DV journalist Alexey ShishkinPhoto: Liis Treiman
DV journalist Aleksey Shishkin believes that the Rail Baltica railway project in its current form has no realistic goal, but it will not be possible to close it either. But one could think about redirecting some of the funds to other projects – for example, modernizing the existing transport network or building other strategically important roads, for example, in Ida-Virumaa.
There is a fact that everyone knows, but we agreed not to mention it when discussing Rail Baltica. There is already a railway between Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius and Warsaw. These are ordinary tracks of the “Russian” 1524 mm gauge, on which trains have been running for centuries. Yes, there is no direct passenger traffic on the lines now. But this was a conscious choice, made, among others, by Estonia as part of the cascade of reforms of Eesti Raudtee in the 1990s and 2000s. I think that older residents of the country will remind the younger ones on occasion that the Baltic Station once received long-distance trans-Baltic trains, and they did not seem exotic.
Of course, these are not lines designed for high-speed modern express trains that can reach speeds of up to a couple of hundred kilometers per hour. But modernizing the tracks and stations to at least the standards of Estonian Elron commuter trains is a matter of a couple of years of painstaking work with absolutely standard protocols. There is no need for a mass purchase of land, redesigning the infrastructure to meet new standards, or generally building the Tower of Babel that Rail Baltica has obviously turned into.
First of all, it’s beautiful.
At present, we can only say with a very high degree of approximation when the first trains will run along the future Rail Baltica (if they do) – in the first half of the 2030s. However, we can look into the past and remember how the history of the pompous long-term construction project began. For the first time, the “transport corridor No. 1” consisting of the Via Baltica highway and the Rail Baltica rail line appeared in the documents of the European transport conferences of 1991-1997, and the first Estonian-Latvian-Lithuanian agreement on the implementation of the project in Pärnu was signed in 2001. In other words, it was a completely different world, not only before the annexation of Crimea in 2014, but also before the September 11 attacks, in the world of the “end of history” according to Fukuyama, globalization without restrictions and international optimism.
At one time, the Baltic Station received long-distance trains, and they did not seem exotic.Photo: Sven Arbet, Äripäev
At that time, the symbolism of the new highway, perhaps, could indeed seem more attractive than any rational arguments. Instead of the morally and physically outdated “Baltic Order of the October Revolution” railway, which had in one way or another provided transport connectivity for the region for a century and a half, we were getting some kind of shining prospect. A railway of the “correct” Western European gauge of 1435 mm, with European standards of safety and management, specially built for high-speed trains of new generations, and so on… The Iron Curtain fell, international institutions and private investors came to the Baltic countries, the threat from the East was forgotten for a while, so it was possible to believe in a beautiful fairy tale.
I think it was precisely the symbolism embedded in the project: farewell to the old, aspiration for the new, pan-European, modern and, importantly, “different” in comparison with the dull and slow post-Soviet compartment carriage… Yes, it was precisely this brilliant symbolism that prevented us from asking the most important question: is there a “cut-off price” after which the implementation of long-standing plans will become meaningless, or even harmful? Fortunately, in his recent opinion, the state controller also asks this question.
Non-commercial enterprise
Long ago, in 1872, when Europe was ruled by several mighty empires, the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits was founded at the Belgian royal court, which, by the way, still exists today. It is to this day that the most impressive achievement in the development of trans-European railway routes belongs. Thanks to pop culture, we are all familiar with the Orient Express Paris-Istanbul, but it also had a less famous brother – the Nord Express, which connected Paris with St. Petersburg. In 1914, the train passing through Riga covered the distance in 44 hours, the cheapest ticket cost about 200 euros in today’s money.
Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits is a commercial enterprise, and therefore it could not have dreamed of creating a separate infrastructure for its legendary express trains, which even members of royal families willingly rode on. Instead, the company conducted difficult but ultimately successful negotiations with national and regional railway administrations about using their stations and tracks for mutual benefit. In the case of Nord, it was a question of 14 contractors at once.
The passenger company was not even embarrassed by the need to organize a transfer from the “Russian” to the “European” gauge carriages, which took place on a special platform in Koenigsberg. So why doesn’t past experience teach us? Let’s repeat what everyone knows but is embarrassed to say. Rail Baltica is not a commercial project, and passenger traffic is unlikely to bring in any significant income. The reasons for construction are different – ideological and military.
“Anything goes” happened to us
I think that from the very start of the project, in addition to pan-European romantics, it was also supported by grey-haired military men who had not forgotten the experience of the Cold War and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. For them, a direct line of normal gauge Berlin-Tallinn (and maybe Helsinki) seemed a truly rational solution. If it was necessary to deliver platforms with tanks and armored vehicles to the eastern flank of NATO, it could really be a matter of hours. As a century ago, railways are the “arteries of war”.
The sabotage on the Kerch Bridge in October 2022 made it difficult to supply Russian occupation forces, not least due to disrupted rail logistics.Photo: AFP, Scanpix
It is not without reason that Russia immediately lays down supply routes for the army in the occupied lands of the northern Black Sea region. And the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are trying to inflict the greatest damage on each other’s railway infrastructure with the help of sabotage, shelling and sabotage.
And if we honestly admit that we needed Rail Baltica “just in case”, as a route to supply a potential theater of military operations with vital equipment, manpower and other resources from Western Europe, pouring billions of euros into the road will look much more meaningful. There have been similar precedents. For example, before the First World War, France paid for the construction of the Bologoye-Polotsk railway in Russia and Poland to provide its ally with supply infrastructure in a future conflict.
There is only one “but”. Every incident has already happened to us. Russia has moved from “soft power” to military actions, while in Ukraine. And our road still remains a sketch on the map and a number of disparate objects.
Let’s answer the question “why”
It is becoming increasingly difficult to abandon the construction of the railway with each passing month. The funds already invested in it cannot be returned, bridges and railway terminals are being built in Vilnius and Riga, and contracts for the construction of sections of the road are being signed in Estonia this year. At the same time, we still do not have a clear answer to the question of why we need the road in the current conditions. It is already clear that the scenario of Russian aggression will most likely either be realized before we manage to complete the line to Tallinn, or will remain purely theoretical if the level of tension subsides and a more negotiable ruler suddenly takes office in the Kremlin.
Personally, I would risk proposing to finance Rail Baltica in a volume sufficient to keep the project going, but not to try to force events by freeing up some of the deficit funds. Let us ride with the wind not in 2030 (this obviously won’t happen anyway), but in 2040, but right now we won’t waste the money of European taxpayers, including residents of Estonia.
Instead, I would risk suggesting investing in modernizing part of the existing railway network, as well as planning potential military logistics. For example, I admit that what we need more than a high-speed line to Berlin is a bypass road along the border, from Narva to the south. Looking back at the experience of previous conflicts, we see that supply along the front line is no less important than the delivery of resources to potential military action zones.
Well, for now the Rail Baltica project is more like the highways of the scandalous times of railway concessions at the end of the 19th century. At that time, many lines were also built by private contractors without regard for the transport sense – if the project “takes off”, the profit will go into the pocket, and if not, the losses will be compensated by the state.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford such luxury in the 21st century.
Source: www.dv.ee
