Geneva: understand everything about the Mont-Blanc footbridge

Will a new structure soon be erected upstream of the Mont-Blanc bridge? This is the question asked to the population of the city of Geneva during the votes of November 24. Supported by the Administrative Council for a decade, accepted by the municipal council by a large majority in February, the pedestrian bridge project was attacked by referendum by a collective of citizens, active members within heritage protection associations, for the most part.

This week, the restaurant La Potinière, in the English Garden, hosted the press conference of the supporters of the footbridge, then, 24 hours apart, that of the opponents. Characteristics of the architectural project, cost, impact on the harbor or in terms of mobility: exchange of arguments between two irreconcilable camps.

What does the project consist of?

With a length of 234 m, the footbridge is planned upstream of the Mont-Blanc bridge, slightly at an angle to it. It will be constructed of steel, supported by a single concrete pile. A “technical feat”, we recognize even within the referendum committee, which nonetheless criticizes the carbon footprint of the upcoming project, requiring in particular “1,500 tonnes of steel”.

The walkway, 4.8 meters wide, will be lined with a wooden bench along its entire length, sheltered by a 1.5 meter high wall. A “walk along the water”, poetizes the Vert’libéral Yves Herren.

This project is the winner of an international competition launched by the City in 2011. Selected from around fifty candidates, it is the work of the Geneva offices Pierre-Alain Dupraz architects and Ingeni SA. In order to be compatible with the activity of the CGN (General Navigation Company) boats, the plans had to be reworked. Result: the footbridge was moved closer to the bridge and two CGN landing stages will be moved.

Freed from pedestrians, the sidewalk upstream of the Mont-Blanc bridge will be converted into a two-way cycle path. Status quo for the sidewalk on the Bel-Air side.

Who supports him? Who is opposed to it?

An “unprecedented” alliance – to use the words of its leader, the socialist deputy Nicole Valiquer Grecuccio – defends the project. It covers almost the entire political spectrum, from the Greens and the Socialists to the PLR ​​and the UDC, including the Center and the Vert’liberals. Only the MCG is against, in line with its refusal to the Municipal Council. Divided, Ensemble à Gauche stands back – with the exception of the Labor Party, committed to the no vote.

Several associations, which are used to fighting over mobility issues, are this time in the same camp: Pro Vélo, Pedestrian Mobility and the ATE are campaigning in favor of the footbridge alongside the TCS and Genèveroule, professional mobility lobby. The business, economic, tourist and construction sectors are also aligned. And the Council of State is for.

This broad political unity needs to be qualified somewhat. Discordant voices are expressed within several parties. In February, the support of the PLR ​​group came down to one vote. The environmentalist deputy Philippe de Rougemont, who sits on the Ville Verts committee, spoke out a few days ago from a reader’s letter in “Le Courrier”questioning the usefulness of building “one more bridge”. Two municipal councilors, a centrist and a UDC, were present during the opponents’ press conference.

The opponents, in fact, bring together the four heritage defense associations. Their leading figure is the art historian Leïla El-Wakil, who was already at the origin of the failure of the Cité de la musique at the polls. The difference with 2021 is that the Greens are this time in the opposite camp. “It’s the battle of the little Davids of civil society against the big Goliaths of established power,” proclaims the activist from SOS Patrimoine CEG (Against the ugliness of Geneva).

What cost?

According to the authorities, the construction of the footbridge will cost 54 million francs. This amount is financed by several entities: the Confederation (through a subsidy of 5 million francs provided that the work is built before the end of 2027), the Canton (13 million francs), the essential Hans Foundation Wilsdorf (10 million francs) and therefore the City, to the tune of 26 million francs.

It is this last amount which was validated by the Municipal Council, and then attacked by referendum. This is why it is solely up to the city’s population to decide. Since mobility between the two banks concerns the entire canton, Ivan Slatkine would however have liked the entire Geneva population to be able to vote. “We hope that the city’s residents will not just look at their navels,” says president of FER Geneva.

The cost is considered “exorbitant” by the referendums. The equivalent of 230,000 francs per meter, they calculate. “All mobility projects, often geared towards automobiles, cost much more,” puts Patrick Lacourt, of Pedestrian Mobility, into perspective. As for the doubling of the bill compared to the first articulated amounts, the UDC Christo Ivanov attributes it to the increase in the price of materials linked to the war in Ukraine.

What impact on the harbor?

For supporters, the architectural project will help make Geneva “shine”. For opponents, “we are trying to block” the view of the harbor. Especially since the sector benefits from a site plan, a regulation which limits interventions.

“We consider that it alters the landscape, as it was designed and preserved,” says Valéry Clavien, of Patrimoine Suisse Geneva, who observes “a problematic proximity” with the bridge, also protected. “This results in a pile-up of poorly thought-out networks in the heart of the city,” laments the expert.

For their part, the authorities recall in the voting brochure that the footbridge project appears in the master plans of the Canton and the City, as well as in the guiding image of the harbor.

What effects in terms of mobility?

Starting point: the current situation is chaotic. Whether on foot or by bike, crossing the Mont-Blanc bridge is a painful, even dangerous experience, particularly given the proximity to cars. “Today, by bike, there are seven roads to cross to go from the Quai du Mont-Blanc towards Eaux-Vives,” points out centrist municipal councilor Roger Gaberell. More than 15,000 pedestrians cross the bridge every day.

Thanks to the footbridge, the different flows (cars, cyclists and pedestrians) will be “separated”. Enough to improve security and offer “a clear solution to all mobility”, underlines Nicole Valiquer Grecuccio.

If the supporters welcome the realization of the cycle U around the harbor, the opponents believe that the footbridge will in no way resolve the conflicts of use at the access points to the bridge – and to the footbridge in the future. They predict, among other things, “chaos” in the English Garden. “It will be impassable in front of the Flower Clock and the National Building,” points out Miguel Bueno, from SOS Patrimoine CEG.

The vice-president of the Ville Verts, Cyril Alispach, recognizes that “everything is not resolved”. “We have to start well. There will be other arrangements,” insists Yves Gerber, director of TCS. The socialist Manuel Zwyssig recalls that his party has tabled a text proposing to move the Flower Clock.

What happens if no?

“There is no plan B,” asserts Nicole Valiquer Grecuccio. What the opponents admit half-heartedly. Some suggest a further widening of the Mont-Blanc bridge. An unrealistic scenario. Others advocate the removal of one of the five lanes dedicated to cars on the bridge, in line with the objective of the Climate Plan to reduce individual motorized traffic by 40% by 2030. En bloc refusal from automotive circles and economic. “It’s a fight that we will never win given the political majorities,” observes ex-socialist Roger Deneys, of Pro Vélo.

And if yes?

Construction would begin in 2025. The work should last two years. Inauguration in 2027.

Panels of Discord Removed

This week, the City removed the information panels on the project installed near the Mont-Blanc bridge. The initiative of magistrate Frédérique Perler had been criticized by certain opponents, denouncing propaganda in favor of the footbridge. Two appeals were filed with the courts, including one from the MCG. The Planning Department, through its spokesperson Anaïs Balabazan, assures that this withdrawal is “not linked” to the legal procedure and that the decision was taken because citizens “are starting to receive the voting equipment”.

“Geneva politics”

Major issues, elections, votes, party life and debates: with the “Geneva Politics” newsletter, find the latest news on political life in the canton and municipalities every week.

Other newsletters

Log in

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

0 comments