Should a part of the A14 motorway be covered over

Can the A14 motorway be covered in certain sections in the canton of Zug? The government must now examine this idea in detail – against its will.
 

The Zug government had actually wanted to shelve the selective roofing of the A14 in the canton of Zug at its meeting last Thursday. If it had been up to them, the two motions on the subject would not have been declared significant. One of the postulates proposed covering the A14 motorway at the Blickensdorf (Baar), Ammannsmatt (Zug) and Hinterberg (Cham/Steinhausen) sections. The other focused on Hünenberg.

The idea of the postulates was that the roofing would
1. improve noise protection,
2. serve as building land for affordable housing,
3. connect settlements and
4. promote nature networking.

The government had conducted a preliminary review, but concluded that the cost-benefit ratio was not good. "The construction costs for the roofing on which you could build are very high. And would only create the possibility of very expensive living space in less than ideal locations," was the response to one of the two motions.

The Zug parliament passed the ball back to the government on Thursday, however. The cantonal councillors (Kantonsräte) decided to declare the two motions significant, by 38 votes to 29 and 36 votes to 29, respectively. For the government, this means that it must now conduct an in-depth feasibility study for the above-mentioned roofing.

The Hinterberg motorway section (Cham/Steinhausen) was also proposed for roofing     Screenshot: Google Maps 
This picture shows the roof over the A3 motorway near Altendorf SZ (centre of picture)     Photo: zvg/altendorf.ch.
 

‘Don't write off the idea too quickly’
This was entirely in line with the views of Thomas Meierhans (Mitte (Centre) party/Steinhausen), who co-submitted one of the two postulates. ‘The government's report is one-sided and only negative. It doesn’t highlight any advantages,’ he said. An in-depth feasibility study, on the other hand, would serve as a basis for deciding how to proceed, and would be ‘worth the money’. Eva Maurenbrecher (FDP (liberal) party/Hünenberg), who spoke as co-sponsor of the second motion, also felt that the government's report was ‘very defensive’. ‘Anyone who takes innovation seriously should not dismiss such ideas too quickly.’

The political parties presented a clear picture: the Mitte, ALG (Alternative, Left & Greens) and SP (Socialist) parties, as well as the Greens, were in favour of declaring the motions significant, on the grounds that the construction projects could help combat the housing shortage. ‘The housing crisis calls for new solutions,’ said Beni Wattenhofer (ALG/Steinhausen).

The SVP (Swiss People’s Party) was against the proposal: according to Philip C. Brunner the president of the Zug parliamentary group, there are more pressing problems in transport policy, such as the Zug bypass. For the FDP, the idea was ‘worth considering’, but the timing was not right, as Michael Arnold (Baar) explained. The GLP (Green liberal) party was also critical of the proposal.
 

The roof over the A3 motorway near the municipality of Altendorf in canton Schwyz shows that this idea is actually feasible. Completed in 2002, the roof now houses a residential area that has allowed the village, which was originally divided in two by the motorway, to grow together.