A few hours before the close of the Salon des Maires, the subject of the acceptability of major infrastructure projects is back in the spotlight. Not as a technical debate, but as a strategic issue for local communities.
Elected representatives arrive with the same concern: how can we continue to invest when projects are coming up against more structured contestation and ever denser procedures?
In this context, acceptability is no longer a «peripheral issue» for infrastructures: it has become their "core issue". completion condition. If France wants to maintain its territorial competitiveness, it must resolve this major sticking point between the willingness to invest and the real ability to bring projects to fruition.
«A different way of »manufacturing" infrastructure projects is essential if we are to preserve our ability to carry out the structuring projects on which the country's competitiveness depends.
- First observation: consultation often comes late. By the time dialogue begins, the scope for change is already extremely limited, giving the impression that the process has stalled. The example of the A69 illustrates this point: when structuring choices can no longer be questioned, the focus shifts to symbols and procedures, to the detriment of the fundamental debate.
- The second observation is the difficulty of giving meaning to projects. Beyond its technical performance, an infrastructure must be part of a credible future: ecological transition, adaptability, territorial coherence. Without a shared narrative, an infrastructure project appears to be a technical response disconnected from a collective vision.
- Third observation: the rise of more structured local players. Environmental associations, user groups, organized local residents... they all produce diagnoses, counter-proposals and usage analyses. They have become legitimate players in the debate. Better recognition of these players, in particular by relying on the mayor as an «intermediary» between infrastructure projects and citizens, also means securing social acceptability.
The way in which projects are developed must evolve. And it is by fully integrating this new territorial reality that we can regain our room for manoeuvre. Major projects are still possible if we change our methods and make a real political choice in favor of territorial investment.
- Firstly, we need to integrate infrastructures into territorial trajectories, rather than presenting them as isolated objects. The Grand Paris Express is a case in point: linked to development, employment and the environment, it benefits from a more stable consensus and sustained mobilization of local authorities. Clearly demonstrating what a project will transform (and for whom) is the key to making it more acceptable.
- Secondly, to provide real substance to the dialogue. Clarifying what can change, explaining what can't, documenting adjustments: these elements strengthen confidence. The New Paris-Normandy Line shows the opposite to be true: successive, poorly explained changes have blurred public understanding and weakened the project's foundations. Here, transparency becomes a strategic lever, not a mere regulatory exercise.
- Another approach is to deal with procedural complexity. Grouping more authorizations around the DUP, using supervised mediation or allowing approved settlements between project owners and associations can reduce late litigation and secure the timetable, without weakening democratic debate.
Yes, major infrastructure projects are still possible in France. Their success now depends as much on the quality of the dialogue as on the quality of the engineering. Better project design means combining sovereignty, territorial roots and clear public action. It also means choosing collectively to provide territories with the infrastructures on which our future competitiveness depends.
