A New Hope for Quebec City: CDPQ Infra's CITÉ Plan to Transform Mobility in Quebec and Levis 

You know, it could be a whole series the "last 20 years in transit" in the QMA, there is so many things that have happened, short-sighted decisions, political "shooting in the foot", the Quebec / Levis feud in regards to this, the CAQ, it never ends! While we do not editorialize about other infrastructure projects, it goes without saying the 3rd link is a very flawed premise, and that, all of a sudden, economic safety is the only things that matters, even if 5-6B are spent on it! It's a ridiculous proposal. I also wish shovels had been in the ground back in 2020-2021 when originally planned, we would be much closer to riding it than we are today. We lost time, money, support just to reconfirm what we already knew. The price aint substancially different either! At this point, it is time to rally along one project, push it to completion and not back down. The 3rd link has ample time to be cancelled on its own: less than 2 years until the next provincial election! -David

I'm surprised Legault hasn't jump on the 3rd phase tunnel and just dig bigger and add lanes. Get back the first tunnel plan, keep one lane for the tramway and the others for regular trafic, you check every boxes.

@@RailFansCanada Now that the federal government owns the Québec Bridge, they propose lowering the deck (which needs to be repaired anyway) to allow the passage of trucks and buses on it, which would make the 3rd link even less needed. Hopefully it'll get cancelled... for the second time now.

I think some people wants it but I think it's mostly small business and transportation companies who want it. Oh and farm land owners too. From my point of view, I'm more baffled by the Québec City people who want it. There is not many of them working in Lévis, as far as I know.

I have a lot of personal interest in this project, namely having been born and raised in Quebec City, but also the enormous transformative potential of such a project. I am for sure very much looking forward to any chance to ride it, hopefully sooner than later! -David

Il faut juste commencer le mouvement, que le monde voit que oui, un tramway c’est bien! Cette transformation de l’auto solo à la connectivité active est vraiment quelque chose qui va changer Québec pour le mieux! David

Mais avec la longueur des rames plus courtes, ils pourront en rajouter avec des fréquences d'arrêts augmentées. 🤔😉

@@clarification007 Oui, je crois comprendre que c’est le pari qui est fait. À voir à l’usage… Dans tous les cas, que ça se fasse sera un « + » pour les transports à Québec 😌

Mais si les Conservateurs prennent le pouvoir, je ne serais nullement surpris que tout ce qui est tramway pour Québec sera refuser. If Poilievre becomes the P.M. of Canada, I doubt the train project will go ahead. Unless he say we won't get any money from the Federal.

@@clarification007 Ça va être un problème, c’est certain 😕

In fact, almost all of the rolling stock suppliers have a battery or supercapacitor variant that could *technically* work in Quebec. The bigger issue is more that, as of now, Alstom has not demonstrated / suggested the existence of a possible derivative of the Citadis Spirit that would support battery operations. The distinction is somewhat important given the… peculiar needs of the American market. For example, the amount of roof mounted HVAC equipment is considerably higher, the bogey design / motors are (somewhat) unique enough, and the possible 3 cqr layout vs 4 currently used that might have engineering impacts. We’ll definitely keep an eye out for any update or development on the subject though! I was quite fond of the proposed designs shown last summer, I do hope we’ll see something very similar after all the changes that seem to be ongoing. -David

Are you wake up? It is already started in preparation since the announcement! Fooling around until the decision is made, is out now!

There isn't much of a point in running buses instead of trams since that requires a wider (and thus more expensive) tunnel and buses are more expensive to operate. The advantage of buses is the added flexibility and lower infrastructure cost but both of these are nullified if you're building a tunnel for them. Unless you're saying it should be open to cars as well? Btw this tram tunnel proposal has nothing to do with the CAQ's desperation to build a third link. They're very clearly opposed to this proposal and are still pushing a highway tunnel.

Hello, for the timebeing, we do not plan to produce a french version of this video. Generally speaking, research-oriented videos are produced in only one language to avoid misrepresenting technical terms, preserve information accuracy, and ensure consistency across our videos. We are open to considering videos in French when it makes sense (for example, behind-the-scenes tours conducted in both languages), but our limited time is primarily focused on producing English content. Cheers, David.

@@RailFansCanada Merci David pour la réponse. Ce vidéo est très bien fait, excellent résumé.

Likely not: most of the alignment being proposed matches the 2018 and 2021 plans, which were both cleared environmentally and had significant design work already done. The city has a (mostly) developed plan from the interested infrastructure bidder from the 2023 procurement, which is a fundamental piece of the planning puzzle. In various parts of the city, preliminary work for those projects would still apply to this new version, making it easier to get started. Don't forget the REM went from planning to construction in just over 2 years, CDPQ and the City have both very qualified people to get this project going sooner than later. It's a question of appetite and "prioritization" more than anything at this point. -David

I should add that some $500 million in preliminary work has already been carried out, including land acquisition. They were ready to start in November 2023. And the central part of the route remains essentially the same as far as I can see.

You can't see it on the maps but there is a 20-30% multilevel slope between the other side of the highway to the North of the current Terminus and the Airport proper. It would require a massive investment. Tramways can handle 4-5%.

I don’t see this connection as being a priority IF a decent bus connection from Le Gendre to YQB is instated. It’s a great longterm consideration to have, especially as there are plans for expansion at YQB (a new industrial park, more flights hopefully) that should help boost demand, but even the current bus service is very limited and has quite low ridership from what I know. -David

I’m not too sure, given YUL still relies on a bus until the airport branch of the REM opens, and YYZ only got its rail connection a decade ago (and still runs an express bus from Kipling, and other local routes with connections). YQB is a significantly smaller airport than those two.

I assume you are referring to either CRRC Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ARRT), Bombardier's GLT or similar tech. Bombardier Transportation has been acquired by Alstom in 2020, and as such does not exactly exist anymore, even though some vehicles might still show that name. We generally do not talk about "trackless trams" as we consider them to be an extension of bus rapid transit more than actual railways. Most of those systems, even though their guidance is automated, still rely on a driver to confirm safe operations and that the way ahead is cleared of obstructions. We generally do not see the value they provide over regular trains, or dedicated bus rapid transit with larger buses. -David

@@RailFansCanada Not description is clear . Le roues pneumatique comme dans l'automobil energy va ariver de batterie rout regular pented en blanc sort chemain a parcurir.

@@RailFansCanada Way are you planing someting with old (100year) techology. Today RR made test for airplan engine on hydrogen why a tramway on regular rout powered by hydrogen.

@@tadeuszk6677 because the 100 year old technology is better than hydrogen

@@niilo5175 Do you have data on paper about that? According this direction you should get horses because this technology is older.

Notre chaîne se concentre principalement sur du contenu en anglais puisque notre audience est principalement anglophone. Lorsqu'on nous invite à des visites en français, nous faisons de notre mieux pour produire des versions française et anglaise de nos vidéos. Cependant, pour les vidéos nécessitant beaucoup de recherche, la situation est plus complexe. Même si la documentation est en français, nous devons choisir une langue pour produire notre script. Traduire un script de l'anglais vers le français (ou vice-versa) peut souvent produire un résultat peu naturel en raison des différences entre les deux langues (formulations, termes techniques, etc.). Dans ces cas, nous privilégions une vidéo en anglais avec un script en anglais. Lorsque la construction du projet commencera et si des opportunités médiatiques se présentent, il est fort probable que ces vidéos soient en français. Nous gardons également à l'esprit la possibilité de produire une version française de la vidéo à l'avenir! -David

Actually, there *is* a "third rail" system for trams: Alstom's APS. It uses radio-controlled third rail segments that only go live when the tram is covering it. That makes it safe to use on non-grade separated track; the NYC and Toronto subways that use third rail have to be grade separated due to the risks because traditional third rail is always "live". The problem with APS is that it is inherently vulnerable to things like getting waterlogged and snow and ice accumulating on the third rail segments. The same problems also plagued the old "conduit" systems back in the day.

For the lenght of the trains, yes they are surely too small, but the station platforms will be long enough to be able to buy new longer trains in some years. For the batteries, it's a pretty mature technology now and it will become better over time from now when the line will be finished.

REM is a whole ass subway line with the capacity of one. Just because it doesn’t use the same trains as the existing metro doesn’t make it low capacity

From my (David) personal reading on the topic, which I didn't feel was appropriate to add in this video, it might be in a future piece, or one on my personal channel. - Capacity: This concerned me until I read the report thoroughly to be honest. CDPQ anticipates 3,500 passengers per hour per direction during the AM peak in 2041, while Quebec's 2019 study estimates 3,600 PPHPD. With 240 passengers per tram, a four-minute interval should suffice, and increasing frequency to every three minutes could accommodate up to 4,800 PPHPD. However, they don't foresee more than 2,700 passengers per hour on any segment. The most notable difference is that CDPQ calculates capacity at four passengers per square meter, in contrast to the city's 3.3 figure used in planning and rolling stock procurement. Regardless, the CDPQ proposal appears adequately sized for 2041, with room to grow by shortening intervals to three minutes. A real concern though is whether the infrastructure can adapt to longer trains post-2041. I feel like the proposed shorter trains might be one of the first aspects revised in detailed planning, especially if they kneecap any capacity upgrades without building an entire new line, unless the cost savings are substantial. On paper, this aligns closely with the city's own plans and projections, which predict a network peak of 3,600 PPHPD by 2041. For context, a “CDPQ” tram running every three minutes would meet 4,800 PPHPD, while a city tram would serve 5,440 PPHPD. Don't forget also the CDPQ exercise was also one in "cost reduction / optimization" versus building a profitable network like the REM is supposed to be. Their involvement will differ from the REM too. - Batteries: I am having a hard time making my mind on this. Superconductor energy storage / Li-Ion batteries have been demonstrated as workable for such a use case in operations around the world, but the additional efficiency loss from cold and hot weather would put additional stress on such a system. However, ongoing data with electric cars, buses and other vehicles shows that we can account for those factors with "relative ease". The bigger concern, to me, is the availability of rolling stock with large enough energy storage that are "suited" for the needs of Quebec City. There is also the question of station spacing that might determine how much OCS can be removed, but the geography of Quebec City might not help in that regard... I want to do more reading on the subject before forming a more defined opinion, but I am not entirely opposed IF they can demonstrate it is a viable, long-term solution in some parts. If we just remove the OCS to please some people that live along Rene-Levesque, what even is the point? A well integrated OCS / structure can blend perfectly fine with the urban landscape, and the most "historically sensitive area" will be built in a tunnel anyway! Regardless of both points, it's frustrating that, in 2024, we are not anywhere closer to seeing this network open than we were in 2018 or 2004. At this point, something needs to be built so we can break the inertia. Future lines can always be added / planned, but we KNOW that the central core needs something done.

@@Vortexone112 the trains are literally half the length of the Montreal Metro trains, not the mention the severe consequences of the interlined core, due to this frequency has a hard limit to the North Shore, Airport, and West Island and the system way overserves the South Shore due to a lack of complimentary branches on the other side of the central section. I've heard some trains might terminate at Gare Centrale, if so that's good, but another branch would be ideal to take better advantage of the vehicles

@@Urban_LP if platforms are big then I am happy, I was under the impression they were shortening them to cut costs, if I was building this I would have platforms be the same length as the Otrain in Ottawa, and use the same vehicles, Paired sets of 4 car Citadis Spirits, As to the Batteries, the issue is not in them being a mature technology, they absolutely are, the issue is environmental in nature, the process by which battery materials are mined is very much not good for the environment and working conditions in those mines are also horrible

How?

@@juliansmith4295 Well no one in Quebec really asked for a tramway, the politicians decided to impose it and rigged the studies and statistics (so yeah Politics) Aesthetically speaking, it won't look good imo, having an electric spiderweb above important roads like René-Levesque etc, not to mention the maintenance cost, knowing that Qc poorly maintains its roads in general, also in winter... It's like they want to be like these European cities but they disregard the climate difference or population here and over there I'm not saying that Quebec shouldn't have a railway system in any sort but the Tramway is clearly not the solution (it's not even as fast as a bus), QC used to have a tramway but it decommissioned it in the 40s, an underground light rail train or metro is a better solution for a city like Quebec. (see Metro de Quebec on YT), I know people will say the cost and bla bla bla I used to be in favor of the tramway until I've seen the bigger picture behind it. I like Railway stuffs but this makes me feel...nah

You know no one would be forcing you to ride it if you don’t want to, right? Quebec City has needed something like this for decades now. Pushing the problem down the road won’t make things better for everyone that actually wants / can / could take transit. The reliance on cars should end, not be encouraged.

Quebec is a small city and if your not living in the city you don’t know what im talking about because when you saying that im not force to take it its a lie because with that Mayer is raising taxes and going to war with cars removing car parking puting and car lanes and there are more thing that are negative that i won’t go on so that argument is false we don’t need that in my city that don’t need to be disfigured

@@mega1113 I'm from Montreal and even this project is BS