A new island in the IJ as an alternative to the Oostbrug: what would it mean for the ferries?

A new island in the IJ is the latest alternative to surface in the long-running debate about the Oostbrug. Sander Groet, co-founder of the A'DAM Toren, used an opinion piece in Het Parool to propose reclaiming land in the eastern part of the IJ and breaking the crossing into shorter sections. Instead of one bridge stretching more than a kilometre, there would be two short bridges on the southern side and one towards the north, with the island acting as a staging point in between. Groet argues this would make the connection not only more pleasant for cyclists but also more financially viable, because land revenues from housing could cover part of the cost. For anyone crossing the water daily on the Amsterdam ferries, this is long-term news: nothing about today's timetable changes.

Why the island idea is surfacing now

The proposal did not appear out of nowhere. It follows a summer in which the financial case for the Oostbrug came under heavy scrutiny, with the provisional estimate climbing from roughly €325 million to between €650 and €850 million. That increase triggered an emergency debate and sharp criticism of how the city council was informed, which we covered in our article on the Oostbrug cost surge. Financial uncertainty of that scale creates room for outside designs that promise to be cheaper or smarter. For the same reason, the IJ-klopper cycle tunnel recently resurfaced as a private counter-proposal. The island plan fits the same pattern: an idea from outside city hall that questions whether one long bridge is really the best answer.

What the proposal actually says

Groet describes a ride across the planned Oostbrug as a kilometre-long, endless and uncomfortable trip that feels distinctly unwelcoming after dark. His alternative cuts that distance into pieces: a new island in the eastern IJ, reached by two short bridges from the southern bank and one bridge heading north. Cycle paths and a tram line would cross the island at ground level, so the height needed for shipping clearance is gained in stages rather than in a single long climb. A route past a lit park and homes, he argues, offers more passive surveillance and shelter than a bare deck suspended over open water. He points to Java-eiland and KNSM-eiland, which were also created in the water and are now seamlessly part of the city's urban fabric.

The transport argument behind the plan

Beyond comfort, Groet makes a network argument: extending Kattenburgerstraat and the Jan Schaeferbrug towards Noord would connect the new crossing far better to the existing cycle network. The more logical that connection, the more Amsterdammers would actually choose the bridge instead of a detour. The island could also host a direct tram link to Noorderpark metro station, giving the crossing value for public transport passengers as well as cyclists. That speaks directly to the bottleneck ferry passengers feel every day on the busiest links between Centraal Station and Amsterdam Noord. How many travellers such a route would genuinely attract has not been modelled, however: this is design reasoning in an opinion piece, not a municipal traffic forecast.

Money: land revenues as cover

The financial element may be the most striking part of the proposal. Groet argues that compact, high-quality housing on the new island would generate land revenues capable of covering a substantial share of the bridge and construction costs directly. In his words, with a little more nerve and ambition Amsterdam could choose a plan that delivers homes, a new city park and a far better and more efficient connection to Noord. Against that, land reclamation in a busy national waterway is itself expensive, and the opinion piece does not quantify dredging, sheet piling, soil remediation or nautical clearance requirements. Until someone sets those figures alongside the existing €650–850 million estimate, it remains an appealing idea without independent substantiation.

What this means for ferry passengers

For daily travellers, this idea changes nothing about routes, departures or waiting times. Current planning puts the Oostbrug itself at 2031–2034 at the earliest, and in our article on the delay to 2034 we already noted that even that date is far from certain. An island variant would most likely extend the process rather than shorten it, because land reclamation demands additional procedures, permits and environmental assessment. Until a fixed crossing actually opens, the ferries at Centraal, NDSM and Azartplein remain the only real crossing for cyclists and pedestrians. Pressure on those links keeps rising in the meantime, as shown in the ferry statistics and in our article on rush-hour crowding.

Why the fleet matters more than the drawing

The core point is that every alternative to the Oostbrug — bridge, tunnel or island — only delivers many years from now, while the ferries have to absorb the growth of Noord today. The city expects that several additional ferries will be needed towards 2030 as passenger numbers across the IJ continue to climb. Investment in new electric ferries, extra sailings and enough qualified skippers therefore has far more effect on journey times in the short term than any design sketch. The risk of a lively design debate is that political attention and budget drift towards the distant future while crew shortages and fleet capacity bite right now. Anyone who wants to know what is genuinely changing is best served by following current departures through the ferry apps and new decisions through our news index.

Pont is not an official GVB product and is not affiliated with the City of Amsterdam, Het Parool or the author of this proposal. We summarise public reporting to explain what an idea might mean for ferry passengers. The island plan is an opinion piece without official status: there is no decision, no budget and no timetable. The Oostbrug figures mentioned are provisional estimates rather than tender prices. Always check current GVB departure times and service information before travelling.