Project scope
Plan: The stated aim is to connect the A750 via the RN109 to the A709 and provide exchanges with the RM5 and RM613. The project upgrades three existing metropolitan-road sections in place over about 6 km to two lanes in each direction; part of the route, 1,700 m, is already in that configuration. The works include interchanges and changes to existing junctions or roundabouts, hydraulic works, water collection and treatment, acoustic barriers and earth berms, landscaping, and restored circulation routes. Transport-reserved lanes were extended across the COM perimeter, with exclusions at the Rieu Coulon interchange ramps and ramps to or from the A709. At the Mosson, the design changed from an earlier 47 m structure with an embankment to a 280 m viaduct intended to cross the watercourse and its flood zone with less embankment. The source gives a 90 km/h speed limit and reports that the planned speed on the southern section is higher than the commitments associated with the public-utility declaration. The project also involves excavation and embankment works, including in a flood zone; the dossier says some excavated material will be reused and some material brought in from outside.
Reported status and procurement
- Reported development
The project was initially carried by the State through DREAL Occitanie for works on the non-conceded national road network. The source says ASF (Société des autoroutes du sud de la France, Vinci Autoroutes group) is now the project owner through extension of its concession network, and that the State entrusted the project concession to ASF. These are project-owner and concession roles; the supplied pages do not identify a construction contractor.
- Procurement availability
- Unknown / not established
Reported regulatory context
The project was declared of public utility by ministerial order of 2 September 2021, amended on 14 October 2024. The dossier is presented to obtain authorizations required for the works, including environmental authorization, forest-clearing authorization, authorization for felling aligned trees and a protected-species derogation. The referral dossier was received on 21 November 2024. The opinion procedure was suspended from 13 January 2025, when additional information was requested, until the petitioner responded on 18 March 2025. The second opinion was adopted on 15 May 2025. It is an advisory opinion, neither favorable nor unfavorable, and is not the authorization decision; the supplied pages do not establish the outcome of the authorization applications.
A source report alone does not establish current progress or an open buying window.
Project summary
The 15 May 2025 second opinion describes the Contournement Ouest de Montpellier (COM) as a planned, approximately 6 km upgrade of existing roads west of Montpellier, connecting the A750 via the RN109 to the A709. Three metropolitan-road sections are to be brought to two lanes in each direction; 1,700 m was already in that configuration.
The planned works also include junction and interchange changes, water-management infrastructure, acoustic barriers and berms, landscaping, and circulation reinstatement. At the Mosson, the design was changed to a 280 m viaduct instead of an earlier shorter structure with an embankment.
The opinion identifies ASF (Vinci Autoroutes group) as project owner and describes the expressway as free to use. Its schedule—works and improvements during 2025–2030, main works envisaged from September 2026 and commissioning envisaged in September 2030—was a forecast, not confirmation of delivery.
The authority says important aspects of the traffic analysis were not updated and recommends updating related assessments, including air quality, noise and greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as reworking the socio-economic study. Its opinion is advisory, not an authorization decision.
Evidence limits and unknowns
The reviewed pages do not establish whether the required environmental, forest-clearing, aligned-tree or protected-species authorizations were granted, refused or remain under consideration. The opinion is advisory, not the authorization decision.
Actual construction start, progress, commissioning and current project cost are not established. The schedule was forecast in May 2025; the opinion also says the reported project cost had not been updated for the authorization dossier.
The reviewed pages identify ASF as project owner but do not establish a construction award, supplier package, procurement outcome or current purchasing opportunity.
The available extract covers pages 1–12, 38, 40 and 41 of the 41-page opinion. Pages 13–37 and 39 and graphical content were not reviewed.
