IJ-klopper cycle tunnel returns as a cheaper alternative to the Oostbrug

The IJ-klopper cycle tunnel behind Amsterdam Centraal returned to the debate about a fixed link with Noord on 20 August 2026. Het Parool reported that the private tunnel proposal would cost about €250 million according to its promoters, while the provisional Oostbrug estimate has climbed to €650–850 million. The consortium also argues that a central ferry connection could be withdrawn after opening, saving €15 million a year. Those figures make the proposal relevant to passengers using the busiest Amsterdam ferries, but they have not been independently established by the city. Amsterdam has not adopted the IJ-klopper and officially continues to pursue bridges on the eastern and western sides of the IJ.

How the IJ-klopper cycle tunnel is designed

The IJ-klopper was designed by architect Syb van Breda in collaboration with engineering firm ABT and developer DevCap. The proposed cycling and walking tunnel is 1.2 kilometres long, with an open circular entrance roughly 50 metres wide on each bank. Cyclists would descend below the IJ on broad spiral ramps, while pedestrians would use separate stairs, lifts and escalators. The tunnel section separates people walking from people cycling, and the concept even includes plants grown under artificial light. Its northern and southern entrances are intended to create a round-the-clock connection between Centraal Station and Amsterdam Noord.

Cost claim puts IJ-klopper against the Oostbrug

The promoters list a €250 million budget for the IJ-klopper, but that number is a design estimate rather than a construction price resulting from procurement. It stands out because the latest interim estimate for the Oostbrug is €650–850 million, up from an earlier figure of roughly €300–340 million. We covered that increase and the political dispute over disclosure in our article about the Oostbrug estimate and emergency debate. The two estimates are also at different stages, so comparing the lowest tunnel number directly with the highest bridge figure does not provide a complete financial assessment. The size of the gap nevertheless explains why the previously rejected tunnel is resurfacing in public discussion.

Claimed ferry saving is not an approved decision

According to the reporting, the promoters calculate an annual saving of €15 million if a central ferry connection can be removed after the tunnel opens. That is the most sensitive assumption for passengers because the connections behind Centraal Station carry the majority of Amsterdam's ferry users. A tunnel could offer cyclists and pedestrians a crossing without waiting, but lifts, escalators, accessibility and the longer walking route would determine whether every current passenger actually switches. Neither GVB nor the city has decided to remove the Buiksloterweg ferry, IJplein ferry or any other route, and the proposal does not change current ferry information. The €15 million should therefore be read as a claim in the consortium's business case, not as a guaranteed saving for Amsterdam.

Why the city rejects the IJ-klopper

The city says there is insufficient room behind Centraal Station to fit the cycle tunnel safely. Amsterdam also wants to spread growing cycle traffic across the city rather than direct even more people towards the already crowded station area. On the spiral ramps, large numbers of cyclists would travel up and down at different speeds, which the city considers less clear and safe than a bridge. The official programme therefore prioritises the Oostbrug between Hamerkwartier and Azartplein, followed by a Westbrug, while a possible pedestrian tunnel near Centraal would only be reconsidered after 2040. The current status is consequently unchanged: the IJ-klopper is a private alternative without political approval, public funding or a construction timetable.

What this broader news means for ferry passengers

In the short term, the renewed debate changes nothing about routes, departures or skipper deployment. The current schedule says the Oostbrug could be built during 2031–2034 at the earliest, and financial and technical uncertainties mean that timing is not guaranteed. Until a permanent crossing actually opens, the ferries at Centraal, NDSM and the eastern IJ waterfront remain essential for everyday travel. The debate does matter for long-term investment because Amsterdam simultaneously needs money for new electric ferries, enough qualified crew and a potential bridge or tunnel. Current demand and the busiest connections are documented in the ferry statistics, which help put the impact of any proposed replacement in context.

The next step is political, not operational

The main question now is whether city councillors ask the executive to commission a new, independent assessment of the tunnel estimate. Without that instruction, the consortium's figures and the city's objections remain side by side without an equivalent technical comparison. Passengers do not need to prepare for ferry closures and can continue to use the ferry apps for current departures. We will track decisions about the Oostbrug, IJ-klopper and other fixed crossings on the news index. Only a formal feasibility study, funding decision or change to the Sprong over het IJ programme would amount to a concrete shift in policy.

Pont is not an official GVB product and is not affiliated with the City of Amsterdam or the consortium behind the IJ-klopper. We summarise public reporting and project information to explain what the proposal might mean for ferry passengers. The €250 million and €15 million per year are claims made by the promoters, while €650–850 million is a provisional interim estimate for the Oostbrug. None of these figures is currently a final tender price or guarantee, and no ferry route has been withdrawn. Always check current GVB departure times and service information before travelling.