We hear all kinds of things about the counterproductive nature of the sub-fluvial link project between Quebec and Lévis, particularly from the Montreal media and environmental pressure groups. This project would go against the measures to be taken to reduce the impact of climate change by promoting an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rather than reducing them. The arguments put forward are more often partisan rhetoric and theory than town planning practice. A more realistic approach would put the debate at its proper level.
The starting point: the undeniable congestion of bridges
The third link project started from an unavoidable reality in the Capitale-Nationale region: the Pierre-Laporte bridge and the old Quebec bridge are congested for hours several times a day. We must improve the flow of trade between the two shores of the St. zero growth, or even a decrease). We have also seen over the past year that the safety of citizens could be affected when the police and ambulance services were hampered by work on the Pierre-Laporte Bridge. We reserved a lane for them, but that only worsened the traffic jams, particularly for heavy transport, which can only take the Pierre-Laporte bridge.
The need for a third link became evident. Leaving the situation as it is can only lead to increased traffic congestion.
We can temporarily improve the flow of traffic by reserving certain lanes to the north or south at peak times, such as on the old bridge, but this does not constitute a long-term response to the needs of the agglomeration (population growth and the vehicle fleet). The only question that remains is to decide on the location of the third link. Adding a bridge to the west, next to the other two, is an aberration and, to the east, having it span Île d’Orléans (heritage site) in the direction of Beaumont would disfigure the landscape and receive no support from the populations concerned.
The independent development of the two shores
Among the reasons given to block the third link, there is the idea that we must constrain the development of the agglomeration of Quebec in its current territory under penalty of seeing an extension of the urban area of Lévis and an invasion of the territory. agricultural sector in the Lévis-Bellechasse sector. There is no doubt that the sub-fluvial link would lead to a displacement of the population towards the south-east. As happened on the southwest side with the two current bridges. However, this shift will be gradual and will have to come to terms with the legal constraints in force. This prospect of a more balanced geographic development of the city of Lévis (compatible with that of the eastern sector of Quebec City) should rather be welcomed as a positive and desirable improvement.
Instead, we advocate an agglomeration closed in on itself, whose two poles would continue to evolve independently of each other. Whether from a demographic or economic point of view, an integrated vision of the development of the two shores has become necessary. The agglomeration of Montreal cannot be thought of without its suburbs, without the northern and southern crowns. And, moreover, how to deal with the exodus from the city-center and the appetite of urban families for the suburbs? Densification of housing is one of the ways of hampering urban territorial expansion, but it does not necessarily correspond to the needs of different segments of the population. Wanting to impose it at all costs is to disregard structural urban dynamics and oppose the inevitable.
A job to be redone in 10 years
We are also told that the third link will only succeed in containing motor traffic for about ten years and that its impact will be fleeting. It would be, they say, the lot of all the highways to be saturated after a certain time and to have to be widened or lengthened to correspond to the demographic pressure and the increase of the automobile park. Why then start something that will have to be redone in 10 years?
In truth, almost nothing is planned to last all the time. We must constantly update, adjust and perfect what has been done previously.
Whether they are public programs, policies or infrastructure, everything must be reviewed at some point. When the Quebec Bridge was built, no one predicted that it would become insufficient and that another bridge would have to be built right next to it. It is a static vision of development that prompts some to believe that we can freeze the current situation and hope that it meets the needs of the future.
The too high cost of the project
The cost of the third link is found to be exaggerated, with current estimates ranging from $ 6 billion to $ 10 billion. But it is not in relation to work of the same type that the comparison is made. We wonder what else we could do with such a sum. How many early childhood centers could be added, how many schools could be built or renovated, how many hospitals or CLSCs could receive the budgets they lack?
Such reasoning suggests that public money is not put where it is needed most. It is curious, however, that we do not question in the same way the $ 30 billion or more currently involved in infrastructure work in the Montreal region. Can there be two weights, two measures? And if all Montrealers are directly affected by the third link because their taxes will be used to pay part of it without being asked for their opinion, we could also say that all Quebecers are not consulted and are not necessarily in line with public spending on infrastructure in the Montreal region.
Excess is a bad counselor
There is no doubt that Quebec must continue to improve its carbon footprint, but to describe the third link as an abomination or an ecological absurdity is to overstate the mark. Anything that is exaggerated ends up being insignificant: we leave the real world to focus only on the excess of irrational fears and the pithy formulas of personalities in need of visibility. Let’s come back to a more measured attitude, and rather than condemning a project before it begins, let’s wait until we have all the convincing information in hand.