(Quebec) The need to build, with billions of dollars, a third highway link between Quebec and Lévis is far from having been demonstrated, according to three experts consulted Monday by The Canadian Press.
Posted at 1:58 p.m.
Caroline Plante
The Canadian Press
After several procrastinations, Prime Minister François Legault announced last Thursday that he was relaunching his project for a third highway link, even though the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec advises against it.
He evoked a new argument of “economic security”; according to him, the Quebec region needs another bridge to ensure the transport of goods by truck in the event that the Pierre-Laporte bridge closes.
This argument “comes out of nowhere,” laments Professor Catherine Morency of the Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering at Polytechnique Montréal in a telephone interview.
“One, it comes out of nowhere […] and two, if we want to ensure the feasibility of transporting our goods, it is not the truck that should be our plan A,” she maintains.
PHOTO PROVIDED BY CAROLINE PERRON, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Catherine Morency from the Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering at Polytechnique Montréal
“For everything that involves transporting goods, the future is not around heavy trucks for long distances; we need to transfer to rail and maritime” which have a lower carbon footprint.
The Legault government denounces Mme Morency, “never relies on analyses”.
It is extremely worrying –– it is even odious – that a project of this magnitude should be decided to launch like that without anything, any justification, nothing. It’s getting wacky.
Catherine Morency
“Can the government let me do my job? […] I’m a teacher, I’m supposed to do research and train people. But there comes a time when it’s so absurd that we say to ourselves: ‘Come on, we can’t let something so stupid go by,’” she adds.
Professor Jean Dubé, from the Graduate School of Territorial Planning and Regional Development at Laval University, also deplores that “the need is not even documented”.
In an interview, he advocates carrying out a cost-benefit analysis. “Knowing that what we do will have impacts for generations to come, the least we can do is not turn a blind eye […] and to put all the possibilities forward,” he says.
The government is currently going “against what we should be doing in terms of society for the development of our cities, for the fight against climate change”, adds Jérôme Laviolette, doctoral student in transport engineering within the Chair Mobility at Polytechnique Montréal.
“The data is not there to justify a third link. […] That’s a lot of money invested for a link which, according to CDPQ analyses, will not bring much. »
