Municipalities in the Netherlands are urgently asking for money from the central government to keep the infrastructure up to standard. Overall, 80 percent of all bridges, locks, viaducts and roads in the country are managed by municipalities. Many of these are at the end of their lifespan, but local governments are postponing maintenance and replacement because they do not have the money for it or do not give infrastructure renewal enough priority.
Much of the existing municipal infrastructure dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, and many structures are in need of replacement. Roads are also increasingly subjected to heavier loads, accelerating wear and tear. The Netherlands is therefore facing a major challenge. Already, 2.4 billion euros are needed annually for infrastructure replacement. This will increase to 3 billion per year in 2040, according to a report by research agency TNO that was published last year.
Municipalities are responsible for more than half of these costs. This does not include the costs that have to be incurred as a result of soil subsidence, heavier vehicles and investments in more sustainable infrastructure.
Local governments must pay maintenance costs from the municipal fund, which is filled by the central government. The Municipal Fund is an unconditional grant, allowing local leaders considerable authority to decide for themselves what to spend the money on.
“A lot of that money goes to social services and support for residents, such as social assistance, energy allowance, youth care. And that means that there is less money left for road maintenance.” says Jan van Burgsteden, a member of the Dutch Municipal Association (VNG) Committee on Public Spaces, Living and Mobility. “You only see it when it is too late.”
Procrastination and postponement
There are three reasons for the years of postponement by municipalities, says Marcel Boogers, special professor of Democracy and Transition at Utrecht University. First, there have been years of cuts to infrastructure. In 2020, more than 40 percent of municipalities indicated that they were cutting back on maintenance.
It is also often unclear who owns a bridge, for example. The superstructure may belong to the central government, while the road surface belongs to the municipality, and therefore no decisions are made. “And many municipalities have financial problems. So that is an additional burden.”
Municipalities want extra money from the national government to bring their infrastructure up to standard. But Boogers doubts whether that is really the solution. “It can only work if municipalities receive earmarked money. Otherwise they can still spend it on other things.” According to him, it is good that the management of this infrastructure remains with municipalities or provinces. “They are closer to it than the central government.”
Making choices, says minister
Minister Madlener (PVV) points out that infrastructure is “one of the core tasks” of municipalities. “If there are certain shortages, municipalities will have to make choices. These can also be painful choices. I cannot make that more beautiful than it is.”
Even if extra money comes from the central treasury, the problems are not yet solved. Municipalities are generally insufficiently aware that there is a replacement task. Of the 342 municipalities, only 12 had projected expenditures for infrastructure renewal. Local governments do not always give priority to these renewals, especially when there are questions about ownership.
“And on top of that, there are the regular leadership changes [in local government],” says Peter Rasker, market director of the built environment at TNO. “They make it difficult for municipalities to reserve money for the long term.”
Solutions?
Some local government leaders would prefer to see a separate fund set up by municipalities, provinces and the central government, because municipalities cannot handle the major infrastructure maintenance and replacement task alone. The General Audit Office previously noted that local authorities do not release enough money for maintenance.
Rasker also thinks that intergovernmental cooperation is the most obvious solution. “Don’t consider each bridge as a separate new project. Replace them in series, as if they came from the factory. If you arrange that together, not every municipality has to reinvent the wheel. The innovation will then accelerate.”
Also, one-on-one replacement is not always necessary, says Rasker. “You can also renovate, reinforce or recalculate whether that one bridge or viaduct can also last longer. But that also has to be done and costs money. And if you don’t do that, one-on-one replacement is ultimately inevitable.”
This article by Jorien Leendertse (NOS Domestic editor) originally appeared in Dutch on the website of the Dutch Public Broadcast Foundation (NOS) on August 31, 2024. (“Gemeenten moeten infrastructuur vernieuwen, maar hebben er geen geld voor”). Minor edits were made for clarity.