Good morning. I hereby open this meeting of the permanent committee for infrastructure and water management. Today we are gathered for a conversation with Mr. Klaas Knot. As the Lelylijn envoy, he will, together with the secretary Mr. van Drunen, explain the advice. On behalf of the chamber, I welcome the members: Mr. Goudswaart from J21, Mr. van Leien from D66, Mr. Schuts from the VVD, Mrs. Bosma Hoekstra from the CDA, Mr. Grinwis from the ChristenUnie, who will sit here. [laughter] Mr. de Hoop from, should I say, GroenLinks-PvdA, and Mrs. Bekkerman from the SP. And I am pleased to first give the floor to Mr. Knot to briefly explain the advice, and then the members can ask questions.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for this invitation. Regarding the subject, I must say it was also new to me when, in July 2025, I was asked by the chairman of the steering group, Mr. René Paas, to fulfill this role. Yes, I was asked to look into the financial possibilities or impossibilities of the Lelylijn. This was also formalized in a letter from the minister to the House of Representatives on September 2 last year. The reason why I agreed to this is that I think the Lelylijn is a very interesting case from a longer-term perspective and also for the structuring value of rail connections for economic dynamics, and so on. I have naturally seen a number of examples of this abroad. Well, I conducted my research in the fall of last year. I spoke with many people: national government, regions, Europe, market parties. I was also supported by Deloitte with the financial master plan, which served as the basis for my advice. Additionally, there was the expert group of the financial master plan. So, I spoke with quite a few experts and, based on that, wrote an advice, which I also explained on January 30 at the Lelylijn conference. And yes, the reason I think I am now in the House of Representatives is that my advice was written for decision-making on potential next steps. Concretely, within the MIRT system, it concerns a transition, an eventual transition to the so-called exploration phase. I will say a bit more about that later.
Well, if you look at the Lelylijn through your peripheral vision, the first thing that stands out is the very large investment amount, 13.8 billion in 2024 prices. You already need to add a bit to that nowadays. That is based on a conservative estimate, a robust estimate as I called it in my advice. I do not mean to say that I want to reduce that amount now, absolutely not, nor would I have the knowledge for that. But I realize it is a substantial amount. And if you look at it through the traditional CBA lens, such an investment becomes a difficult story because it concerns part of the Netherlands where not so many people live, relatively. And I want to make the note that this applies to almost all infrastructure investments you make outside major urban areas, where CBA might sometimes be positive. So it is not unusual. And I think you also need to look at this line from a different perspective. This is really about economic structural strengthening. It is about housing construction, economic activity, improved accessibility, and I would also add national cohesion, ensuring that every region truly counts. That is also the experience seen in other countries: building such a line leads to enormous agglomeration effects. And I think a number of those effects will not wait until the line is built, but a number can already be realized in anticipation.
The second thing you notice, besides the amount, is the long lead time. I had to get used to that too. If everything falls into place, the first spade could go into the ground in 2040, and the line could be in place by 2050, I was told by experts. I found that quite long as well. But ultimately, I thought when it comes to financing, we can turn that disadvantage into an advantage because it allows us to spread that large investment amount over a long period of 25 years. That has also become a starting point of my advice. And effectively, it means that for 25 years, you would need to find an average of 600 million euros per year to save and set aside to finance this investment sum. Most of it will come from the national government, but experience shows there is also room for alternative funding: funding from the regions, funding from Europe, and also for the part from the business sector, PPS-like constructions for constructing parts of the Lelylijn. Historically, that is 10 to 20% of the sum. I took the lower end, again, a cautious estimate of 10%. So if you subtract 10% from that 600 million, 540 million remains on average for 25 years for the national government.
How do you fill that? Such a saving model can be done via the classic mobility fund. That is just familiar infrastructure. It has two aspects: the fund only has a term of 15 years, so that would need to be extended. And this project is also very large relative to the other projects in that mobility fund. If setbacks emerge somewhere and the sentiment arises that it should be resolved within the mobility fund, you get a sort of crowding-out effect. That is why I also looked for an alternative form, a more separate fund construction for the Lelylijn. I called it a saving area fund. It is somewhat comparable, not entirely, but with the former fund for economic structural strengthening. You might immediately say, 'Well, that didn't end very well.' So we need to think in governance about a number of risks that manifested there. And I have also tried to do that. But well, if based on this story you still have sufficient political support for the Lelylijn, again, the transition to the exploration phase is now the necessary next step. In that, a further elaboration is needed for many questions, because yes, this requires a considerable investment of people and resources. But such investments will only be made if there is a certain commitment. That commitment within the MIRT system is also translated into a financial requirement: there must be a view of 75% of the financing. And that is where the calculation comes in. 75% of 540 million is 400 million. And that is how I arrived at the amount of 400 million from my advice. And 400 million is a lot of money.
Now, a bit more about that saving area fund. What would be the advantage? You could open it for contributions not only from the national government but also from those alternative funding options. You could organize something like shared decision-making. With that, in governance, you could also manage the risk that money is later pulled from the fund and used for something else, by, for example, not allowing certain parties to unilaterally decide on the funds in the fund. And another advantage is that this project is inextricably linked to housing construction, economic structural strengthening, and so on. These are issues that also lie on the plate of regional governments. So through such a saving area fund, you create shared ownership by regional governments, but also shared ownership for the financial picture and the financial discipline needed to run such a project. Because there is naturally a risk that if you say, 'Yes, we are going ahead with this,' regional claims for another tunnel here, another regional work there to embed the line a bit more beautifully, and so on. That is a risk you want to manage and where you want to see shared ownership from all parties.
Well, funding needs to become clear. That also applies to regional governments. They declared last week their willingness to early in that exploration phase also concretely provide their part of the 10% alternative funding. So, and that seems wise to me to address very early in the exploration phase. Ultimately, it is a fairly large financial decision, and that is that all parties then also make the leap to do this. That seems wise to me. Additionally, there is the European dimension. Yes, this high-speed line is also on the list of European high-speed lines, the so-called TEN-T list. That also offers possibilities for co-financing, for example, 50% of the costs incurred in the study phase, which are the costs until 2040, so before the first spade goes into the ground. For that, the train naturally needs to have a cross-border component. That also needs to be worked out well. But I think it is wise to do that early in the exploration phase. Because certainly from Scandinavian countries, there is also interest in extending this line through northern Germany and to Scandinavia.
So, these are all things that at this moment give more questions than answers. But I think if we enter that exploration phase, yes, then we can also make that investment to bring these facts and knowledge to the table. Well, what is the political decision that I think is now on the table? That is a decision that makes the commitment to the line visible, the next step towards the exploration phase. And yes, that means a saving model based on an annual payment of 400 million euros. For this cabinet, that naturally means a payment over this cabinet term. But it also means in the long-term projection of public finances that this 400 million will need to be standardly included, because in the Dutch budget system, it is then no longer an incidental but a more structural increase in public expenditure and thus also the budget deficit.
Finally, I understand that the financial situation is really difficult at this moment, but think back to the 1930s. Many infrastructure things that are now in the Netherlands and give us a red-white-blue feeling were built in the 1930s. I do not think the budget situation then was much rosier than it is at this moment. And yes, a country that no longer invests is a country that goes into rentier mode. And I think we just had the report by Peter Hein, where actually, the conclusion is the opposite: the Netherlands really needs to do something to secure future growth. Future growth that in turn is needed to maintain our social arrangements. Well, the Lelylijn would like to contribute to that. And my advice, yes, actually gives a hand on how to do that in a way that I think is most manageable for public finances and also regional public finances, because there will also need to be a contribution from them. But it remains a substantial investment. That, yes, that remains.
Thank you. Well, then we will now begin a round of questions. I propose that each member asks one question, can ask a follow-up question, and then we continue. Mr. Gimwis, please go ahead.
Well, Chairman, thank you very much. And many thanks to Mr. Knot for his fine advice and the explanation here, and everyone who helped him with that. There are naturally many questions to ask, but my colleagues will also tackle those. So, I think I start with a more fundamental question around the CBA methodology. Mr. Knot touched on that briefly in his explanation. And there is actually a sort of discrepancy that with the usual starting points and how we monetize them, we underestimate agglomeration effects or structural changes by definition. I think with today's CBA methodology, the New Waterway, North Sea Canal, all those things would never have been dug, and the Afsluitdike would not have been built. Does Mr. Knot, as the envoy for the Lelylijn, have advice for us and for the Ministry of I&W, and perhaps guidelines on how we can improve that to better weigh those structural agglomeration effects?
Yes, look, this is I think immediately the core of the matter, why it is so very difficult to get sufficient attention for public investments in the prioritization of public spending. The problem with a CBA is that the costs of such an investment can still be estimated with some certainty, but the benefits are much more diffuse and indeed depend on such structural changes. Sometimes it helps to look around at what has happened in other countries. And for example, if you look at France, about 30-35 years ago, they started building various high-speed lines. What you see around those stations is economic clusters of economic activity, but also a lot of housing, clusters of economic cooperation between Lyon and Marseille, for example. So it is not all about getting people to Paris as quickly as possible. That is also a thought I have heard, but it is certainly not the case there. And yes, I must honestly say, it is impressive when you look at that. And such examples exist in Japan too. Japan is also a country that has invested heavily in high-speed lines. There you see exactly the same clustering of activity, housing. And yes, I think you will need to look more at those examples to get a feel for it.
Does that raise a follow-up question? No, that is clear. Yes, Mr. Goudard.
Yes, thank you, Chairman. Yes, questions for Mr. Knot. As you have spoken with many parties, if we look at the perspective that, for example, the Lelylijn can offer to regions such as Friesland and Groningen, where potentially shrinking zones may arise in the area of automation, AI, modernization, what contribution could the Lelylijn make in those areas? Could it be possible that those regions, which now rely on traditional sectors, could change from a shrinking zone to a flourishing zone?
I would very much like to answer your question. Look, yes, this is very difficult, because this is again the crystal ball you are asking me to look into. It is, of course, true that through automation and so on, work has become less location-bound. I still believe that working from home, yes, you still need to be in the office a few days a week because many creative processes primarily happen in interaction between people. But nevertheless, we have become more flexible in thinking about living and working, primarily due to the possibilities that automation offers us. Yes. And in that, it would be helpful if through the Lelylijn, I just mention it, the travel time between Groningen and the Zuidas is reduced to 1 hour 10 minutes. Yes, that is within the comfort zone of people for commuting. And if you then move to a model where you are in the office three days a week max and the other two days you work from home, well, that is a combination that can work. And that combination does not work when the travel time is 2 hours, which it is now approximately. I mean, people often find that really too far. So in combination with automation and working from home, I think that the perspective for the Lelylijn is actually strengthened again. Yes.
Yes, thank you Chairman, and also thank you to Mr. Knot for his report and his clear explanation. My first question also went over that CBA and the agglomeration effects. I am somewhat surprised that you actually say, in essence, that for large infrastructure projects outside the Randstad, no CBA can be calculated. You are almost saying that between the lines. Yes, that is actually what I am saying. Then you indeed mention in your report France and Japan as good examples. Have they devised a method there that we can learn from, where they have better managed to include those positive agglomeration effects upfront in a CBA analysis or something similar? Because apparently, it had very positive effects to invest in that region. Have they developed a way to make that insightful? I think that could help.
There, I must honestly say I owe you an answer. But it would be an interesting question to also, in that exploration phase, yes, just go visit there and indeed pose the question of, gosh, what did that CBA look like? And then my feeling says it did not lead to a positive return either. But why was the decision made anyway? And how was that decision made? Look, I can almost not imagine that for, say, the TGV network, that you did that beforehand for something like that, because that also connects several regions in France where relatively few people live. Also in France, they are concerned about the depopulation of the countryside and that a lot is happening in Paris and so on. And yes, the problem with CBA is that it becomes a self-reinforcing process. Because if you have several choices for investments and you do it based on CBA, yes, then you end up each time with investment in the Randstad. But that naturally attracts more activity and more people to the Randstad. And at a certain moment, it becomes a bit crowded in the Randstad. So I find it an interesting question how they looked at it there. I have only noted that they made that investment. My suspicion is not based on a purely financial return, but that would be something to investigate.
May I ask you to turn off your microphone? Yes. Does that raise a follow-up question from Mr. van Leien? No, everyone has been very well-behaved with one question. Mr. Schuts.
Yes, thank you, and also thank you for the clear overview we were allowed to receive beforehand and read, and the explanation. You clearly helicopter over it, where you point out all facets of the problem at hand. The report naturally focuses mostly on the path to get there. You also touch on what comes after, the negative operating result. What is what it is. My question to you would be: what do you see as the most realistic route to keep the operation sustainably viable in the long term? In other words, it will never be profitable, and it doesn't need to be. But how do you keep it viable afterwards, despite having to save for 25 years and still having to finance something after that?
Look, for that operating result, actually the same applies as for the CBA. For large, long-term investment projects outside, say, the major urban agglomerations themselves, there is usually a negative operating result upfront. If you zoom in on how the calculations for the Lelylijn were made, it is so that on the cost side, a simple percentage of the investment sum was taken, 1.5 to 3%. That also gives the range of outcomes mentioned in the financial master plan. Yes, that is also somewhat based on historical experience, but we are talking about estimates of costs and revenues after 2051. So to also mention the human capacity to make a realistic assessment of that. And on the benefit side, it was assumed only of autonomous population growth. So actually, those synergies I just mentioned, economic structural strengthening, more housing, more activity, are not yet on the benefit side of the operating result. Therefore, I would very seriously take the investment sum and the calculation behind it regarding the operating result. If the Lelylijn contributes to what I am convinced it can contribute to, then the operating result will be more favorable than in the calculations, because the calculations simply have not been able to account for that.
Does that raise a follow-up question? No, maybe also a bit compared to earlier investments. It is also true that for the first time now, operation, maintenance, and replacement are included. That is new in the methodology. That was not the case in the past. And especially that replacement costs contribute considerably to the cost picture. Because that means that from 2051 you start setting aside money for the fact that perhaps in 2151 the line is finished and a new line needs to be built. And that was not the case until recently. That was not included until recently. But in the MIRT methodology, that has been included. Quite rightly, naturally, that you immediately also think about, yes, it wears out and so it will eventually need to be replaced. But that makes the challenge for the Lelylijn compared to earlier comparable projects even larger. Mrs. Bosma Hoekstra.
Yes, thank you. That last point, I am happy about, I must say, that we are looking ahead. Thank you for the presentation and indeed the helicopter view. I want to zoom in, and that is zooming into the region. This report was indeed presented in January, and I would really like to know, we are naturally talking about the entire northern region, what was the most positive reaction and the most critical reaction to the report from the region?
Nice question. The first question is not so complicated. I think the region received the advice positively because it feels that it again breathes some new oxygen into the Lelylijn, which naturally also has some prior knowledge or at least some history. So, there has been talk of this line for longer, and honestly, if you also look at the Dutch railway map, yes, a piece is missing. That is the first piece that stands out, what is missing. Critical, yes, look, it makes a large claim on finances everywhere. So also for regional governments. We had a truly intensive conversation with regional governments last week about that 10%. And it is not as if there, resources are overflowing. No, I would say the opposite. Also, regional governments have increasingly been given decentralized tasks without always adequate funding. So there too, it is a bit of a gulp. Also, to come up with that 10% alternative funding. And there are naturally also regional differences between provinces, the extent to which the need is felt here, support among the population, and so on. But all those things, despite these differences, despite this heterogeneity, all administrators last week said: 'But we believe in the line, and we must ensure that if we want to make a credible story towards The Hague, we also do our homework as quickly as possible, and that we also create more clarity at the front of that exploration phase about where we can get that 10% from.' On the regional side, there are also no pain-free options. So, property tax, OZB, are all things that hurt and will also be unpopular locally.
Thanks also from our side to Mr. Knot for his advice. And when I read it through, and we naturally did that in January too, I see actually two questions that Mr. Knot explicitly also poses politically. Namely, the financing methodology, where he very clearly writes that you need such a saving area fund. Mr. Knot also referred to the fund for economic structural strengthening. I believe there was 12 billion in it from the natural gas revenues from the north, but only 1% of all those funds went to Northern Netherlands. And that sketches, I think, the problem the north is now in. And how do you ensure that commitment? And especially that second point I would like to ask about with Mr. Knot, because he also very clearly points to that exploration phase and that you need to make it visible. And my question to him is, could you, for example, already do that with the 650 million that is now there from the national government? That you, for example, start the exploration phase with that. That you start saving with that 400 million in the first year. Does Mr. Knot also see possibilities within the budget that is still there to take a first visible step from the national government?
Look, at the beginning of my work, I was also naturally asked the question of, yes, that methodology and that 75%, that cannot work, and would you not also need to give advice on that? Whether we should not move to a different methodology, fundamentally different methodology, and so on. I have thought about that, and I also went back and forth a few times in my thinking during my conversations with the various stakeholders, who naturally also ventilated different opinions towards me. Ultimately, I decided not to do that because I believe it is important that you have budget discipline. That applies also in the current situation. That applies to public finances in the broad sense. Minister Heijma deserves a great compliment in my view, that he still emphasizes budget discipline in these difficult times. That applies to the government budget, but also to a project like the Lelylijn. There are many financial risks attached because it is just a large amount. So somewhere you then also want people to be aware of these risks and that commitment is not merely in warm words and election programs, but that commitment at a certain moment is also translated into a financial commitment. That 75% is tough. There we can be very clear. And certainly for such a large and long-term process, that is different from once somewhere a
Tunnel — going to drill, which within a relatively short period and in a rather manageable — not appalling, pardon — manageable financial picture will bring itself. Nevertheless, I think it is still wise that we maintain this MIRT system. Budget norms are never perfect, but having no norms is, I think, a riskier situation than having an imperfect norm. The norm also says 'credible prospect.' So the norm doesn't say: 'You must now have 75% on the table,' but there must be a credible prospect of it. I would think that for this cabinet it does mean that at a minimum for the current cabinet period, you translate that financial commitment into freeing up resources. That in the calculation for the years after, at least this 400 million is put on the agenda. That we don't pretend it isn't there. Because it will be there and will need to be reconfirmed each time. Yes. And then you could naturally use that 650 million as part of the financing of the commitment during this cabinet period. I would think that using only this 650 million for this is not entirely in line with the spirit of the MIRT and having a view on the 75%. I think the minimum you should do is four times 400 million, and well, you could use this 650 million for that. But then there would still be a piece left that will need to find its way into the budget.
Does that raise any follow-up questions? Alright, Ms. Pikkeron.
Thank you. And thank you for this convincing argument. My question is also partly financial. When you say 0.04% of GDP, that actually sounds like a manageable amount and something where you think: yes, it's worth it. At the same time, the practical implementation is quite complex. My question concerns the cross-border part, because you also indicated that there are European possibilities, or there could be, also because Scandinavia is interested. And at the same time, that still requires elaboration. We've clearly outlined what financial decision should be taken during this cabinet period. But how does that work for the cross-border part? What steps should we take now or in the near future to further elaborate that cross-border component?
Well, this is also a very good question, because this will also be needed if we, for example, want to make use of the TEN-T funds in the research phase. Then this cross-border component will need to be elaborated. Initially, you would think about extending the line — extending the line to Bremen, Hamburg, and possibly Scandinavia. But then you have to realize that additional costs come in, because currently the estimate goes up to Groningen and not beyond Groningen. Another cross-border component is, of course, that you could also have high-speed lines running from Leeuwarden, Groningen to Paris, to Brussels and Paris, because then the entire high-speed section is in place. That is also cross-border. So those are, I think, the possibilities you need to investigate. It is also truly complex, and that is also the reason why I didn't want to book anything for it. Because it would be wonderful if Europe were to take on part of the financial burden from your shoulders. But Europe then comes with conditions. High-speed lines in Europe, I've been told, are minimum 300 kilometers per hour. Yes, we have booked up to 250 kilometers per hour. And if you want to go above 250 on the somewhat soggy Dutch soil, then the cost picture goes up considerably. I also think there are possibilities to convincingly argue in Brussels that within the Netherlands, the step from 250 to 300 may be less valuable than when you build a high-speed line in France or in Spain. So I mean, I have encountered genuine reasonableness on the other side of the table in Brussels. So you can have that conversation, and I think you should have it early in the exploratory phase. So on one hand the possibilities are there, on the other hand certain conditions will come with it. And if you want to extend it to Scandinavia, there is another complication, and I want to be honest about that — there is more enthusiasm for this in the Scandinavian countries than in Germany. And you will have to go through Germany one way or another. There's no other way.
Yes. Well, I do have a second question. It is financial, but not about the cross-border part, if that's alright. Because I was also thinking — you said that in the north as well, this commitment requires payment, and that can be through taxes such as property levies. Well, that's one of the few taxes provinces have. And that would mean that residents of the north would naturally contribute to the line, both through the national government and through their local taxes. And at the same time, there is a large housing component in this, where it is hoped that residents from other parts of the country will come to live in the north. How could you ensure that these costs — for saving up for this railway line — are also fairly distributed? Because not all...
