Governmental land-use and

transport planningAn explorative study on

a large scale transport project in Denmark

and the Netherlands

Julien Grunfelder and Christian Fredricsson

Nettverkssamling for regional planlegging, Hamar

June 17th, 2015

Content

Slide 3: Executive summary

Slide 4: Key findings from Denmark and the Netherlands

Slides 5-14: The Roskilde fjord crossing, Denmark

Slides 15-21: The A4 motorway Delft-Schiedam, The Netherlands

2

Executive summary

Objective of the study

To investigate how governments in similar countries to Norway intervene in land-use

plans for large scale transport projects

• Summarize the planning context for large scale transport infrastructure

• Explore one large scale transport project in each of the selected countries

• Interview stakeholders to gain insight on the role of the government, the planning

process, the role of the population, the media

• Highlight the findings by focusing on the key aspects for securing the

implementation of the project, the role of the local population, the media, etc.

• Identify interesting elements for t he Norwegian context

Scope of today´s presentation

• Denmark (fjord crossing)

• The Netherlands (motorway)

3

Key findings from Denmark and The

Netherlands

• Tools exist

• Informal processes leading to agreements

• Administrative reform

• User-fee introduction

• Etc…

Some elements already exist in Norway

Planning of large scale tranportation projects take time

4

Government land-use and transport

planning instruments (1/2)

National Planning Directive (Landsplandirektiv)

. Ministry of the Environment

. Binding for the content of municipal planning

. May be used to locate a specific societal activity

. Four areas:

• Designation of new cottage areas in the coastal zone

• Route for gas and power lines

• Location of national testing stations for wind turbines

• Rules for planning in the metropolitan area

5

Government land-use and transport

planning instruments (2/2)

Construction Act (Anlægslov)

. Ministry of Transport (in this example)

. Replaces other detailed plans

. Used in four main fields

• Energy infrastructure

• Highways

• Railways

• Allotment gardens

. 142 acts for more than a century

Relatively long process, but enables the

construction of major infrastructure projects

6

Roskilde Fjord Crossing

Background elements

Current situation

One single bridge over Roskilde Fjord through

Frederikssund city centre

Peak traffic

Morning and afternoon commuting (weekdays), and

leisure traffic (weekend, summer): traffic jam

Origin of the project

First mention: 1960s

First time in a plan: 1974

A number of studies

Between 1998 and 2007 with Frederiksborg County as

the project leader

Not much happened until the end of 20067

Roskilde Fjord Crossing

Description

Total length: 10 km

• Bridge: 1,36 km long

• Road: 4 lanes classified as national road

Area: within one municipality

User fee:

• 14DKK for private car

• 41DKK for truck

Project cost: ca. 2 billion DKK

To be completed: end of 2019

Strong wish to open the infrastructure in 2019

8

Stakeholders involved

Parliament

Ministry of Transport (Road Directorate)

Ministry of the Environment (Nature Agency)

Ministry of Finance

+ Sund&Bælt, Coast Directorate, Maritime Authority,

police

Media

County (until 2007)

+ Public transport authorities

Municipality of Frederikssund (3 municipalities until 2007)

Local citizens

+ Local media

National

Regional

Municipal

Strong national level, cooperating with the local level

9

197426 October

20061 January

2007April2010

21 October2010

26 November

2010

21 March 2013

21 May 2014

24 June

2014

2 October 2014

8 October2014

18 December

20142015

First mention on a

new link across the

Roskilde fjord.

Administrative

reform: the Road

Directorate is the

new project leader.

The Road

Directorate

recommends the

route S1.

Allocation of a

budget for a EIA.Publication of the

EIA.

Decision to finance

the project by a user

fee and national

fund.

Publication of the

judgment by the

European Court of

Justice on the

interpretation of the

EU-Habitat Directive,

article 6, paragraph 3

and 4.

Submission of the

Construction Act at

the Parliament.

The expropriation

phase has started.Decision to establish

the S1 alternative,

financed by a user-

fee and national

fund.

Command to

develop the

Construction Act.

Increase of the State

participation in the

financing.

Vote and adoption of

the Construction Act.

Study on the re-

interpretation of the

EU-Habitat Directive,

article 6, paragraph 3

and 4.

From the idea to the vote of the

Construction Act

Opening: end 2019

10

Content of the Construction Act

Road Directorate, in collaboration with the

Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Finance

Ministries and authoritiesParliament Parliament

Characteristic of the infrastructure and its

managementA five page document with twelve chapters, including:

- description of the exact route

- user-fee

- establishing the entity “Fjord Crossing

Frederikssund”: purpose and management

- etc.

Illustration of the route with a mapFirst time for a large transport infrastructure within a single

municipality

11

Main conflict areas

The preference for a tunnelSmaller impact on the environment than the bridge, as well as reduction of noise and

visual pollutions. However the cost is 3,5 times the cost of the selected bridge.

The introduction of a user-feeFirst time for a large transport infrastructure within a single municipality

The EU-Habitat directiveThere was a need for an additional study to confirm that the chosen route is the one iwth

the smallest impact on the Natura 2000 areas out of the realistic alternatives

Absence of conflict between the central and local governments

12

Key aspects for securing

implementation of the project

Absence of major conflict

Elaboration of the Construction Act

Administrative reformResulting in the change of project leadership from the regional (former county) to the national level (State level agency: Road Directorate)

Change of financing modelOriginal plan was to have a fully State-financed project. Later a user-fee as been introduced to speed-up the project

Transport AgreementsDeveloped for allocating budgets and specifying the characteristics of a route, among others

13

Lesson learned – discussion points?

Land-use and transport planning toolsDenmark has tools for governmental land-use and transport planning (National

Planning Directive and Construction Act) prepared by a State agency and voted by

the Parliament.

User-feeThe strong wish for opening the Roskilde Fjord Crossing within a rather short period

of time contributed to legitimate the introduction of a user-fee.

Governmental planning of the metropolitan areaThe example of the Greater Copenhagen area and its Fingerplan where

municipalities shall ensure the reservation of land for future transport infrastructure

that are significant for the Greater Copenhagen area as a whole.

14

Governmental infrastructure and spatial

planning in Netherlands

Decentralised spatial planning with legally binding land-use plans (bestemmingsplan), but…

Superior levels can intervene, whenever obvious national interests apply (e.g. through imposed land-use plan, Infrastructure Planning Act states all national roads and railway are automatically of national interest)

General governmental infrastructure policy instrument: – MIRT: Multi-annual Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial Planning

and Transport - consultation process between national government and regional/local authorities.

15

Recent changes in legislation

Large debate on how to balance between public support

and speedy decision-making ► Governmental advisory

report by the Committee Elverding Faster and better

(2008)

National track-decision to over-rule local land-use plans – 2000: a revised Infrastructure Planning Act. introduces a new feature: the minister’s

choice for a certain route (tracébesluit) automatically has the status of a decision to

deviate from a local land-use plan.

Removal of municipality’s possibilities to lodge an appeal – Crisis and Recovery Act in 2010 - aim of the act was to increase realisation of

infrastructure projects and to stimulate the economy – temporary act but now

permanent!

16

The missing link: A4 motorway Delft-

Schiedam

“Symbol of the inability of government/politics to be

decisive in the field of infrastructure planning”

17

The Route and

stakeholders involved

Total length: 7 kilometers

Ground level (1 km.)

Semi-underground (2,5 km.) Underground (1,5 km.)

Land tunnel (ca. 2 km.)

Stakeholders:

National level:

Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure & Rijkswaterstaat.

Second chamber of parliament.

Regional level:

Province South-Holland.

Local level:

The municipalities of Rijswijk, Schipluiden/Midden Delfland, Schiedam, Delft and Vlaardingen.

The public and non-governmental organisation

18

Sixty years of decision-making…

1953 1968 1976 1980 1989 1992 1997 1998 2006 2010 2011 2012 2015

First mentioning of

the road in a

provincial report.

Preparation is

stopped as a result

of a motion in

second chamber of

parliament. This

motion reflects

protests by

environmentalists

and municipalities

Second chamber of

parliament agrees

with the minister’s

proposal for

measures to

integrate the road in

the surrounding

environment.

Adopted as Road 19

in the national high-

way plan of 1968.

Second chamber of

parliament votes in

favour of

construction under

the condition that

the road must be

‘integrated in the

surrounding environ-

ment’.

As a consequence of

European law, an

environmental

assessment is

started for the

(southern part) of

the road.

Finances for A4

diverted to

construction of

railway tunnel by

second chamber of

parliament.

Parliament thereby

uses its right to

approve the budget

to reallocate funds

from road to railway.

The Council of State

dismisses all

appeals from

(amongst others)

citizens and

environmental

groups against the

record of decision.

Motorway is planned

to be opened.

No support in

second chamber of

parliament for

construction of a

road on ground level

(as proposed by the

minister)

After six years of

debate, a covenant

between national

government,

provincial

government, local

governments and

some societal

governments is

signed. Measures

include that parts

will be deepened and

that a 2 kilometre

long covered tunnel

will be built.

Start of construction,

gate opened by

Minister Infrastructure

and Environment

Schultz van Haegen .

Record of decision

by minister Camiel

Eurlings.

“After 50 years of talk can

shovel into the ground. That's

great for the road users, the

people in the area, the

Randstad and the economy”

Minister Melanie Schultz van

Haegen

19

IODS Covenant: Integrate planning

approach

The Integral Development between Delft and Schiedam

(IODS) - infrastructural project combined with other policy

measures

1 ‘Groenblauw Lint’ (ecological structure) 2 Sanitation of scattered horticulture 3 Recreative route structure 4 Green farming 5 Route A4 Delft - Schiedam 6 Urban integration

20

Lesson learnt

Legal changes may be necessary

Integrated area approach

The regional level as facilitator

Consultation with public and stakeholders cannot be

underestimated

A non-intervention culture by state can be changed

21

Re-cap: Similarities with the Norwegian

contextFrom the Netherlands:. Broader area approach instead of focusing just only on infrastructure It has been essential to broaden the project from a strictly infrastructure project to an integrated development project (IODS). This has been important for making all stakeholders to agree on the development and to create win-win situations.

. Consultation with public and stakeholders cannot be underestimated People will always oppose to new large infrastructure projects, so it is essential to have a transparent and open planning process. Providing arguments for municipalities regarding environmental and economic benefits of new investments.

. The regional level as facilitatorThe regional played an important role in facilitating conflicts between central government and local authorities.

From Denmark:. Change of financial modelIntroduction of a user-fee to use a large transport infrastructure, also when the infrastructure is located within one municipality only.

Re-cap: Possibilities and elements for

discussionFrom the Netherlands:. A non-intervention culture by state be changed? Netherlands has a history of strong municipalities and relatively weak influence by the state in land-use issues, this has during the latest decades been changed into a higher degree of state intervention in land-use planning – and the possibility to overrule local authorities land use plan.

. Legal changes necessary?

From Denmark:. Administrative reform and transfer of competencesChange of leadership for the large infrastructure project (from the ex-county level to the national level) and a lower number of municipalities with larger territories.

. Transport AgreementIt allows the project to continue without having to wait another planning period. It enhances a fast process and the development of sturdy materials for the elaboration of the Construction Act.

. Governmental planning of the metropolitan areaThe example of the Greater Copenhagen area and its Fingerplan where municipalities shall ensure the reservation of land for future transport infrastructure that are significant for the Greater Copenhagen area as a whole.