As university experts from various disciplines, we are concerned about several elements surrounding the third highway link project. We wish, by taking this position, to contribute to the public debate by clearly affirming our opposition to the project.
Posted yesterday at 3:00 p.m.
It has already been said in several forums that this project is an inadequate solution to a real problem: traffic congestion in the Quebec City region during rush hour. However, it is extremely well documented that a new motorway link will have the consequence, through the phenomenon of induced demand, of increasing automobile traffic rather than reducing it.
In addition, several more effective and less expensive solutions have already been proposed. Among these solutions are simple and quickly achievable suggestions, such as improving the public transit system, reviewing existing access to bridges or performing dynamic lane management based on traffic hours.1.
An expensive project
The economic argument, that this project will stimulate economic prosperity and sustainable development, is simply false. This project will cost far too much for the benefits we will derive from it.
First, considering its staggering cost of $10 billion, this third link would be used by relatively few people.
Traffic forecasts are currently around 55,000 vehicles per day2, less than half of the current traffic on the Pierre-Laporte Bridge.
Moreover, it is legitimate to believe that the costs are probably underestimated. Scientific research over the past 70 years on megaprojects all points to the same findings: budget overruns and almost systematic deadlines, and much lower profits than expected. About one in 10 megaprojects respects the initial budget, one in 10 respects the set schedule, and one in 10 brings the anticipated benefits3. Wouldn’t there be better things to do with all that money?
A project that does not bring people together
This project fundamentally lacks social and environmental acceptability; in fact, it goes against just about every major principle of sustainable development. And no, this project is not “ecological” or “carbon neutral”!
In the aftermath of the Glasgow conference on climate change, it is important to keep in mind to limit our carbon footprint; however, this project will only accentuate it. The increase in the carbon footprint will be made both by the construction of the project itself, because of the materials and the transport of the latter, but also once the infrastructure is commissioned, because of the increase in traffic. and the urban sprawl it will cause.
A risky project
In addition to the risks to the health of local populations, marine ecosystems and urban and natural heritage, the project is technically very risky. Experts question the technical feasibility of digging a tunnel under the St. Lawrence River. However, these significant technical risks will have direct impacts on the already very high total costs.
The singular idea of building the largest tunnel boring machine in the world to dig this tunnel illustrates the need to respond to what the Danish researcher Bent Flyvbjerg calls the “technological sublime”, i.e. to push the technical limits even when this is not justified. .
Problematic governance
By declaring that the project would go ahead even if the upcoming BAPE report is unfavorable, the government is denying the relevance of this institution, which is at the heart of the Quebec model of public participation.
More broadly, and for all future megaprojects, we would like the public and experts to be consulted more. We are asking for more transparency regarding the project selection process and the disclosure of feasibility studies. It is essential that decisions be better informed by the facts and by scientific evidence based on the numerous university studies in this area.
In its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has not been shy about admitting mistakes and promptly correcting where necessary. We would like him to do the same here and seriously consider abandoning this project.