A small gain in time for congestion that is simply displaced, or even increased: the third motorway link between Quebec and Lévis “is not justified from the point of view of mobility”, rules the Caisse de dépôt et placement. His report, awaited for six months, clearly describes why this project would in no way solve the problems on the capital’s roads. And could even make them worse.
Published at 12:51 a.m.
Updated at 5:00 a.m.
Would a new link to the east save time?
Yes, but it would be very weak. “For motorists on existing bridges, the reduction in travel time from Lévis to Quebec would be on average five minutes,” we read straight away in the report, which describes this improvement as “limited” in the context of the continued increase in the size of the automobile fleet in Canada. In other words, a user who already uses the Quebec Bridge or the Pierre-Laporte Bridge would only save five minutes on their usual journey if a bridge or tunnel crossing the river were added in the Quebec region.
Would this reduce congestion?
No, quite the contrary. This is where the problem lies: despite these small gains in time and mobility, the addition of an inter-river link to the east would rather “have the effect of displacing the congestion observed at the head of the existing bridges, not ultimately leading to no mobility benefit on the road network,” the Fund also states. His report even estimates that congestion could increase on highways 40 and 440, already the busiest, which would become heavily overloaded. A “significant increase in congestion” would also be observed across the entire road network in Quebec City, “requiring a major reconfiguration” of several key routes where traffic could eventually decline.
Will the project be needed later?
It is always possible to speculate on this question, but everything indicates not, since the analysis of the Caisse de dépôt is accompanied by modeling obtained from the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility (MTMD). These “show little growth in inter-river road flows compared to the situation currently observed”. This is also the opinion of several researchers. In short, contrary to what several observers have claimed in recent months, the Caisse does not believe that the level of congestion will increase in the coming years, especially since “the flow of trucking remains moderate during peak periods, it is i.e. less than 5% of trips.”
Would one corridor be more advantageous than another?
Not really, in any case, not if we trust the Caisse, which has combed through six corridors for potential implementation of the third link stretching over 25 kilometers along the St. Lawrence River. We learn in the document that “the flow of vehicles using one or the other of the corridors studied is relatively low in the north direction, that is to say from Lévis towards Quebec, in the direction of the morning rush hour”. Thus, the decongestion of existing bridges resulting from a possible third link would be “low in the north direction and more significant in the south direction, from Quebec to Lévis, i.e. in the opposite direction of rush hour”.
Would a third link have environmental impacts?
It would depend on the corridor chosen, but we can already assume that they would be important. For example, for the corridor going from one city center to another, “the planned exit from the tunnel in Quebec City takes place in a highly urbanized area, adjacent to the heritage sector of Old Quebec,” notes the Caisse. . She specifies in passing that “the entry point of the road tunnel into the territory of Lévis encroaches on protected agricultural land”. In the planned corridor to the east of the bridges, there would be a risk of affecting “wetlands of interest and conservation areas” on the Quebec side and natural environments on the South Shore side, add the authors of the report.
