The reversal of the situation in the file of the third link in Quebec is an opportunity to reflect on the next steps for the major transport infrastructures in Quebec and the region. In this second article of two, the author analyzes the relevance of providing the Quebec City region with a third public transit link in the form of a tunnel between Lévis and the Capital.
The announcement of the abandonment of the motorway portion of the third link is only a few days old and several commentators have already pronounced their verdict: if the third motorway link is not justified for cars, why should it be? it for public transport? It can be pernicious to base our choices solely on current needs. We should not confine ourselves to this criterion alone.
The fact remains that there must be a minimum demand and, above all, good reasons to believe that this demand will increase, while contributing to structuring and densifying the territory. Let’s take a look at the third link by public transport.
The center of Lévis, which can be placed somewhere around the Galeries Chagnon, the Desjardins pole and UQAR, is located four kilometers as the crow flies from downtown Quebec. There is a certain urban mix and good potential for densification. Without the obstacle of the river and the topography, there would therefore have been a strong link in public transport between these two poles for a long time, it is obvious in urban planning.
Thus, the new third link would have a decisive advantage: it would considerably reduce travel times. Trips that take 30 minutes by car or 55 minutes by public transport would now take only 10 minutes. This time saving, by its magnitude, has the potential to change the travel patterns of the region and create, in the short term and in the long term, a very significant induced demand — especially since there would be no competition from the automobile in this axis. Neither the crossing nor any transit project passing west over the existing bridges can beat that. Moreover, this project would help reduce the pressure on existing bridges and preserve their functionality, particularly for heavy transport.
Despite these arguments, we are entitled to wonder if a short shuttle-type project between Lévis and Québec, on the model of the yellow line between Longueuil and Montréal, is worth it. The population areas served are not of the same order. To optimize the investment and its benefits, it is therefore necessary to consider taking this line further, and perhaps even making it phase two of the tramway.
Extending this line towards Lebourgneuf would create a large diagonal line on a regional scale. All at once, we come to tackle two problems: we increase territorial cohesion between Lévis and Quebec by avoiding adding road capacity, and we finally create a structural link between Lebourgneuf and downtown Quebec. , the missing link in public transit in Quebec City.
This new line would most likely be justified from the outset in terms of traffic, since all of northwestern Quebec could fall back on it to reach downtown Quebec City… and Lévis. What’s more, with such a strong public transport offer, we can hope that sectors currently dependent on the car would become denser and would become more favorable to public and active transport, in the same way as the areas around the Longueuil and Montmorency metros. , for example, are evolving. The need does exist for a third public transport link, particularly for a version designed on a regional scale.
Above all, I am deeply convinced that we cannot combat 70 years of powerful highway megaprojects without proposing equally powerful major public transit projects. Public transit must play a central role in our travels, not just a supporting role “for the students and the poor” and for the Summer Festival. We will not be able to fight the five highways of Quebec by being content to fold buses to the two poles of exchanges of the tramway. This project has the capacity to structure the development of Quebec for the next hundred years (obviously, it will also be necessary to improve the service elsewhere). If we are ambitious for public transit and for Quebec, the need for a third link exists, it is even a necessity.
However, there is an important “but” on the side of the technical feasibility of the project. A third link by public transport would cost much less than the highway version, but the fact remains that the geography of the region is a major constraint. Deep resorts, steep slopes, the presence of the river are among the challenges to be met. It is very much on the side of these technical questions that reflection must concentrate before going any further.
Insofar as these challenges are surmountable, count me among those who support the third link project intended for public transit, because it has the potential to change the face of Quebec and Lévis.