Was “prestige project” Zeesluis IJmuiden worth a billion?

The large ships can reach the port of Amsterdam via the Zeesluis IJmuiden. The lock cost no less than a billion, but then you have something. However, it remains to be seen whether a lock of this size is really necessary in Amsterdam. The port of Rotterdam is close by and more suitable for large container ships. Moreover, the energy transition causes a decrease in the throughput (the amount of goods transferred) of coal. The coming years will therefore have to show exactly how often the lock will be used.

At present, the port of Amsterdam is the fourth largest port in Europe. Transhipment increased enormously between 1990 and 2008 in particular. The biggest cause of this growth: coal and oil. In 2005, three quarters of the transshipment in the port of Amsterdam consisted of fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the call for a larger sea lock grew just as fast. The port saw waiting times for the North Sea Canal increase and the municipality of Amsterdam hoped to be able to further develop the port area.

The growth in throughput caused Het Centraal Plan Bureau to give in in 2008, after three previous negative recommendations. The advice was still not really positive, but after the growth in throughput, according to the researchers there was ‘reason to look for further optimization of the options for constructing a new lock or other options to limit congestion in the North Sea Canal area’. .

14 years later, the largest sea lock in the world is in IJmuiden, worth a billion, but the world has also changed. Although Amsterdam is still the largest petrol port in the world, the energy transition requires a replacement of oil and coal. “The lock was actually built exactly during a transition period,” says port economist Bart Kuipers.

Now that coal throughput will only continue to fall, the coming years will show which sector will use the lock the most. The slogan that the port uses for the lock, ‘IJmuiden sea lock, built for the future’ actually describes exactly what it means.

Replacement

The decision to build a new sea lock was not just a matter of growth. There are several locks in IJmuiden, including the Noordersluis. In 2029, it would be depreciated after 100 years of service. According to Hans Gerson, former port director, renovation was not an option. “You can come up with detours in a road network, but you can’t do that on the water.”

Rijkswaterstaat only wanted to replace the Noordersluis, but the municipality of Amsterdam and the province wanted more, says Volkert Schaap. From 2004 to 2012, he was head of waterways and flood defenses at Rijkswaterstaat. “The minister wanted to use the same dimensions for the new lock as the Noordersluis, but the province, region and port wanted bigger, longer, wider and deeper. They explicitly insisted on this. The minister only granted this wish after both parties agreed were to fund the extra length.” The municipality paid 105 million and the province 58 million.

Former port alderman of Amsterdam Freek Ossel explains: “The market also asked for a lock that was reliable. Because the lock is deeper than the Noordersluis, it can work independently of the tide. A lot of profit is made with this.” However, that reliability was not the only reason. According to Ossel, the market also asked for a lock that was suitable for larger ships.

Coal

In recent years it has become clear that throughput has not grown as much as the port authority had expected. Where in 2008 the port still thought that throughput would grow to 124 million in 2020, in reality it only amounted to 74 million tons. In 2019, before the pandemic, throughput was slightly higher, but nowhere near expected: 87 million tons.

According to Schaap, the disappointing growth figures are mainly caused by the decline in coal: “At that time, the focus was mainly on fossil fuels. Over the years we have had to conclude that the growth of the coal supply has not grown as expected.”

However, the decline in fossil fuels is not something that has happened in recent years. In fact, the Central Planning Bureau already emphasized in 2001 that “in 2030 (…) no more coal will be used for electricity production. Coal will be replaced mainly by natural gas and partly by biomass (wood).” The CPB also stated that the transit of coal to Germany could also take place via the port of Rotterdam.

This was reason enough for the Party of the Animals in Amsterdam to vote against the enlargement of the sea lock in the city council. Van Lammeren: “Why was so much money spent on the transit of fossil fuels when we actually want to get rid of it?” All other parties voted for the lock.

big ships

In addition to coal, containers were also the ambition of the port of Amsterdam for some time. “Amsterdam once wanted to participate in the big game and had built a very innovative Ceres terminal with a high productivity to compensate for delays of container ships through the lock. That failed, because you cannot just build a terminal in the hope that it will attract cargo. Cooper said.

The large container ships prefer Rotterdam to Amsterdam, mainly due to the current size of the container ships. When the port of Amsterdam started using container transport, an average of 5,000 containers went on a ship. Now there are at least twice as many containers on a ship. These large container ships will therefore not fit through the new sea lock. The Central Planning Bureau also mentioned this danger in 2005: “Rotterdam is a very good substitute for container ships that yield more profits.”

According to Bart Kuipers, it is important to recognize that insights change over time. “When the cost-benefit analyzes were made, we lived in a different world. The same applies to cruise ships. The fact that Amsterdam wanted to ban these ships was simply not an issue at the time.”

The size and the problems

Times may have changed for the worse, but the current number of ships sailing through the new lock seems very meager. Since the opening of the sea lock, it has been used on average only once a day. All ships that still pass through the old lock must use it.

To date, the size of the lock has caused two major problems that cost both claws money. Because the new sea lock is so much larger than the Noordersluis, twice as much salt water flows into the North Sea Canal as at the old lock: about 630 million litres. This ensures that agriculture around the North Sea Canal can become salinated.

Hans Gerson: “I have always heard different stories about salt. For a while it was said that salt in the North Sea Canal would be good for flora and fauna, but less for agriculture. Salt water sinks faster to the bottom, there was make something up.” A sheet pile wall was designed for this problem last year. The salt water, which is heavier than fresh water, is drained back to the sea through an opening in that wall via the pumping station. Cost: 67 million.

Another cost item turns out to be the tunnels in the North Sea Canal. The deep-lying vessels cause more currents, which erodes the cover layers of the tunnels and will probably have to be replaced. Even before the opening of the new sea lock, temporary measures were taken. Since July 2020, about 200 ships a year have been towed across the canal by tugboats. Cost of the tugs: 11 million a year in the most extreme case. Moreover, the reinforcement of tunnels can become an additional cost item for Rijkswaterstaat.

The largest in the world

Remine Alberts, party leader of the SP in the Provincial Council, has always been critical of the construction of the lock. “We mainly resisted speeding up and expanding the lock, which was really nonsense. Investing in public transport, which people use, was not possible because there was no money, but the lock had to be built. It was a prestigious project.”

The fact that the lock is indeed sometimes a question of prestige is apparent from the comment made by Jeroen Verwordt, the port alderman of the municipality of Velsen. In an interview with AYOP, he said: “There are very few man-made structures that can be seen from space, but this is one of them. So we have a huge draw here. One that we can put to great use with the positioning of IJmuiden as port to be†

However, according to Kuipers, the size of the lock can also have a psychological effect: “It shows that this port has ambition. It is a proactive policy. Like: ‘the lock is not a problem here in any case’.”

The future

The fact that the new lock is only allowed to open once a day on average is a major setback and it will also take some time before the lock can be fully put into use. The sheet pile that is intended to prevent salinization will not be ready until 2024, about 5 years before the Noordersluis is written off. The promised acceleration, financed by the municipality of Amsterdam and the province of North Holland, has therefore not been realised.

When the lock will function fully, it will have to be shown whether the size of the lock can be justified. It is difficult for former harbor alderman Freek Ossel to say whether the lock was worth a billion. “You start from the expectations of different agencies. 20 years later you might say, damn it, that didn’t work out. Back then there was more optimism about the market than now, but you can’t say that there was an irresponsibly optimistic realize, because reasonable assumptions have been made.”

Volkert Schaap acknowledges that reality has turned out differently than expected: “If I look at how we talked about the sea lock in 2004 to 2010 and how the developments are now, it is different. Certainly with fossil fuels, you have to grab the Achilles heel of the harbor.”

According to port economist Bart Kuipers, the coming period will show whether the investment in the new sea lock has been worth it. “The coming years should show what the circular economy will look like. Perhaps seaweed is grown in the North Sea between windmills, we do not yet know what kind of ships we need for this. It is also not entirely unthinkable that container ships will look for alternative ports because of the great congestion at the existing container terminals and then opt for Amsterdam.”