“Rail Baltica” – financial opportunities make you come back to reality

Recommend an article:

The Ministry of Transport (MoT) has submitted a report for approval on what the “Rail Baltica” project should look like in six years and where to get the money for it. The document is of limited availability, however, some information has reached the mass media. The fact that the information is limited in availability is understandable – most likely it is a shame to show it, because then you won’t be able to justify yourself.

The Ministry of Finance had the most objections to the report. “de facto” reports that it has reprimanded – even if the expected 3.68 billion euros are obtained from the European fund for connecting the infrastructure without a hitch, the question of where to take another three billion euros is still unanswered.

The objections of the Ministry of Finance are understandable, because everything that will not be financed from EU funds will have to be financed from the state budget and the only source of three billion is the increase in the state debt. So it can be understood that the wishes of the Minister of Transport expressed in the current report and the funding possibilities of the Minister of Finance differ by three billion euros.

In other words, for now, these are fantasies on the subject of “Rail Baltica”, and the Ministry of Transport will have to prepare a new report that will correspond to financial possibilities. Otherwise, there is a risk of starting and not completing some objects. For example, three bridge piers can remain an artistic installation in Daugava forever. It’s not unusual. We still have quite a lot of unfinished, half-ruined kolkhoz clubs and office buildings.

Maybe it is good to slow down the construction of the bridge until there is clarity with the financing? It would be interesting to know how far the development of a new economic assessment has gone. I don’t think that there is even the smallest possibility to prove the construction of “Rail Baltica” from the point of view of economic benefit.

It may be useful to divide the project into phases. First, build the main track, which would initially be unsuitable for the movement of high-speed trains, but in terms of costs, it would be at least five times cheaper. This would make it possible to ensure the connection with the European-wide railway and start the operation of “Rail Baltica” as quickly as possible. Ultimately, the expected maximum speed of cargo transportation on the “Rail Baltica” track is 120 km/h, and the necessary speed for cargo, including military cargo, will be ensured.

The high-speed train is needed only for passengers, so that they get from Tallinn to Riga an hour faster, but it is incomparably more expensive when paid. Is it worth overpaying three billion for it. And how many passengers will there be? It should also be taken into account that passenger transportation will have to be subsidized, so it will be an additional burden on the budget.

In the second stage, if funding is received, fences, viaducts or tunnels can be built under the track and high-speed trains can be put into operation. In the third, if there is funding, to connect with Riga’s central station and airport.

In my opinion, it is the only real possibility to connect the Baltic States with the European railway system by 2030 without huge state budget investments.

About responsibility.

The former Minister of Health, Ms. I. Vinkeles, was promptly charged with vaccines not purchased on time. So there is a precedent when the minister can also be held responsible for negligence or causing damage. The damage caused by some transport ministers with their fantasies, whims and negligence regarding the implementation of the “Rail Baltica” project is incomparably greater. Will it stay that way? The National Audit Office will not even try to evaluate the damage caused by the ill-considered work planning and the personal role of some ministers in this process?

PS Maybe three billion is an amount that in itself provides immunity.