**10. Friend or foe?**

40 Urban Development

surface tunnel would allow more residential area to be developed than the other alternatives and less development area was exposed to noise levels over 50 and 55 dB. RWS ruled out residential development above the 13-hectare large tunnel surface, unlike the Donau-ufer Autobahn in Vienna. The full-length tunnel was, nevertheless, able to generate higher income for real estate development. Effectively, the financial differences between the optimised Creative Alternative (alternative 2) and the fully covered surface tunnel (alternative 5) disappeared altogether. The financial difference between the original Creative Alternative (alternative 1) and the fully covered surface tunnel was reduced to less than ten

Fig. 16. Table indicating lost real estate revenue (55 dB), the required road investment and the sum of road investment and lost revenue for each alternative (van der Hoeven, 2010).

ARCADIS and the Architectengroep advised the decision takers to opt for any of the first three alternatives. They ruled out the alternative of a series of short tunnels that only covered a length of 80 metres because of its lacking spatial quality and the emission levels, although the TNO report did not explore this option. They also ruled out the fully covered surface tunnel because it was considered undesirable from the safety point of view, although the ARCADIS the report did not provide research-based evidence to substantiate

In 2002, the government and the municipality of Utrecht reached a deal based on an optimised version of the Creative Alternative. The project's costs were finally assessed at 535 M€. The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management agreed to pay 323 M€. The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment contributed 99 M€. The municipality, region and province of Utrecht agreed to add 83 M€ to the project's budget. Saving in other areas of the project generated an additional 30 M€. The landscaping of the surface tunnel's surrounding area could be realised with less excessive sloping

In 2006, just before the start of construction, the Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management and the municipality of Utrecht revised the tunnel concept one last time as they agreed to build a fully covered tunnel, without referring to potential safety or air quality issues. Meanwhile, an agreement was reached with the LPG sector to increase the

percent.

such a claim.

(Nieuwsbank, 2002).

The final outcome of the Landtunnel Utrecht development may surprise. The urban planners of Maxwan had sided with the local authority of Utrecht for over a decade (1995- 2006) in a continuous struggle with the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management in order to achieve the Masterplan Leidsche Rijn as it was originally envisioned. It faced sustained opposition from that Ministry. The Ministry however is responsible for many policy objectives and comprises many departments. Maxwan and Utrecht may have failed to recognise who is foe and who is friend in this large organisation. In the discussions the author had with the urban planners of Maxwan it became clear that the classic polarity of municipality versus ministry dominated their viewpoint.

The author was in 2000 consulted by the project manager of the regional Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management, responsible for the widening of the A2. The project manager was transparent about the fact that he opposed the overall concept of the Masterplan Leidsche Rijn. In his eyes Utrecht's compact city policy was little more than a strategy to annex its neighbouring municipality Vleuten-De Meern. However, once it would be decided to built the Landtunnel Utrecht, he felt it should be done properly as a fully covered tunnel. It should not be broken up in smaller segments or just be partially covered. The author was not at liberty to share this information with Maxwan or Utrecht.

The Construction Department of the Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management had initially raised the red flag regarding safety. The director of that Department, Rinus Olierook, chaired during this time a committee that had to initiate a large scale programme investigating multifunctional land use, a programme that would later become Habiforum. He recognised Leidsche Rijn as a perfect showcase of that principle. He made that clear in an interview that was published by the author.
