The different scenarios that have been considered in recent years for a third link between Quebec and Lévis, notably the proposal for a highway tunnel, have all generated a lot of opposition. Opponents cited the following points: stimulated use of solo cars, amplification of urban sprawl, destruction of good agricultural land, intensification of road traffic in the central districts of Quebec, project disproportionate to needs, gigantism of the public investment, new highways are a call for more cars (induced traffic). The proposal for a bridge-tunnel to the east which would have anchored on the Île d’Orléans was also deemed incompatible with the heritage character of the site. That of a tunnel under the river from city center to city center, reserved exclusively for public transport, could not obtain the support of the City of Lévis.
At the same time, the structuring tramway project in Quebec also aroused its share of opposition, and the Legault government was not convinced of the relevance of the planned route and the project as designed. The wish was expressed that a sustainable mobility plan be developed across the Quebec region, including the central cities and the suburbs bordering the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence.
It is in this context that in November 2023, the government entrusted CDPQ Infra with a two-part mandate: develop a structuring transport project that would improve public transport in Quebec City; and improve mobility and fluidity in the Metropolitan Community of Quebec, particularly between the two shores. The office of Minister Geneviève Guilbault confirmed that this second part of the mandate included a possible proposal for a third link.
Plan the repair of the bridge to accommodate a commuter train
On Wednesday, May 15, the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, confirmed the purchase of the Quebec Bridge, owned by CN, by the federal government. He announced that his government would invest $40 million per year over a period of 25 years, for a total of $1 billion, in order to “ensure the long-term viability of this infrastructure.”
This announcement should allow us to consider a new scenario for the third link: a commuter train between Charny station, in Lévis, and Palais station, in Quebec. On the south shore, this train would be interconnected with the network of the Société de transport de Lévis; On the Quebec side, it would be interconnected with the tram network. The option of a commuter train has already been mentioned in recent years, but it has never been the subject of in-depth studies. The conditions for its realization appear more favorable following the acquisition of the Quebec Bridge by Ottawa.
To the east, the Quebec-Lévis ferry service would be improved. Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, is, like Quebec, a Nordic city. It developed on an archipelago in the Baltic Sea made up of 14 islands. To ensure the transport of people and goods, more than 50 bridges have been erected over the years, as well as a very efficient ferry network. These constitute one of the means of transport most used by the population to move around the archipelago.
In Quebec, there are only two banks to connect. To increase the capacity of the crossing, could we not double the number of ferries to offer a new service upstream or downstream of the current facilities? The existing service, which serves Old Quebec and the old Lévis district in particular, would be limited to pedestrians and cyclists, while the new service could accommodate pedestrians and cyclists as well as a limited number of cars and delivery trucks.
A train service during rush hours would greatly reduce car traffic on the Pierre-Laporte bridge as well as on the Quebec bridge. Certainly, compatibility with CN freight transport and Via Rail passenger transport using this route should be provided, but this is not an insurmountable difficulty between people of good will.
Substantial savings and other benefits
What level of investment would be required for two new ferries, the units of a commuter train, and the infrastructure and equipment necessary for their proper operation? For the repair of the bridge, $1 billion is provided by provisions of the bridge acquisition agreement by the federal government. How much extra money would be needed to bring it up to commuter train standards? As a reminder, the construction of the new Samuel-De Champlain Bridge in Montreal cost $4.239 billion, entirely paid for by the federal government.
We can imagine that the costs of this two-part scenario would be significantly lower than those linked to the replacement of the Champlain Bridge and those of an under-river tunnel.
Other advantages arise from this option: the optimized use of the Quebec bridge and its railway, the priority given to public transport both to the east and to the west, there is no incentive to the use of solo cars or increased risk of urban sprawl, agricultural land is not threatened, the Quebec tramway increases its ridership due to passengers arriving from the south shore by the commuter train which is interconnected to it, and the promotion of the Quebec Bridge as a prime heritage element of the national capital.