How to spend 7 billion without arguments

When Éric Duhaime has a better economic argument than you, it’s really time to question yourself.

The Conservative leader, whose reputation as a demagogue and populist is second to none, has the Quebec region in his sights.

But even him – him! – finds crazy the arguments of the CAQ government to make a “third link” tunnel boring machine with two tubes. He favors, like some experts, a new, less expensive bridge.

That is to say.

I can hear them howling against the prevailing westerly wind from here: we know, in Montreal, etc.

I beg you, friends of Quebec and the surrounding area, let’s not fall into the trap of false regional rivalry, as Transport Minister François Bonnardel would like.

He has indeed provided the media with a new statistic, something absolutely unprecedented: the number of bridges per million inhabitants.

Isn’t this an objective measure of equity between regions? The number of hospital beds per inhabitant is well calculated. Why not the bridge ratio? You had to think about it!

It turns out that Montreal has 8.7 bridges per million inhabitants, while Quebec has only 2.44.

You will say to me: Montreal is an island, it is normal that it is better furnished in bridges. Others will note the shocking deficit of bridges in Rouyn-Noranda.

But seriously: is that François Bonnardel’s argument? Is that the file presented to the public of the nation to justify such a gigantic work?

We can talk about transportation. We can talk about town planning. We have to talk about the environment. We can talk about regional development.

But for the moment I want to dwell on just one thing: this government is preparing to engage the responsibility of the State to the tune of 7 billion dollars without any serious economic and scientific argument.

Automobile traffic has increased in Quebec as everywhere. Current bridges are saturated compared to forecasts 40 years ago. Even in Montreal, we realized this.

From there, several questions arise: is this really a particular problem? I mean: is the traffic in Quebec in such a bad state that it justifies building another “link”? And if so, are two tunnels of 8.3 km each, in an unfamiliar basement, really the right solution? What will be the effects of these new constructions? Are there other options?

According to the mayor of Lévis, Gilles Lehouillier, whose quarrel with Quebec has blocked several projects, there is no urban sprawl to be expected. Zero. Why ? Because the tunnel would connect two existing highways. Isn’t that logical? We would only speed up traffic between roads that are congested.

Yet this is the very definition of urban sprawl: the more road infrastructure you build to make traffic flow, the more you encourage traffic to remote areas, since the cost of transport will decrease. It’s math. The suburb will simply expand into a larger belt.

It is a possible “societal” choice, mind you. It is said !

But don’t go saying that it’s neutral, that it doesn’t change anything or, even better, that “it increases the attraction of public transport”. Mr. Bonnardel really said that. Without laughing. We’ve reached two double-lane tunnels, we don’t really know how public transport fits in there, but for some unknown reason, it makes public transport more attractive…

That’s really the only subject here: what is the rational basis for public policies? Is there a minimally scientific basis for the decisions of our governments? Are we really talking about criteria for bridges per million inhabitants?

The mayor of Quebec, Bruno Marchand, says it so clearly, so simply: what is data? What is the basis for justifying such a project?

In his presentation on Thursday, Minister François Bonnardel cited the evolution of travel between 1997 and… 2017. Plus projections for the next 15 years.

It’s weak, very weak. Even if it claims to take into account the evolution of telework, a concept almost unknown just two years ago.

We all understood that the government was keeping a perfect constitutional way out: the federal government must provide 40% of the funding. François Legault cannot “believe” that it would be refused. The proof: the Vancouver tunnel will be co-financed by the federal government. We forget to say that it is a tunnel dating back to 1959, therefore being repaired, and not a new infrastructure. In truth, it is quite obvious that Ottawa will not put any money into this.

When we do the genealogy of this “third link”, we realize that if it has been dreamed of for a long time in Lévis, it became a political issue when certain radio stations in Quebec decided to make it a fight. The candidates of the CAQ adhered to it. It has become a regional promise. So much so that we first announced this tunnel, the widest in the world, without the slightest study. When they realized it didn’t make sense, they came back with this new version. Because the project cannot die.

In short, the solution was announced before the serious analysis of the problem.

And we are still waiting, like the good mayor of Quebec, and so many others who dare not say so in the area. What are we waiting for ?

Facts. Numbers. Science.

Seems to me that it must not be funny, to be planted scientifically by Éric Duhaime?