Transport Quebec Responds

A few weeks back I posted an opinion piece about the fanfare surrounding the construction of highway 30 that began just recently. I sent the same text as a letter to the Ministere des transports via their website, and to my surprise they responded in a fairly personal manner – it wasn’t just a form letter assuring me that someone would take my comments into consideration. Instead, what I got was a “clarification”. Apparently I wasn’t directing my concerns to the right level of government. The smell of “passing the buck” was overpowered, however, by the rot of status quo rationalisation that followed. Apparently the Gouvernement du Quebec is doing enough “for the environment” and I should not be concerned by the development in question (la 30). According to the official line, this highway will indeed make the world a better place.

We may choose to believe that the economic/ecological stewardship of our future is in good hands, and return to a life of routine that never questions that choice. On the other hand, we can choose to wake up to the fact that things just ain’t right, and a dose of the problem won’t cure what ails us. How many more times will we repeat the same mistakes that have contributed to the mess we’re in?

I am including the letter I received here, for your reading pleasure. I have also composed my reply to this, in hopes to engage the department in further discussion. For the original text please see “La 30”.

Please feel free to comment for yourself, either on the blog page or on our facebook page.

Cheers,

Maclean.

Letter from Transports Quebec:

Dear Mr. Maclean:

We have carefully read and noted your comments concerning the article dated August 3, 2009 in le Journal de Montréal.

We would, however, like to clarify some information. The initiatives that you propose, such as car-free areas, do not fall under the purview of the gouvernement du Québec, but rather, that of the municipalities. We, therefore, ask that you send your comments on these points to the municipalities concerned.

Furthermore, we wish to inform you that the gouvernement du Québec invests a considerable amount of funds yearly through grants to public transit organizations. During the past few years, the ministère des Transports has also developed the "Route verte", a bicycle network of over 4,000 km throughout Québec.

We wish to point out that the completion of Autoroute 30 will have several benefits, in addition to providing the metropolitan Montréal region with a bypass route. In fact, Autoroute 30 will facilitate export, making it possible to support trade with Ontario, the United States and the Maritime Provinces. This support will better enable the integration of western Montérégie into Montréal’s socio-economic sphere. We do not claim that the construction of this new bypass route will eliminate traffic congestion on Montréal’s Metropolitan Autoroute. However, we are convinced that it will be used mostly by motorists travelling east-west in the province, and, thereby, partly reduce traffic congestion on Montréal Island as well as reduce certain accident risks.

We hope that this information will answer your questions.

…and my reply:

Thank-you kindly for your considered reply to my criticism. So much for my cynicism that such complaints fall on deaf ears! I would like to take the opportunity at this point, to carry the exchange one step further with a few observations about your reply. They are somewhat general, since i am compelled to look at policy in the context of "the big picture".

First of all, I stand corrected if it is true, as you say, that you do not claim the 30 will eliminate traffic congestion on the Met. We can agree on that.

Also, it is true, as I am well aware, that certain specific initiatives do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Gouvernement du Quebec, whereas others, such as the ones you mentioned do. But there is certainly a link between municipalities and provincial governments, since the former depend upon the latter for a great deal of their operating budget (for better or worse). Public transit is a case in point. To brush aside the idea of a car-free zone is perhaps convenient and tidy for le Ministere du Transport, but it suggests no moral sympathy for a progressive measure that may prove to be urgently needed in due time. It is certainly within the realm of the imagination that the Gouvernement du Quebec might indeed get involved with such a plan, if it was politically advantageous to do so.

I applaud support of both public transit and bicycle path networks: they are worthy and essential recipients of public money; but I question you on the use of the term “considerable amount of funds” since such numbers are always relative. How do these amounts compare to the money spent (or to be spent, in this instance) on highway development? (The short answer is they are dwarfed by this allocation.) What other alternative measures stand in the wings waiting in vain for funds that they badly need?

Governments at all levels seem to be compelled to believe that all economic activity must involve the automobile. Worse still, “economic development” itself is always measured as a positive no matter how regressive its consequences are with respect to community and the environment.

My point of view may well represent a challenging one to the managers of the status quo, since it is predicated on a thorough questioning of the economic-growth paradigm. While you may dismiss this (and this letter) out of hand, it must go down as a matter of record that at least some people have made connections between blind support of the status quo and the three big crises that we face – namely climate change, peak oil and financial/ economic recession/ depression.

Building another highway in hopes of making some last ditch effort to recover the out-going consumer/ debt society that has begun to die, will do nothing to meet our moral obligations on Global Warming, nor (as an over-investment in fossil-fuel based activity) will it build resilience toward the coming crunch in energy supply.

A massive investment in train and other public transit could effectively get off-island commuters out of their cars and free up enormous amounts of highway space, making them safer and more efficient for commercial transport. Further benefits are aplenty: Existing infrastructure would endure less wear and tear; the economic engine of the greater Montreal region would emit less CO2, and other pollutants; and would-be drivers will not be over-committed in the event that oil prices skyrocket, or worse, oil supply itself becomes sporadic.

As much as I’d like to believe that this letter might have some effect on policy, I know it can only serve a different purpose at this stage. I hope you (whoever does read this) can appreciate the value of the public dialogue, and of questioning assumptions. Your replies are greatly appreciated. At Car Free Mile End sans voitures we are all about the ongoing conversation.

Cheers,

Maclean