Rail Baltica: Is It Worth It for Latvia?

Alvis Hermanis, the leader of the “We change the rules” party, issued a statement: “The Rail Baltica project will be stopped and liquidated after the elections on October 3. It must be admitted that it was a mistake. It is probably criminal.”

This statement by Hermanis has re-ignited extensive discussions in the public space about the usefulness of this project. Although “utility” is considered a purely rational concept, its emotional component should not be ignored, because people do what they want much more often than it would be desirable, rather than what they should do from the point of view of pure utility. It should also be noted that this is not just our own project. It also affects the interests of other countries, so let’s take them into account as well.

The appeal of a developed environment

Who wouldn’t want to live in a modern, orderly, neat environment with well-developed infrastructure? The phrase “well here it looks almost like abroad” is unconsciously passed down from generation to generation. Without modern high-speed train traffic, it is difficult to place yourself in the club of highly developed countries. It is an axiom that everyone understands, consciously or unconsciously.

Therefore, people’s desire for modern high-speed train traffic on European gauge tracks is normal and self-evident. All the more so because Latvian passenger train traffic is currently in a deplorable state by European standards. The situation improved a little after 2024, when the new electric trains started running in Riga’s suburban traffic (with various incidents), but in the rest of the traffic, diesel trains manufactured during the USSR still continue to run without significant improvements in the foreseeable future.

Launching the “Rail Baltica” track in the visualization animation that was proposed – with several parallel tracks and a connection to the airport like in Frankfurt – would remove this annoying lag in one fell swoop. We will leave the other passenger train lines (Rīga-Liepāja; Rīga-Daugavpils; Rīga-Rēzekne; Rīga-Valga) in brackets.

It has already become clear that the charming animation with several modern high-speed trains traveling in opposite directions will remain just an attractive visualization. In reality, there will be only one track, which, moreover, will not be connected not only to the “Riga” airport, but will not even enter the newly built Riga central railway station. And all that “joy” is only for how many billions of euros (the exact final amount can only be guessed at the moment).

One could think – that’s it, the dream has been dreamed and it’s time to come down to earth. It could be if the psychological principle, best known to Latvians in the interpretation of Rudolph Blaumanis, did not work. The fence that the mind builds is easily climbed over by feelings. No facts can “open the eyes” if a person does not want to see them. I want modern high-speed trains and I don’t even want to hear arguments “against”. When I hear something like that, the usual defense mechanism kicks in: Kremlin agent. Bought.

How much of a rational argument this hanging of a tag is, we’ll leave up to everyone.

Economic utility

As much as we talk about the emotional dimension of the issue. Since most people are unshakably convinced that they themselves are reasonable and act only on rational considerations, let’s look at the rational dimension of the question. Let’s appeal to those who consider themselves smart, reasonable and logical thinkers. To those who are convinced that they act based on only rational considerations. To those who demand fact-based reasoning.

And this is where the big problems begin. For quite some time now, when talking about the usefulness of Rail Baltica, the economic arguments of the defenders of this project are no longer heard. We are no longer operating with specific numbers that would justify the benefits that this railway line, when completed, will bring to the national economy of Latvia. There are apparently no such arguments. There is no discussion at all about the economic feasibility of the project in the context of Latvia (it may be different in Lithuania and maybe also in Estonia).

Even more. They also try not to talk about the costs of starting and maintaining the line, about buying trains, how much it will cost and who will pay. We’ll think about it later, not now. Instead, traditional ‘argumentation’ appears. In other words, they themselves understand the “arguments” of the opposing side and then “overturn” them with an expression of superiority on their faces. Here is a typical example of such “argumentation”: “It is quite stupid to be against the railway with the EU. Because we don’t need either good roads or a good railway, just dancing in the streets, living in the forest, eating mushrooms and moss.”

Examples where an opponent of the project would have pushed the idea that “we don’t need good roads or a good railway, just dance in the streets, live in the forest, eat mushrooms and moss” are not mentioned. The main thing is to show these “opponents of the railway” in a derogatory role, backward moss villagers. At the same time, take the role of the self-conceived “smart, reasonable and logical thinker” yourself.

In fact, the opposite is true. Opponents of the project point out that it would be more economically useful (and much cheaper) to reconstruct and modernize the already mentioned Latvian railway lines that connect Riga with other major Latvian cities – Liepāja, Daugavpils, Rēzekni, Jēkabpili, Valmiera, Cēsis, Valka. In fact, it is the defenders of the project who are against good roads, good railways and call for the money spent for this purpose to be used for their whimsical playthings.

I regularly drive on the Riga-Liepāja-Rīga route. At the moment, the journey takes more than three hours. Train traffic is slower than half a century ago, because the railway infrastructure in the section Dobele-Liepāja has worn out and is not being modernized due to lack of funds.

If this line were to be modernized and trains would run on it at a speed of 160 km/h (as planned on the reconstructed Tallinn-Tartu route), then Liepāja would become much “closer” to the capital and would acquire a completely different economic dynamic. The same applies to other routes and other Latvian cities, which could be connected with really modern railway traffic for the “whimsy” money of “Rail Baltica”.

What economic effect will there be from the fact that the high-speed train from Salaspils will run to Pärnu, Tallinn, Panevėžys and Kaunas, but to Liepāja and Daugavpils at the speed of a steam locomotive? You can already fly to Tallinn and Vilnius within 40 minutes for an amount that is lower than the price of a potential train ticket. I use these flights myself and I recommend them to everyone: why spend four hours shaking in a bus or sitting at the wheel, when you can fly to the capitals of neighboring countries very quickly and relatively inexpensively.

Strategic importance

The main or, rather, the only more or less meaningful argument in support of this project: “Rail Baltica” is a structure of strategic importance, which is especially important in these geopolitically difficult times.

Although it is difficult to separate here – where emotions prevail, where the rational grain, let’s try to evaluate what is the military-strategic justification of the project. First of all, we must reject the sometimes heard statements that the project had a military strategic orientation and justification from the beginning. That’s not true. Initially, no EU document even mentioned the military component of the project.

There are objections to this: it may not have been recorded in the documents, but the idea has always been “in the mind”. Such arguments can only be invoked by those who do not know the prevailing mood in Brussels.

By February 24, 2022, the justification that the project “could have a military-strategic application” would rather work “against” because a general pacifism prevailed in the corridors of the EU, in which militarism has no place. In the opinion of the political bureaucracy of the EU, the military are the last ones who will dictate to us what to build and what not to build. The representatives of Eastern European countries may have had a different mood, but they did not determine the climate in Brussels.

Even now, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the mood there is changing much more slowly than we would like. Everyone working in Brussels recognizes this. True, in November 2022, the “Action Plan on Military Mobility 2.0” was adopted, which determines the need to adapt transport networks to military needs. It should be noted that only general principles are formulated in this document and “Rail Baltica” is not specifically named. However, this document can be considered as a considerable argument in favor of the implementation of the project.

However, documents are one thing, but the real situation on the ground and today is another. There are two main issues here: timing and cost-benefit ratio.

Today, 2036 is named as the real earliest deadline for the completion of the track. How the geopolitical situation will have changed over the years, no one can predict. Of course, this does not mean that we cannot think about the future threat of Russia. It just means that we should primarily think about the situation in the much nearer future. If you have to decide where to spend billions – a single track through sparsely populated areas of Latvia or improvements to the existing transport network and spending of a purely military nature, then a rational (not emotional) choice is, in my opinion, obvious.

Technology is evolving and moving tanks is no longer primary. If necessary, they can also be moved along existing railways (as is currently happening in Ukraine during intense hostilities along the same Russian gauge railways). Similarly, both sea and air transport can be used for the transportation of military cargo, in addition to the existing railway.

What do I mean by that? The fact that “Rail Baltica”, even if it is an important military object, is not decisive. The port of Liepāja and a reconstructed, well-maintained railway from Liepāja and other Latvian cities might even be more important for Latvia’s security. Not to mention the purchase of pure military equipment (drones, missiles, anti-aircraft defenses and the like).

What will the world say?

The international dimension of this project should be discussed separately. What will Estonians, Lithuanians and conditional Brussels say about the idea of ​​abandoning the started project? How will our country look in the international context? What will our credibility be?

Lithuanians have expressed their local interests in this project. They are not much concerned whether the line will go to Salaspils or to Panevezys. The Polish direction and branches to Vilnius and Klaipeda are more important. It is different for Estonians, but articles are already appearing there as well, questioning the economic rationale of this project.

Since there is no rational justification (business plan) for the construction of the line, but only a whim, when starting international negotiations on the timely termination of the project, all parties could relatively quickly agree that there is no point in continuing to push billions into a “lost game”. It’s a pity, of course, the wasted money, but to continue doing it without any visible benefit in the future would be even more stupid.

If we were able to preserve the Daugava pile, then we can just as well preserve the entire project. If it turns out that such a railway still has a perspective and its construction will pay off, then it could be restarted at any moment. When there will be money and will.

The fact that Latvia spent the least on this project among the Baltic states last year should only be evaluated with a plus sign. This shows that the idea of ​​stopping the project is gradually becoming dominant in the ruling political class as well. For the time being, until the Saeima elections, most parties do not particularly advertise this idea, taking into account the still relatively high popularity of the project among their electorate. But, most likely, there is no alternative to it.