Make way for readers | Third link between Quebec and Lévis

Many of you commented on the new version of the Quebec-Lévis third link project presented this week by the CAQ government. Many and mostly refractory to the two-tunnel project. Here is an overview of some 300 responses to our appeal to all.

Posted yesterday at 9:00 a.m.

Irresponsible shenanigans

I find this project indecent and irresponsible. This political scheming which aims to make us swallow a project of 6.5 billion instead of one to 10 billion is politically suicidal in a context where the middle class will soon be struggling to pay its mortgage. Mr. Legault, instead of two tunnels, can we envisage a 3 billion dollar bridge?

Harold L’Heureux

A project from 1950

If, as understood [jeudi], the corridors reserved for public transit are only in effect during peak hours, the federal government should not put 5 cents in this project which promotes urban sprawl and encourages the use of solo cars. A third link may be necessary in Quebec, but a new bridge reserved for public transit will do the job very well and send the right message. We do not plan in 2022 a project for the next 50 years thinking like in 1950.

Madeleine Decelles, Montreal

let’s make a choice

I have lived on the South Shore of Quebec since 1987. Currently, citizens who want to travel on the east-west axis of the South Shore are taken hostage when the bridges are blocked. All the important roads are blocked by this traffic jam on the 20 and the 132. A third bridge close to the existing ones cannot solve this problem. So we have to build further west. A bridge between Île d’Orléans and the two shores is impossible due to the heritage nature of the area. So there is still a tunnel. But in the meantime, the renovation of the Quebec Bridge is unavoidable. We must correct the scandal of its sale for only $1 to Canadian National. The federal government must recover this common good for the sum of $2 and defray the maintenance costs to maintain this monument. In short, regardless of the objections of the planet in this matter, let us have the courage to decide.

Jacques Crochetiere

Reduce traffic

Ridiculous, this idea of ​​a third link: everything for the automobile, urban sprawl and nothing for the environment. That technologies be used to reduce traffic on existing bridges. One possible solution would be to make crossing them chargeable and to grant a reduction depending on the number of passengers down to zero for four or more passengers. An application to put people in contact, according to the addresses of departure and the place of work, and according to their schedules, and voila. The political will, now.

Marcel Plante, Guadeloupe

Lack of courage

For me, this is a project from a century ago. An electoralist vision of a party that governs through polls. Unfortunately, we don’t have the courage, as a so-called distinct society, to do otherwise.

Mario Bibeau

To please some voters

The third link project, whether it be one or two tunnels, remains an electoral aberration to please a certain clientele while the CAQ in power misses the green shift, essential for the good of future generations. All this sunken money that will only serve to facilitate car use and urban sprawl… what a lack of vision and social responsibility!

Brigitte Lavoie

So many arguments against

It is a project that does not hold water. It’s too expensive, it doesn’t meet the needs of the people of Quebec City or those of the inhabitants of the South Shore, and it goes against the efforts being made to limit global warming. I am completely against this project.

Claire Maltese

Why make it easy…

Elected officials do not care what the taxpayers want. A bridge would be cheaper and faster to build. We could even kill two birds with one stone by combining the third link project with the Île d’Orléans bridge project. But no, why make it simple when you can make it complicated? Another example: the tramway. A minority wants it, but we do it anyway.

Benoit Bouchard, Quebec

More realistic

A third link is necessary, if only for security reasons. The initial project provided for the use of a tunnel boring machine with dimensions that were far too large. The new project seems to me more realistic and would be carried out at a lower cost. Dynamic lane management, planned from the outset, is an asset. The remaining issue is where the tunnel will end on the Quebec side.

Serge Goulet, retired engineer, Quebec

Broaden our vision

Is it really necessary? Do we have a broader vision than a five-year plan? Do we really know the means of transport of the future? Can the two ferries be more inviting for travel? In short, there are billions of dollars at stake, but is the game worth the candle?

Congestion in Quebec rarely exceeds 20 minutes. If public transit was free, wouldn’t that be a great idea? If carpooling were even more encouraged, wouldn’t it be another good way to decongest highways and roads? If cycle paths continue to develop, it would be a plus to reduce pollution.

In short, a third link under the river, I see nothing good in that. There are other more relevant solutions, more respectful of the environment and which only require an effort of involvement from those who will travel.

These billions of dollars could be used for families, people who are struggling to cope with rising prices: gasoline, electricity, food, clothing, education, etc.

Francois Robert Jr, Quebec


source site-58

Latest