link clearly reflects the type of program it proposed during its first mandate and the type of leadership it subsequently applies: it is an approach election and a tenacious application that relegates objectivity and economy to the background.
Norman Raymond
shameful comparison
Safe infrastructures for users and recurring budgets to repair and improve our existing road networks, bridges and others before spending elsewhere. I’m riding in Vermont right now. The comparison is shameful with Quebec.
Louis Rail
Sensible analysis
Ah, if only the government could do (and would agree to do) this kind of simple, sensible and, in my view, inescapable analysis of the challenges that lie ahead. I would vote for Legault and his team in a single context: four more years of a pandemic that would prevent them from accumulating blunders, like that famous third link, but since that won’t happen, my vote will go, I don’t know, me , well, to the greens… why not?
Claude Paquin
Bygone era
The third link is one of the reasons why I will not be voting for the CAQ in October. Through this project, François Bonnardel demonstrates to us that he is a transport minister of a bygone era. As for our Prime Minister, the polls are making his head so swollen…to the point of making him do willful blindness.
Jean Poisson, Granby
two warts
It’s terrible as we are in the field in Quebec with our two major projects which are the third under-river link and the tramway, which will not solve our major problem which are the traffic jams at the funnel of the bridges. These two projects total approximately $15 billion that will be borrowed and paid for by future generations. These will be our two warts of the Olympic Stadium style in Montreal, without forgetting that of the cost of the pandemic. It is the people of the South Shore of Quebec who dream of a third link. This third link could quite simply be a train connecting the Desjardins building in downtown Lévis on the South Shore to Laval University on the North Shore where users will transfer to electric buses. This unique project would save us billions.
Guy Sirois, Quebec
Non-existent principles at the CAQ
Brilliant your analysis, thank you for expressing so clearly these principles which seem simply non-existent for the current government. However, public service experts are well aware of these principles, but their messages are difficult to get through, I know something about that.
Brigitte St-Pierre
Track
I absolutely agree with you on the idea of using the Quebec Bridge railway line to run commuter trains. A bridge that was built first and foremost for rail transport. As for the tunnel project, if it comes to that, let’s do like the one under the Channel. A tunnel reserved for rail transport… train or tramway.
Denis Vallieres
Thanks
Thank you, Mr. Lévesque. It is a necessary reminder of the fundamental principles of management and project decisions in a society that claims to be modern! The third link is the most political project Quebec has seen in a long time. The tunnel, twin-tube or otherwise, is a concrete monster unworthy of a government that must be responsible for climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions will set Quebec back 10 years. The tunnel will create gloom in each motorist who will have to enter this tunnel, having to live a threatening stay in times of congestion. All the infrastructure is becoming saturated, and this tunnel will not be fun for decades. I am flabbergasted that the option of a bridge is not debated and considered. Quebec is doing everything to bury in a tunnel a problem it does not want to face.
François Major, economist specializing in transport