Pourquoi les projets d’aménagement portuaire suscitent moins d’opposition et de recours que les projets d’autoroutes et de LGV ?

Abstract

Conflicts regarding transport infrastructure projects are usual, but they seem different according to the mode. The purpose of this article is to analyze the reasons why the disputes regarding seaports projects are less strong and have less consequences on them (delay, additional cost, cancellation, appeal, modification, etc.) than in the case of highways and high-speed lines projects. Indeed, there is no publication which draws a comparative analysis of the three modes on conflicts and protests, which takes into account the new modes of participation resulting from the texts of 2008 and 2011, and which addresses the impact of participation and conflicts on the project. This article is based on three hypotheses: reasons which might explain protests seem to be different between the modes; the forms and intensity of mobilization appear to be different; the consequences of the challenge for the project seem to be different. These consequences can be assimilated to potential risks in project management. The first part provides a state of the art of research on participation and conflict. The second part presents the methodology. Eight transport projects were compared using three indicators: the grounds for contestation; the forms and intensity of mobilization; the possible consequences for the project. The third part analyzes the differences observed between each mode. The results of part 4 explain that disputes have fewer consequences for seaport projects compared to other modes because of attachment of inhabitants to the site, jobs created, difficulty for associations to assess the impact of construction on marine environment (which allows less easy to appeal) and the perimeter of projects.

Keywords

• transport infrastructure
• project
• France
• contest
• concertation