{"id":2687,"date":"2019-06-27T14:16:27","date_gmt":"2019-06-27T12:16:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nmf.no\/?p=2687"},"modified":"2025-01-17T14:21:09","modified_gmt":"2025-01-17T13:21:09","slug":"hordafast-mareritt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmf.no\/en\/hordafast-mareritt\/","title":{"rendered":"Hordafast: A Natural and Socioeconomic Nightmare"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>

Hordafast: A Natural and Socioeconomic Nightmare<\/h2><\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Published 27.07.2019<\/h6>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

For over three decades, the plans for the motorway project Hordfast have been the subject of debate and criticism. The idea of a ferry-free E39 between Os and Stord was launched in Bergen in 1992, but from the very beginning, the project faced opposition due to the high costs and environmental consequences. Today, we are looking at a price tag of nearly 40 billion kroner, and the project is considered one of Norway's most controversial infrastructure plans.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\"\"\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/figure>
<\/div>

Large environmental impacts on untouched nature<\/h3><\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

E39 Hordfast has faced strong opposition from nature and environmental advocates, who point to the extensive destruction of nature it will cause. The motorway is planned through unique fjord landscapes and valuable natural areas, including boreal rainforest \u2013 a mix of coniferous and broadleaf forests found in few places in the world. The project will result in significant disruption on Tysnes and Stord, where over 40 types of nature with national and international value are at risk. This nature is not only important for Norway but for the global community as a whole, and the construction of Hordfast violates Norway\u2019s responsibilities under international environmental agreements<\/p>\n

According to the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation, the project will lead to \"the largest natural impact in Hordaland in modern times,\" and the damage is considered to be greater than that caused by the power lines in Hardanger. The affected natural types and landscapes, including valuable coastal wetlands and recreation areas, have international significance. The development of Hordfast stands in stark contrast to the goal of sustainable transport solutions and shifting freight from road to sea, as well as the national target of zero growth in passenger car traffic in the largest urban areas.<\/p>\n

A project in conflict with environmental and climate goals<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Norway has committed to the UN\u2019s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, and the government has set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030. Hordfast\u2019s four-lane motorway and the extensive bridge construction over Bj\u00f8rnafjorden and Langenuen will generate large emissions both during construction and in use. Hordfast is in direct conflict with the goal of preserving biodiversity, and it also violates the principles of the Nature Diversity Act, where land use and development are among the greatest threats to natural types and species diversity. With planned measures for massive motorway construction, which will facilitate car traffic, it becomes nearly impossible to achieve the goal of zero growth in car traffic in the Bergen area.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\"\"\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/figure>
<\/div>

A socioeconomically losing project<\/h3><\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

When both priced and non-priced consequences are compared, analyses show that Hordfast will provide negative socioeconomic benefits. The project relies on a weak traffic foundation, where 74% of the traffic is considered leisure traffic, not utility traffic. This means that the majority of traffic is linked to social activities rather than work-related commuting, which undermines the arguments for the enormous investments required. With a predicted decline in the oil industry from 2022 and a forecasted stagnation in population growth in the project\u2019s area of influence, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the financial effort in Hordfast. Compared to more urgent projects, such as safety upgrades of the E16, it is clear that Hordfast not only lacks socioeconomic justification but will also tie up enormous sums that could have been used for safer, more sustainable, and necessary measures.<\/p>\n

Secrecy about toll costs<\/strong><\/h5>\n

In 2018, NRK revealed how the government withheld information about the project\u2019s toll financing, a move that undermines the public\u2019s trust in the government\u2019s priorities. With an increase from the original cost estimates of 5 billion kroner to today\u2019s estimates of 35\u201340 billion kroner, the project has become significantly more expensive than anticipated. The toll burden is expected to amount to around 17 billion, while the state treasury will cover the rest of the bill. This giant project, strongly fronted by former Prime Minister Erna Solberg, is largely dependent on state funds and tolls, a fact that Solberg has downplayed in her public statements. At the same time, the government has presented the project as though the tolls largely cover the costs, which turns out to be a gross exaggeration.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Alternative use of resources: Maintenance, public transport, and landslide protection<\/strong><\/h5>\n

The funds allocated for Hordfast could have made a significant difference for other pressing needs in Vestland county. The project\u2019s financing requires a formidable 25 billion kroner in state funds, which could instead be used for maintenance and landslide protection in Vestland, as well as for public transport. Hordfast is expected to serve a daily traffic volume of about 2,500 vehicles, while roads like the E16 between Arna and Voss, which are often affected by landslides, would benefit more from these resources. Despite the frequent landslides and week-long road closures on the E16, Solberg and her allies in the government opposed the financing of this high-risk stretch. Landslides on this stretch have repeatedly led to serious accidents and risky cleanup operations, yet the government has failed to take action<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\"\"\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/figure>
<\/div>

Final considerations<\/h3><\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Criticism of the Hordfast project has never been stronger. With increasing focus on sustainability and climate responsibility, opponents of Hordfast question how the project can be defended in today\u2019s situation, both economically and environmentally. Critics of the project, including the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation and LO in Vestland, point out that gas-powered ferries, and later electric ferries, could provide much more environmentally friendly and flexible solutions.<\/p>\n

Norway faces a crossroads where politicians must show leadership and responsibility for future generations and consider whether motorway projects like Hordfast are at all compatible with national environmental goals, sustainability goals, and commitments under the Paris Agreement. Hordfast represents not only a massive intrusion on nature but also a potential mistake that will affect both the environment and the economy well into the future.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t