Tunnel between Quebec City and Lévis: It’s the Economy…

Big Dig road vehicle tunnel (Boston, USA)

Quebec City is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and, according to Travel + Leisure, the best Canadian city in 2017! As a citizen of this municipality, it gives me a lot of pride, certainly, but also a certain critical vision. This analytical look at our city is important and the mayor of Quebec City is flocking in the same direction by proposing to its citizens to share their ideas with the rest of the community.

The city has been experiencing – for some years now – a problem linked to increasingly severe road congestion and Mayor Labeaume has been trying for some time to respond to this issue through initiatives, in particular a structuring public transport network. Oddly enough, the mayor does not want to include the city of Lévis as to his plans, and this therefore encourages the maintenance of Quebec City as a “horseshoe” type city, a concept that is both rare and unlikely to favor the regional economy.

Québec et Lévis
Quebec City and Lévis: the horseshoe dilemma

Fortunately, many voices are beginning to rise in order to demand a third way out of the city towards the South Shore, what we call La troisième voie in French. Hoping that it would not be located in Sainte-Foy, at the site of the two existing bridges, but rather at the intersection of La Capitale and Dufferin-Montmorency highways, a tunnel could finally allow citizens of the eastern part of the city ​​to easily cross the river in order to easily go to work on the South Shore.

Presently, a citizen from the Beauport sector who is offered a job at the Desjardins Group headquarters in Lévis (a major employer in the region, with thousands of employees) must literally face an hour or more of road traffic. Moreover, the possibilities to avoid such congestion are limited:

1) drive on La Capitale and Henri-IV highways to cross one of the bridges and then face the increasing traffic in the direction of Lévis;

2) opt for the Dufferin-Montmorency highway, hope that the Vieux-Port is not clogged by traffic then drive along the St Lawrence River, cross one of the bridges and continue in the direction of Lévis; or

3) use the Quebec City-Lévis ferry services.

By driving on highways, it is about fifty kilometers versus five to ten kilometers if a tunnel existed in the eastern section of the city (depending on the planned exit of the tunnel on the South Shore side). For its part, the ferry remains a wise choice at the present time, despite certain shortcomings: high costs to do the crossing, possible difficulties linked to traffic in the Vieux-Port and potential delays and mechanical problems. In order to promote the ferry, it could be interesting for drivers to be offered substantial discounts if they do work on the South Shore. For the moment, this is not the case. So, when it comes time for citizens of Quebec City’s eastern part to opt for a job on the South Shore, they’ll have to be ready to face the traffic, pay for the cost of using their vehicle for a round-trip journey of about 100 kilometers daily (car-pooling could certainly save money though), pay again if they use the ferry and shove more money if their employer establishes parking fees…

In the long term, the tunnel solution appears reasonable and, by considering secondary exit and entry routes for the tunnel in the western part of Île d’Orléans, it would also solve this island’s bridge problem, which is nearing its end of useful life. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that building a new bridge for the needs of the citizens of the island could cost a billion dollars or more.

 

Big Dig road vehicle tunnel (Boston, USA)
Big Dig road vehicle tunnel (Boston, USA) – CC BY 2.0 (https://goo.gl/sZ7V7x)

But how much would the tunnel cost – or rather the tunnels – since it would probably be two parallel tunnels? According to Professor Bruno Massicotte of the École Polytechnique in Montreal, such a 7.8-kilometer-long and 15.1-meter-wide infrastructure could be implemented and completed for about 3.5 to 4.5 billion dollars and operating and maintenance costs of 2.3 billion dollars (2016) over a hundred years. According to the engineer, it could take between ten and fifteen years for the completion of the tunnel.

And who will pay? This is an interesting question! The citizens of Prince Edward Island, with a population of about 150,000, are entitled to their 12.9-kilometer bridge (initial value of a billion dollars) since the spring of 1997 but they have the disadvantage of having to pay each time they leave their island: $46.50 in 2017 and no rebates for those who reside in this small province. And for the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal: the Trudeau government intends to fully subsidize this new bridge for 4 billion dollars, without requiring any toll (https://goo.gl/o8yiFU). Given the large population in the region, almost 750,000 in the Capitale-Nationale and approximately 150,000 in Lévis, would the federal government be as generous for a Quebec City-Lévis tunnel?

For the citizens of Quebec City’s eastern sector who could eventually drive through the tunnel in order to go to work on the South Shore, it would take them about fifteen minutes to get across, they would save a lot of money, gas and time – and certainly gain in productivity. Less stress, more time for their loved ones and, above all, on time for work! All that remains is to convince politicians, reticent engineers and, let us not forget, numerous citizens who remain skeptical.

Finally, here are some very interesting articles related to urban transport:

  1. TunnelTalk, Cost benefits of large-diameter bored tunnels (2015), https://tunneltalk.com/TunnelTECH-Apr2015-Arup-large-diameter-soft-ground-bored-tunnel-review.php
  2. Julia Page, Quebec City-Lévis tunnel feasible but costly (2016), http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-l%C3%A9vis-tunnel-1.3760466
  3. Eric Mack,Elon Musk’s Boring Company Is Actually Digging Hyperloop Tunnels (2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2017/05/17/elon-musk-the-boring-company-hyperloop-tunnels-spacex-tesla/#6e9fa7f64787

Robert Radford, M.A.

Related article: French version / version française.

 

How to Insert AdMob Ads to an App Inventor 2 (AI2) App

Ever wondered how to integrate Google AdMob ads to your App Inventor 2 app? Until recently, it was impossible to do so free of charge since AI2 does not permit the inclusion of AdMob and the other available possibilities are all paid options through third-party tools.

This has changed – finally – with a website called Thunkable.

Follow these steps to include AdMob ads to your AI2 app:

1) visit the beta version of Thunkable (AdMob is only integrated to their beta version for now) at beta.thunkable.com;

2) Login with your Google account (gmail / the same used for your AI2 account);

3) Import your AI2 app by clicking on Apps -> Upload legacy app project (.aia) from my computer. It is important to use the legacy uploading option to retain AI2’s original package name. If you don’t, the package name will be thunkable’s and when you’ll try to update your published app on Google Play, it will show an error message.

N.B.: If using the legacy uploading method and if
AI2’s original package name includes uppercase letters
(i.e.: appinventor.ai_NYAppMaster.GuitarTabs),
Thunkable’s legacy method will probably transform it to lowercase
letters only (i.e.: appinventor.ai_nyappmaster.guitartabs) and this will
also be a problem when you try to update your app on
Google Play afterward.

So, here’s what to do in such a case:
download Notepad++ (available here: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/).
This free software will allow you to batch edit your apk file once it is
unzipped (if necessary, read another article of mine on how to
unzip and rezip an apk file: https://robertradford.com/how-to-overcome-mit-app-inventors-5-meg-limit-for-your-apk-files/).

Open Notepad++, press on ctrl-F and select the “Find in Files” tab.
Fill in the “Find what” (your original AI2’s package name, for example)
and “Replace with” (your lowercase-only package name) fields;
then, select the directory where your unzipped apk file is located and
click on “Replace all Files”. That’s it.
Even if thousands of entries are replaced, it takes only a few seconds.

4) Still in Thunkable’s main menu, click on your uploaded app project; once in, you shall see under the “Experimental” tab on the left side of the screen “AdMob Banner” and “AdMob Interstitial”. Drag and drop your preferred type of ad directly in your app designer section (middle of the screen).

5) Click on the AdMob component you just added and, on the right side of your screen, under “Properties”, you’ll be able to include your Ad Unit ID (you must be registered with AdMob; it’s free) and check the “Visible” option.  There’s also a “Test Mode” that can be checked (don’t click on your own app’s ads if the test mode is unchecked!).

6) In the blocks’ section, include a “call AdMob_Banner1.Load Ad” trigger under the “when Screen1.Initialize do” component. Moreover, you’ll need to create this component (three blocks): “when AdMob_Banner1.Ad Loaded do” -> “set AdMob_Banner1.Visible  to” -> “true”.

Done!

Kudos to Thunkable’s team by the way!