How can we continue to associate the third link with air quality, greenhouse gases or human health by making people believe that it is the highway that pollutes, and not the vehicles? How not to stop considering that the vehicles that would use the link are already present in the streets and that they are the ones that threaten human health? Pursuing such a reflection, would it not be fair to say that, with free-flowing traffic on the highway, the rate of consumption of internal combustion engines is lower than what occurs when vehicles bob on the roads and congested streets, while the rate of oil consumption is at its peak? It could be added that, when the traffic is free, it can be expected that the running time of engines in general will be reduced. Thus, we even manage to understand how the construction of a third link can contribute to reducing oil consumption.
To date, no one has demonstrated that a third link is necessary. If this demonstration is made, the CAQ tunnel appears to me to be too costly and inefficient. On the other hand, there are few good places to build a new bridge in Quebec, and building one to the east is probably the best option. A preliminary study should be carried out in order to verify the feasibility of a project which would include, between the shore and Île d’Orléans, a bridge which would serve as a new bridge to get there, and which would then be extended to Highway 20, after the entrances and exits of vehicles circulating on the island. With regard to the measures to be taken to adapt to the distinctive character of this island and the quality of life of its residents, the preliminary study should show how this can be achieved by mitigation measures, such as crossing a certain part of the island in tunnel. While waiting for such a study, I think it would be best to abandon the sophisms and no longer hurl anathemas against those who propose the construction of a link east of Quebec.
To see in video