The Legault government is starting to have enough practice to write a little treatise on the art of hindsight.
The third-link case joins other abandonments of controversial ideas, such as the unvaccinated tax and reduced leave for adoptive parents. He came out without too many scratches. He even boasted of knowing how to recognize his mistakes.
He used the right recipe, with one exception: identify the cause of the error so as not to repeat it.
In the case of the third Lévis-Québec road link, this would consist in not proposing a solution again before having documented the problem and examined the other available options.
This should also apply to a car-free tunnel. The proof remains to be made that this is the best investment in mobility for the region.
To step back without accident, four steps must be followed: find an excuse, choose your moment, be humble and impose a change of subject.
The failure of the third road link was predictable. The project was crumbling under its own weight.
The problem was exaggerated. Traffic congestion in the region remains below the average for Canadian cities of similar size. For the following decade, a demographic slowdown was even anticipated on the South Shore.
The alleged remedy would not have changed much in the long term either. Due to the phenomenon of induced traffic, ridership would have returned to its initial level1.
This solution rather generated new problems such as greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric pollution, urban sprawl and dependence on the automobile which is widening our trade deficit and costing individuals dearly.
During this time, the bill threatened to jump because of inflation and the federal government refused to pay for a significant portion of the work.
All of this has been known for months, if not years.
But the CAQ government had given its word, so it was looking for an unforeseen obstacle. He found it: updating traffic data with post-pandemic telecommuting.
He then had to choose his moment. Better not wait too long. His term begins, his majority is overwhelming, his popularity remains strong and the opposition is divided.
Across Quebec, the caquistes are gaining. They get rid of their main environmental burden.
But in the Capitale-Nationale, the anger is strong. Mr. Legault considers it manageable. After all, the citizens of the Capitale-Nationale will have more than three years to forget before the next election campaign, and even if they still felt betrayed, they would not necessarily be tempted by the Liberals, the PQ or the Solidarity who rejected the project too.
On the other hand, it is a dream opportunity for Éric Duhaime. For the first time since the end of the pandemic, he can mobilize his supporters with an emotional subject.
Ecologists would also benefit from measuring their enthusiasm. The Mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, was one of the first to react. Seen from Quebec, the decision suddenly looked like a victory for the “Montreal lesson givers”…
Once the decision is made, the tone of the announcement is crucial.
The politician must appear both convinced and contrite. Mr. Legault skillfully plays the card of humility. He poses as a pragmatist who bows to the facts, having spent the past few years ignoring them.
Finally, for the retreat to be successful, you have to turn people’s gaze in another direction. Mr. Legault does this with the idea of a car-free tunnel. The message: I’m not backing down, I’m heading towards a new green adventure.
All that remains is to learn from past mistakes.
The caquists only considered the tunnel. They ignored the almost unanimous opinions of the experts – including those of Quebec. Then they backpedaled looking for justifications, like their index of “bridges per million inhabitants” which made it possible to compare apples with lawnmowers.
Next time, instead of starting with the conclusion, it would be better to proceed in order.
Admittedly, Quebec stands out from other Canadian cities with its high number of highway kilometers and its low public transit offer. But is an under-river tunnel the best choice to improve this network? If telework has reduced travel, does the traffic justify such an investment? As the example of the REM de l’Est shows, defenders of public transit can oppose a project because of the cost or the route.
Then, if the dilapidation of the two current bridges justified the third link, what are we planning to secure them in the long term?
Finally, if the addition of highways is not relevant in Quebec, it should also apply to Montreal. If Mr. Legault renounces the third road link, why still promise projects that share the same vices, such as the extension of highways 13 and 19? Even if they are less expensive, they are just as environmentally unfriendly.
Learning from the third link would help prevent a further setback. Because the more they add up, the more they risk becoming difficult to justify.