Plan de organización

When discussing all the aspects mentioned above, it is indispensable to place them in the context of the current situation in the Netherlands.

First of all, it is important to note that not only the financing, but also the funding of new light-rail projects, is problematic. Further, the government can lend money at low interest rates, for example from the BNG, so from this perspective, there is no incentive to finance it at higher rates with market parties.

Funding is an important issue, since the cabinet does not want to explore new infrastructure until there is 75% of the funding available. The funding is currently coming exclusively from a national infrastructure fund, whereby it might change towards a mobility fund in the future. However, the current infrastructure fund has no criteria for city development. This implies, that there needs to be a mobility problem first, before resources can be allocated. Thus, it is complicated to combine city developments and investments in transport infrastructure in an integrated packaged business case. Moreover, the profits by increasing tax income and the rise of property values is not retained by the cities but rather collected and distributed on a national level. Whereby the funding coming from a national level, the city development happens on a regional, local level. The OECD did a research for the city of Amsterdam on the mismatch between the planning system and the financing system, which seems to be unique for the Netherlands (OECD, 2017). Usually the local governments have some ways of raising money themselves.

To solve this problem, innovative funding methods are discussed. However, the methods themselves are not innovative in nature, but rather called to increase their political attractiveness. Instruments, presently being discussed, are the introduction of a congestion charge, a mobility tax on households, a tax effective on employees working in the areas with increased accessibility, or higher pricing for priority parts of the network, like a connection to the airport. Inducing one or more of those instruments is not only a legal challenge, which might require changes in current legislation, but also a political one, since most of the issues are highly political charged.

Further, the idea to include the benefits from rising property values and housing developments in the value capturing, is pursued and the first integrated business cases are already being developed. However, including additional sources in the value capturing can be dangerous, since it’s hard to directly or indirectly profit from those sources because the control on these functions is often in the hands of parties, which aren’t part of the contract (van Herpen, 2002). Moreover, private parties have a different time horizon for their return of investment compared to the public side. They want to see a return of investment way faster (within 5 years) whereby the government can easily deal with periods of 20-30 years.

Also, the political situation needs to be taken into account. With the cities of Amsterdam and Utrecht being rather left on the political spectrum, it is rather difficult to introduces measures like increasing the fares for premium parts of the network or introducing a new tax on households. Moreover, and probably even more important, the political situation also affects the idea to combine the new investments in transport infrastructure with the profits from property development. In fact, the property developers already have to comply with a rather high percentage of social housing, demanded by the governments. Making them contribute to the transport infrastructure would mean charging them twice.

In general, the short- and medium-term policy regarding transport infrastructure is more concerned with expanding minor proportions of the network and improving the exploitation of existing parts rather than implementing new networks or big expansions.For example, the line from Lijden to Rotterdam should change from Sprinters (regional trains) to light train in 2030. This change will shorten stops and increase the frequency or the new extensions, running 3km through the new developed Binkhorst area in The Hague. Despite the McKinsey report promising cost

savings when opting for a PPP, it is questionable if the choice is suitable for such a small part only.

An addition aspect to consider, it the legal power of the planning authorities. Whereby it seems that the government can plan and implement new roads with ease, they are lacking the legal power to enforce light-rail lines in the same way. Furthermore, competition law restricts the public authorities in their attempts push light-rail solutions by regulating other services.

At the very moment, meetings with private currently take place on a local level, to investigate if and how, they could profit and contribute from and to new investments in transport infrastructure. On a national level, policy makers are discussing the ‘innovative’ ways of funding new transport infrastructure.

With the outcome of those discussion being unclear, it appears that investments in local transport infrastructure is a national issue and a high level of political courage is needed to take the right decisions. Moreover, the department for infrastructure planning, the department for internal affairs and the financial department need to work closely together, despite not working for the same cause.