Readers’ letters: highways, tenancy law, health

Highways

Concerns readers’ letters “Putting people back at the heart of the vote» (“24 hours” of November 13).

As the author of the text said so well, it is about putting people at the heart of the vote. And so it is important to vote no to highway expansion. This is not to deny the reality of people who need their car to go to work and participate in social life. It’s about not increasing the traffic jams that are poisoning their lives. Indeed, widening a road section makes it more attractive. Traffic eases a little at the beginning, which attracts new motorists, because people adapt their behavior according to the offer available. Traffic jams return, often worse. This phenomenon is called induced traffic. Widening the highways therefore does not achieve the desired goal, it even makes the situation worse. Instead of wasting 5 billion on projects that will not even solve traffic jams, and while waiting to improve the supply of public transport and soft mobility, we could promote carpooling or lower speeds during peak hours, which would would also save fuel.

On November 24, I will vote no to widening the highways so that people forced to use their cars do not find themselves in even worse traffic jams.

Estelle Montet, Blonay

I am surprised at the lack of imagination shown by debaters on all sides, because it seems to me that a simple solution, which has already been used to satisfaction in several sectors, gives very good results. Because the creation of three lanes on specific sections always comes up against the bottleneck effect at their ends!

We can therefore envisage much less extensive work, and therefore much less expensive: the strengthening of the emergency lane, as already exists between Lausanne and Morges. And to make the system feasible more easily and technically, in terms of engineering structures, it would be enough to lower the speed to 80 km/h, which allows narrower track widths.

These would therefore be “reclassified” motorways, according to motorway jargon, but for a use which would make it possible to absorb significant vehicle volumes.

Of course, the exhilaration of speed, for some, would be seriously dulled! But protections for the environment, land, and the wallet would be much better guaranteed, and it is a compromise which should satisfy many circles.

Daniel Ischer, Morges

During a recent debate organized in Geneva on the future of mobility in French-speaking Switzerland, the motorway widening project was at the heart of the discussions. But one major element was conspicuous by its absence: the phenomenal economic cost of these projects. However, the figures speak for themselves. Initially, the six enlargement projects were estimated at 4.9 billion francs. But according to the German-speaking Swiss magazine “Ktipp”, the bill would actually amount to 7.1 billion, an increase of 45%. Who will pay these additional costs? First motorists, then, ultimately, all taxpayers.

These mega-projects, which will notably disrupt the Geneva-Lausanne axis for at least ten years, will be financed by the FORTA fund fueled by taxes on gasoline and motorway vignettes. However, this fund is already in a bad position, with a forecast deficit of 707 million francs in 2024. To fill this hole, motorists will inevitably have to pay, in particular through an increase in the price of gasoline. But the bill doesn’t stop there. We must also take into account the “external costs” of the road, which society as a whole pays. These costs, caused by pollution, noise, accidents and degradation of nature, amount to around 19.5 billion per year. For comparison, rail “only” costs 1.4 billion francs for society and active modes of transport such as walking and cycling even generate significant benefits: 56.8 billion francs per year thanks to the effects positive on health.

Let’s dare to say things: spending 7 billion to widen highways is nonsense, especially in the face of the much more efficient and cheap alternatives that exist. Saying no on November 24 is the only economically rational choice.

Simon Berthoud and John Moorhead, Geneva

Lease law

In two articles in “24 Heures” on the subject of the vote on subletting, false information is conveyed by real estate circles.

They thus claim that the modification of the Code of Obligations (CO) would make it possible to fight against abusive sub-rentals. However, they are aware that today the law already punishes abuses. According to art. 262 CO, a lessor may refuse a sublet if the sublet is excessive in relation to the main rent. If he subsequently discovers that the sub-rent is excessive, he can terminate the lease and even obtain the difference between the rent and the abusive sub-rent to be returned to him. Changing the CO will therefore do nothing. The Federal Council does not say anything else in its explanations of vote brochure (see p. 27).

Real estate circles thus avoid talking about the real changes that the new version of the CO would imply and which would have the consequences of calling into question the clever balance found by the legislator in 1990. A time when “compromise” was not a bad word.

As a reminder, if the yes vote prevailed, the right to sublet would be very severely limited: a lessor could more easily refuse a sublet, the reasons for refusal no longer being exhaustively listed; subletting, even partial (a room in a home; an office in a commercial premises), would be restricted to two years; a lease could be terminated due to simple formal breaches. To protect tenants, including the self-employed and SMEs, we must vote no on November 24.

Xavier Rubli, FSA specialist lawyer in lease law and president of Asloca Régions

Health

According to the 2022 figures that you published in last weekend’s edition, the share of financing borne by health insurers amounts to 33.017 billion francs and that of the cantons to 11.083 billion.

If the modification of the LAMal is accepted, the insurers’ share would amount to 24.135 billion, or 8.882 billion less (-26.9%), therefore that of the cantons would amount to 8.882 billion more, or 19.965 billion (+80. 14%).

For my part, I think it would be naive and illusory to think that insurers will lower their premiums by 26.9%. They will have every possible justification to keep them at their current level, at least.

On the other hand, the cantons’ share will almost double, this money will have to be found somewhere, and where, if not through taxes.

So in the end, it will still be the taxpayer/insured who will be fleeced, so there is only one alternative: no to this change in the law.

Pierre Badoux, Saint-Maurice

Mrs. E. Widmer-Schlumpf, president of Pro Senectute, claims that seniors would be “used” in the campaign for no to EFAS (“24 hours” of November 4). His arguments are not convincing. EFAS is a revision of the LAMal made by insurers and for insurers, who gain more power in the health system to the detriment of the cantons.

The aging of the population will increase in the coming years. In the canton of Vaud, the strong development of home care already allows elderly people who wish to stay at home as long as possible. There is no “financial incentive” to go to EMS. Consequently, people who reside in EMS have a greater degree of dependency and therefore require more help and replacement. The development of home care does not relieve EMS. In these two sectors, the staff – almost exclusively female – is subject to strong organizational constraints and an ever heavier workload, physically and emotionally.

Uniform funding for long-term care will not change this observation. On the other hand, the cantons’ disengagement from ensuring “remaining expenses” will increase financial pressure in this sector, to the detriment not only of the care to which dependent elders are entitled, but also of the working conditions of employees. This is one of the reasons why I will vote no to EFAS on November 24.

Genevieve de Rham, Lausanne

Did you find an error? Please report it to us.