Letter from “24 Heures” readers dated November 19, 2024

We need to think differently

Opponents of the project to widen certain sections of the highway argue that this will lead to an increase in their use. If we can understand this reasoning for transit highways like the Gotthard, it is not the same for sections like Lausanne-Geneva. Many people go to Geneva every day from all over French-speaking Switzerland. Some of them are lucky enough to be able to use public transport, but by far not all.

To believe that those who chose the train will prefer the car if the highway is widened is pure utopia. Just as believing that it is enough to discourage motorists from taking public transport because of congestion on the highway is a false good idea.

It is a fact that the Swiss population is 9,000,000, a large part of whom travel every day, whether by train or by car. Since the opening in 1964, the population of the Lake Geneva region has almost doubled. Traffic on the Lausanne-Geneva motorway is more than 100,000 per day, including more than 60% during peak hours.

Between Lausanne and Geneva, during peak hours, there are already eight trains between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., or one every seven and a half minutes. If we hope to transfer 10% of peak hour road traffic to rail, that’s 6,000 vehicles, or roughly nearly 10,000 people. A train carries a maximum of 1000 people. Ten additional trains would then be needed, which would put the CFF hourly rate at one train every four minutes.

In summary, the motorway is one of the means of access between Lausanne and Geneva which is saturated. The other means of access via the CFF is also good. We need to look elsewhere than simply at highway widening.

Bernard Bécherraz, Boussens

Ban car advertising

To reduce pressure on the motorway network, the number of cars must be limited. The State should ban car advertising, as it did for tobacco, with the result that people no longer smoke in public spaces.

Invasive advertising seduces with gleaming bodies, powerful engines, promises of freedom and adventure, people are looking for social visibility to justify their purchase. They do not realize the schizophrenia which consists of transporting, often a single 80 kg body, with a 2 ton machine, only to immobilize it for hours in traffic jams or to move it around without hope of finding a place to stay. park, while emitting CO₂.

Hansjörg Zentner, Lausanne

And the state of our cantonal roads?

I notice the lack of will and foresight of our city councilors. Because since the Schengen Agreements in 2005, the Swiss road network has suffered heavy traffic which had not been anticipated. I am thinking of all these so-called “cantonal” roads which have been allocated to the municipalities… And the uncontrolled increase in our population requires more and more transport needs. Large and numerous buses circulate in all corners of our communities on small roads which are not made for this traffic. The condition of our roadways is deteriorating, what about us? Well, we are driving on roads worthy of those found in France in the 80s… Let’s first take care of our existing network before tarmacing the meadows! I will vote no.

David Bertolini, La Tour-de-Peilz

Arguments that don’t hold up

The causes of traffic jams on the motorways do not come from the lack of a third lane, but from the fact that the motorway exits as well as the entrances to towns are already clogged with an overflow of cars, a fact pointed out in the arguments of the pro-third lane to justify the construction of these additional lanes. There is therefore no point in adding more lanes to the highway if, at its exit and entrance to cities, traffic jams block traffic. Instead of spending billions on third lanes, let’s invest this money to solve traffic jams inside cities and at highway exits. So, what should we make of the naivety of some people who think that installing a third lane on the highways will solve all traffic jam problems?

Georges Tafelmacher, Pully

A no for prosperity

The plethora of arguments demonstrating that the highway projects put to the vote on November 24 are a total aberration does not seem (yet) to be enough to convince the overwhelming majority of Swiss citizens of the need for a massive no vote. One of these arguments, that of the contribution to economic growth of a refusal of the object, has perhaps been less put forward. By resolutely turning away from the sticky “all-road” situation of the 1960s, the Swiss economy will be boosted by the implementation of innovative mobility, notably generating new technologies. Let us rush to refuse this counterproductive federal decree, if we have not already done so!

Marcel Rieder, Pully

Let’s not push the envelope too far!

Between now and Sunday, November 24, taxpaying citizens are asked to vote on the project to extend sections of highways. And this, for the modest sum of… 5 billion! If the expense is already a questionable thing in itself, the reasons justifying it, in the eyes and wallets of the promoters, are another! Judge for yourself: reduce pollution due to traffic jams; relieve neighboring villages of motorists choosing a relief route; “support” the economy, dependent on an efficient road network!

While these three associated “corkscrew” measures, taken upstream, would allow for much greater efficiency, and at lower costs: “reasonable” immigration control (including border workers); the generalized use of the emergency lane, with the provision of a few niches (for possible broken down vehicles); the installation of traffic regulators temporarily adapting the maximum speed to the number of vehicles on a given section, thus ensuring fluidity and safety by avoiding the accordion effect of the most accident-prone…

Ultimately, with the planned extensions costly both in valuable arable land and in taxpayers’ money, the only guaranteed overruns will be overruns… of credits! To the wise, health!

Frank Paillard, Les Charbonnières

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