He says a second lock would allow the port to make the best use of current space. "If we want to be more efficient and handle more traffic we need the lock," he said. "We can then double throughput within the existing facilities and do more with the land."

Mr Gerson says there is "considerable danger" in having one 80-year-old lock, particularly in the event of an accident: "It must be the only lock system in the world of this nature and in this condition."

The possibility of the port expanding beyond its boundaries to nearby polders does not even need to have to come into the equation for another five years, he says.

There was some good news last July when Dutch transport minister Camiel Eurlings gave the go-ahead for the official 'MIT' procedure ndash; the three-phase exploratory, design and building process. The port authority will report on the first phase this summer.

The question of where the money will come from is a key issue. The second lock is estimated to cost between EU650m-EU800m ($1bn-$1.26bn) and to date the city and provincial authorities have said they will earmark EU90m for the project. "The city will do its best but the locks are in effect owned by national government so there is room for manoeuvre in the discussions," said Mr Gerson

Issues being considered in the exploratory phase are a public-private partnership or the privatisation of the port authority. This would not mean true privatisation, rather the state taking a stake in similar fashion to the Port of Rotterdam Authority. However, the city of Amsterdam is not keen on privatisation. It believes the port should be part of Amsterdam and should be part of any urban planning.

But Mr Gerson says one argument in favour of privatisation is it may promote the formation of a national port holding. The state already has a stake in Rotterdam and in taking a share in Amsterdam, and say Zeeland and Groningen, it might be the catalyst to a national ports policy.