I have potentially devastating news.

The provincial government of QuĂ©bec announced in April that the “third link”, a tunnel to cross the river between QuĂ©bec City and it’s suburbs, would either be car-free, or it would not be built. At the time, a lot of people across the province celebrated. Some car brains were unhappy, but that’s fine. They’re never happy anyway, whatever is done. Studies showed that current traffic did not require a new automobile bridge, and that it would invite traffic that the city couldn’t handle.

Yesterday, there were provincial elections in that region, and the party in power lost a seat. They immediately started playing defense and said “maybe we should consult the local population on whether we should make it automotive after all”.

We all know where this is going. They’ll make that dumbass bridge for cars. The prime Minister can’t walk back on his word a third time and still win his elections in 3 years.

I may not live in the region, but I truly believe these people should have access to rapid transit to Quebec. My taxes shouldn’t go towards building an automobile bridge to our beautiful city of QuĂ©bec. I believe strongly that an automotive bridge would create enough induced demand to gridlock QuĂ©bec City. This is so wrong and I’m sitting here, powerless.

I don’t know what I can do. I don’t even live there. It just makes me sad that we can make the REM in Montreal, but then put doubt in the Third link in QuĂ©bec. We can’t have nice things.

  • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the most BS governement we had over the past 20 years. Legault doesnt even pretend like he gives a single fuck about environnement. He would build a nuclear central in the middle of QuĂ©bec city if he beleive that would give him more votes. I hate that stupid governement with passion. I’m still pretty confident nothing will happened with that project, but why even keep talking about it.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh


      A nuclear power station in the middle of Quebec city would actually be environmentally beneficial so I don’t know what you were trying to prove there but it didn’t work


      • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lol. I’m not entirely against nuclear, but if you think a nuclear central in the middle of any widely populated city is a good idea (especially the capital of a province with the potential for 100% renewable energy from hydro, wind, solar), I suggest you reevaluate your knowledge on the subject. Or maybe join the CAQ.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nuclear power is extremely safe, especially in a zone where there’s very little seismic activity and it’s clean energy.

          Getting your energy from a source that’s not thousands of km away is also much safer as it relies on much less infrastructure.

          Generating power for the major cities without needing to transport it from the northern part of the province would allow us to send the surplus to the USA to help decarbonise their production and since it’s not for local use it might as well come from a source that’s more at risk of shutting down because of wildfires or, in the long run, climate change.

          And I’ll continue voting left, thank you very much.

          • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            All right, as long as we’re talking Fukushima level safety, I’m on board. Lets ditch hydroelectricty and build a nuclear central in the middle of north America’s oldest city

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah, if you can’t see the difference between the locations then I guess this conversation isn’t worth continuing
 Anti-nuclear “greens” are killing the movement’s credibility


              Edit: Looking back at your first comment “most bs government in 20 years”, guess you’re not very old to not remember the Liberals that got elected 20 years ago!

              • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                C’est vrai que c’est pas pareil! Ça remonte Ă  quand le dernier tremblement de terre au QuĂ©bec dĂ©jĂ !? Oh la semaine passĂ©e vraiment? Anyway je suis prĂȘt Ă  prendre le risque, de toute façon j’habite pas Ă  QuĂ©bec donc c’est pas mon problĂšme.

                Pour mon 1er commentaire, je maintiens que c’est le pire gouvernement depuis “au moins” 20 ans, oui. Pire que les libĂ©raux de Charest, oui. C’est un parti de division : catholique vs les autres, MontrĂ©al vs le reste de la province, quĂ©bĂ©cois de souche vs immigrants, propriĂ©taire vs locataires, entrepeneurs vs salariĂ©s. Ce parti ne fait qu’accentuer les divisons entre les quĂ©bĂ©cois, a des fins purement Ă©lectoralistes. Et je sais pas pourquoi mon Ăąge t’intĂ©resse, mais il y a 20 ans, j’étais dĂ©jĂ  en age de voter et non, c’est pas moi qui a fait Ă©lire les libĂ©raux, ni le pq d’ailleurs. Tu chercheras l’UMP.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  C’était quoi la magnitude dĂ©jĂ ? Combien il y en a au QuĂ©bec vs au Japon? C’est correct, je comprends, c’est dur d’admettre qu’on comprend pas de quoi on parle 😉

                  Ok buhbye lĂ !

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think it’s just a way to distract from the fact that it’s the first time since 2018 that they have to deal with a loss and people seem to be getting tired of Legault. The bridge probably won’t happen, especially if they don’t win next election. Worst case of the two existing bridges, one is becoming more and more unsafe to use and repairs are always way too much trouble to deal with (because of the CN ownership) so if there was a third bridge, one of the two existing ones might eventually get closed.

    • Jeanschyso@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I forgot about that worn out bridge. Our province is so bad at bridges. I could tell you about 4 bridge projects that are stuck in the mud. The dumbest being the Honoré Mercier bike path. What idiot decided to let the federals build half a bike section and not finish the Montreal side of it?

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re approaching 1B$ in repairs necessary to keep it usable
 Honestly, I don’t know how much we should spend on a 100 years old bridge that’s owned by a private corporation
 A bridge further east and transforming that one into a bridge for public/active transport only might be a better plan in the long run
 But the tunnel under the Saint Lawrence is completely idiotic.