Since its unveiling last May, the project for an under-river highway tunnel linking the city centers of Quebec and Lévis has sparked controversy that opposes a political vision to that of science and reason.
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
This infrastructure would be the missing link to bring together the highway networks of the north and south shores while pursuing the objective of improving the fluidity of traffic between Quebec and Lévis, argues the government. But is this the right option?
This tunnel would be the largest (a 19.4 m diameter tube comprising two levels, with three lanes in each direction, including one reserved for public transport), the longest (8.3 km) and the most expensive (10 billions of dollars) in the world.
The opposition to this project is based on seven main arguments: 1) use of the stimulated solo car; 2) amplification of urban sprawl; 3) destruction of good agricultural land; 4) intensification of road traffic in the central districts of Québec; 5) project disproportionate to the need; 6) huge public investment; 7) new motorways are a call for more cars, and therefore new congestion in the medium and long term.
Regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the electrification of cars, which is presumed to be very advanced for the next decade, will reduce their volume, but will not be accompanied by a reduction in the number of cars, especially if we facilitate their use by such a project.
Against all rationality, the CAQ government persists in defending the idea of this tunnel. However, faced with the magnitude of the estimated costs and the risk of them exploding due to inflation and overheating linked to the shortage of labor and raw materials, Premier François Legault announced the February 11 that his government would present this spring an “adjusted” version of his project, which would cost less and take less time to build.
The Minister of Transport, François Bonnardel, is working on “different scenarios” which could differ from the project unveiled in May 2021. “Do we need two lanes in total? Four lanes? Six lanes? That’s what we’re looking at, ”added the Prime Minister.
Among the scenarios under study, the Québec-Lévis ferry service, in addition to the under-river tunnel, would also be under scrutiny, following new data from the Third Link Project Office: the two existing ferries could be reserved for pedestrians and cyclists only, motorized vehicles being excluded (the tunnel offering them royal roads).
Second ferry service and a commuter train
Let us dare to push the reflection further. Abandonment of the highway tunnel and scenario based on the combination of the following two elements: the improvement of the Québec-Lévis ferry service and the establishment of a commuter train between the Charny station, on the south shore, and the Palace, in Quebec.
Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, is, like Quebec, a northern city. It developed on an archipelago in the Baltic Sea comprising 14 islands. To ensure the transportation of people and goods, more than 50 bridges have been erected over the years, as well as a very efficient network of ferries. These are one of the means of transport most used by the population to move around the archipelago.
In Quebec, there are only two shores to connect. To increase the ferry’s capacity, could we not double the number of ferries, with a new service being offered upstream or downstream of the current facilities? The existing service, which notably serves Old Quebec and the old district of Lévis, 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.
As the second and main component of this scenario: the service of a commuter train between Quebec and Lévis using the Quebec Bridge railway line and interconnected with the tramway and bus lines on the north shore and the public transit network on the south shore. This option of a commuter train has already been mentioned in recent years, but it has never been studied in depth.
A train service during rush hour would greatly alleviate car traffic on the Pierre-Laporte bridge. Admittedly, there should be compatibility with VIA Rail’s freight and passenger transport that use this route, but that is not an insurmountable difficulty between people of goodwill.
Substantial savings
What level of investment would be required for two new ferries, the units of a commuter train, the infrastructures and the equipment necessary for their proper operation? As for the dilapidation of the bridge, what sum will be necessary to revamp it and extend its life by 80 or 100 years?
As a reminder, the construction of the new Samuel-De Champlain bridge in Montreal cost $4.239 billion. It can be assumed that the costs of this scenario would be much lower than those linked to the construction of an under-river tunnel. The savings thus realized could be allocated to the “refoundation” of the health system and the establishment of a home care service, which should be the main priorities of the next government.
And the big advantage of this two-pronged scenario lies in the predominance of public transport, which is its main characteristic.