Kirjoitin Uudenmaan liiton toimeksiannosta selvityksen Rail Baltic -projektin taustasta ja nykytilasta. Raportti julkaistiin Newsbrokers Oy:n Hiljainen reportaasiTM formatissa, ja sen voi ladata Uudenmaan liiton nettisivulta.
strateginen ja tulevaisuuslähtöinen big picture
Rail Baltic - Aika astua Eurooppaan
Esa Nurkka, 20.5.2015
Kirjoitin Uudenmaan liiton toimeksiannosta selvityksen Rail Baltic -projektin taustasta ja nykytilasta. Raportti julkaistiin Newsbrokers Oy:n Hiljainen reportaasiTM formatissa, ja sen voi ladata Uudenmaan liiton nettisivulta.
Kirjoitin Uudenmaan liiton toimeksiannosta selvityksen Rail Baltic -projektin taustasta ja nykytilasta. Raportti julkaistiin Newsbrokers Oy:n Hiljainen reportaasiTM formatissa, ja sen voi ladata Uudenmaan liiton nettisivulta.
Ultra Running and Science: How Do They Blend?
Esa Nurkka, 23.4.2015
University of Zurich's Institute for Primary Care and Gesundheitszentrum St. Gallen have published “Pacing strategy in male elite and age group 100 km ultra-marathoners” report, which analyzes Biel 100 km race pacing strategies over time period 2000-2009. Despite the promising title, the content of the research is a letdown. The report is based on data from the race website, and it seems that, before moving into statistical analysis and conclusions, a bit more background research would have been in order.
In this review I have chosen some questionable issues from the report (direct quotes from the report are in italic red color) and comment on them.
Pacing strategy in male elite and age group 100 km ultra-marathoners (Knechtle-Rosemann-Zingg-Stiefel-Rüst, 2015)
The aim of the study was to investigate running speed over segments in male elite and age group 100 km ultra-marathoners competing in the 100 km Lauf Biel in Switzerland in 2000-2009. The dataset for the study was obtained from the official race website in January 2015, and running speeds for athletes were calculated from split time information from the three Time Stations along the route.
The method sounds appropriate, but unfortunately it seems like something went wrong.
A quote from the report:
“Split times at three time stations (TS) TS1 “Oberramsern” (38 km), TS2 “Kirchberg” (56.1 km), and TS3 “Bibern” (76.7 km) were taken identically during the 2000–2009 period by using an electronic chip system… Since 1999, split and overall race times have been recorded by Datasport in the same manner.” [source: Pacing strategy…, page 2]
My comment:
Could it be that although the data has been recorded “identically using an electronic chip system” and “in the same manner”, the location of the chip mats has not been identical over the years?
A quote from the report:
“There seems to be a trend towards even pacing after 2005, with more negative splits at the final segment before 2005." [source: Pacing strategy…, page 6]
My comment:
1. This is not a trend. As you can see in Figure 3, this is a sudden and inexplicable change in the data.
2. This did not happen “after 2005”, the change happened after 2003.
3. This kind of sudden change cannot be explained by “changes in training theory or trends” or "some ‘running guru’ advertising towards ‘putting some time in the bank’" or “dawn and a flat course”. Both the data from 2000-2003 (with an unprecedented amount of negative splits) AND the sudden change in 2004 are utterly implausible. This should have set alarm bells ringing.
It would have been easy to ask one of the Biel 100 km veterans, whether there had been a major change in 2004. The names of all the finishers can be found at 100km.ch web site, so that would have been easy to do.
I have never been to Switzerland, so in order to find out the truth, I had to spend half an hour digging the internet. The waybackmachine found older versions of 100km.ch website, and the outcome was not surprising.
TS3 has been in Bibern (76,7 km) only since the change of the route in 2004, while in 2000-2003 TS3 was in Gossliwil (82 km). The distance from TS3 to the finish line has been 23,3 km since 2004, but before that it was a mere 18 km sprint.
A quote from the report:
“…using repeated measures one-way analysis of variance with Greenhouse-Geisser correction and Sidak’s multiple comparison tests… the effect of change in altitude on running speed was estimated using means of the Akaike information criterion… using one-way analysis of variance with Dunnett’s multiple comparison post hoc tests… calculated Cohen’s d using means and standard deviations…“ [source: Pacing strategy…, page 3]
My comment:
It is very easy to see that basic source data is seriously flawed, so running extensive statistical tests on this material is a waste of time. Actually, it is rather surprising that the flawed dataset somehow “survived” all these tests.
The final verdict
The split time data used as the base of this report are seriously flawed. The data from 2000-2003 and 2004-2009 are not commensurate. Trying to identify trends from such data probably leads to flawed conclusions.Disclaimer: I am not properly qualified to comment on scientific research, as I have no medical education and my expertise in sophisticated statistical methods is next to nothing. I am a pure amateur in these areas. Despite my academic limitations, I have done some (extremely simple and un-academic) research on pacing strategies in Spartathlon 2008 and Oxroad 100 miles 2013.
Rail Baltic - Looking For A Nonchalant Financier With Deep Pockets
Esa Nurkka, 24.3.2015
The Baltic States managed to submit the Rail Baltic finance application to the European Commission on the 26th of February 2015, but the process was not an easy one. Although the EU financing for this project has been earmarked for years, a positive financing decision can not be taken for granted. The Commission is expected to come out with their response on funding application - either positive or negative - in July or August.
MEP Zigmantas Balčytis of Lithuania is one of the most vocal Rail Baltic activists in Brussels, and his parliamentary question from the 22nd of January 2015 presents a concise summary of Lithuanian approach towards Rail Baltic. Mr. Balčytis' parliamentary question E-000924 [with my blue color debunking comments in square brackets amongst the text] is here:
The Risk
Estonian MEP Urmas Paet placed a parliamentary question on the state of project Rail Baltic on the 23rd of February 2015. Mr. Paet inquires whether the Commission believes that the project is still on schedule, and what are the greatest risks associated with the implementation of the project. Ms. Bulc has not yet given her answer to these questions.
Even without Ms. Bulc's answer we can state, that the major risk for project Rail Baltic seems to be the inferior credibility of the project organization. Just reading through the list of risks and hazards mentioned in MEP Balčytis' parliamentary question raises serious doubts, whether financing such a project, with seemingly no hope for over-the-border coordination and cooperation, would be worth the risk. It is rather surprising that such fear, uncertainty and doubt mongering comments about Rail Baltic come from a MEP representing a Baltic country, and not from a supporter of another project that would be competing for the same money.
The feasibility of Rail Baltic lays on the assumption that the whole project will be implemented. Successfully constructing two thirds of the proposed Rail Baltic would be as great an accomplishment as successfully digging two thirds of a railway tunnel. Lots of cost with very little benefits.
-----------------
If you are interested in a more elaborate analysis on Rail Baltic issues, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or via newsbrokers.fi.
The Baltic States managed to submit the Rail Baltic finance application to the European Commission on the 26th of February 2015, but the process was not an easy one. Although the EU financing for this project has been earmarked for years, a positive financing decision can not be taken for granted. The Commission is expected to come out with their response on funding application - either positive or negative - in July or August.
MEP Zigmantas Balčytis of Lithuania is one of the most vocal Rail Baltic activists in Brussels, and his parliamentary question from the 22nd of January 2015 presents a concise summary of Lithuanian approach towards Rail Baltic. Mr. Balčytis' parliamentary question E-000924 [with my blue color debunking comments in square brackets amongst the text] is here:
Subject: Responsibility of the Baltic States' joint venture ‘RB
Rail’ for distributing EU funds to implement the ‘Rail Baltica’ project
Question for written answer to the Commission, presented on the 22nd of January 2015 by MEP Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)
On 28 October 2014 the Baltic States set up a joint venture called RB Rail to handle implementation of the Rail Baltica trans-European rail network project. Early this year the joint venture has to apply to the Commission for funding for the construction work, but there is disagreement among the Member States implementing the project on the question of the most suitable recipient. Some are seeking to ensure that the designated recipient will be the RB Rail joint venture, whereas others maintain that the recipients should be each of the Member States participating in the project.
The latter camp fears that if it were designated the recipient, the joint venture, and not the Member States themselves, would determine which projects should be financed and which ones should not. [Rail Baltic is a multi-national project. In order to guarantee a coordinated implementation of the whole project, RB Rail (i.e. the joint venture) is in charge of scope management. Furthermore, all the participating countries should have a common understanding on the desired outcome of the project.] There is another risk which might arise, namely that two Member States in agreement, disregarding the interests of the rest, could, having secured the majority of votes in the joint venture, take decisions to finance and implement projects useful to them alone. [One of RB Rail’s essential tasks is to make sure that no country can favor its own projects to the disadvantage of other countries or the project’s entity. Any signs of questionable activities would constitute a prominent threat to the whole project.]
Such situations could hamper the implementation of this major European project, which could be delayed or even halted if Member States failed to agree or could not come to a joint decision. A case of this kind, in which no decision could be reached jointly, occurred in connection with the building of the common LNG terminal in the Baltic region. [Hamper, delay, halt? If such fears are realistic, the Connecting Europe Facility will have to judge the project weak, and deny any financing for it. One would have hoped that the Baltic states had learned something from the LNG terminal dispute.]
Does not the Commission believe that any decision of the kind described would run counter to the EU’s common interest and could impede effective development of the single EU railway area? Does it not believe that each Member State, taking into account that the project is a matter of common interest, should itself decide which projects it will implement on its territory using the funds allocated to it for that purpose? [The answer to question “Should each Member State decide itself which projects to implement on its own territory?” is a plain and simple no. In a multi-national project, like Rail Baltic, the funds must be allocated by the multi-national project organization, in this case RB Rail.]
Question for written answer to the Commission, presented on the 22nd of January 2015 by MEP Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)
On 28 October 2014 the Baltic States set up a joint venture called RB Rail to handle implementation of the Rail Baltica trans-European rail network project. Early this year the joint venture has to apply to the Commission for funding for the construction work, but there is disagreement among the Member States implementing the project on the question of the most suitable recipient. Some are seeking to ensure that the designated recipient will be the RB Rail joint venture, whereas others maintain that the recipients should be each of the Member States participating in the project.
The latter camp fears that if it were designated the recipient, the joint venture, and not the Member States themselves, would determine which projects should be financed and which ones should not. [Rail Baltic is a multi-national project. In order to guarantee a coordinated implementation of the whole project, RB Rail (i.e. the joint venture) is in charge of scope management. Furthermore, all the participating countries should have a common understanding on the desired outcome of the project.] There is another risk which might arise, namely that two Member States in agreement, disregarding the interests of the rest, could, having secured the majority of votes in the joint venture, take decisions to finance and implement projects useful to them alone. [One of RB Rail’s essential tasks is to make sure that no country can favor its own projects to the disadvantage of other countries or the project’s entity. Any signs of questionable activities would constitute a prominent threat to the whole project.]
Such situations could hamper the implementation of this major European project, which could be delayed or even halted if Member States failed to agree or could not come to a joint decision. A case of this kind, in which no decision could be reached jointly, occurred in connection with the building of the common LNG terminal in the Baltic region. [Hamper, delay, halt? If such fears are realistic, the Connecting Europe Facility will have to judge the project weak, and deny any financing for it. One would have hoped that the Baltic states had learned something from the LNG terminal dispute.]
Does not the Commission believe that any decision of the kind described would run counter to the EU’s common interest and could impede effective development of the single EU railway area? Does it not believe that each Member State, taking into account that the project is a matter of common interest, should itself decide which projects it will implement on its territory using the funds allocated to it for that purpose? [The answer to question “Should each Member State decide itself which projects to implement on its own territory?” is a plain and simple no. In a multi-national project, like Rail Baltic, the funds must be allocated by the multi-national project organization, in this case RB Rail.]
Answer E-000925/2015 given on 3 March 2015 by European Commissioner for Transport, Ms. Violeta Bulc can be read here.
The Risk
Estonian MEP Urmas Paet placed a parliamentary question on the state of project Rail Baltic on the 23rd of February 2015. Mr. Paet inquires whether the Commission believes that the project is still on schedule, and what are the greatest risks associated with the implementation of the project. Ms. Bulc has not yet given her answer to these questions.
Even without Ms. Bulc's answer we can state, that the major risk for project Rail Baltic seems to be the inferior credibility of the project organization. Just reading through the list of risks and hazards mentioned in MEP Balčytis' parliamentary question raises serious doubts, whether financing such a project, with seemingly no hope for over-the-border coordination and cooperation, would be worth the risk. It is rather surprising that such fear, uncertainty and doubt mongering comments about Rail Baltic come from a MEP representing a Baltic country, and not from a supporter of another project that would be competing for the same money.
The feasibility of Rail Baltic lays on the assumption that the whole project will be implemented. Successfully constructing two thirds of the proposed Rail Baltic would be as great an accomplishment as successfully digging two thirds of a railway tunnel. Lots of cost with very little benefits.
 |
|
The
Baltic Trendsetters Club has awarded the Rail Baltic companies in Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania a certificate for “setting up the RB Rail joint venture of
the Tallinn-Kaunas European standard rail gauge railroad”. The winners of this
award have showed exceptional boldness, persistence and creativity. Too bad
that the “missing link” between Kaunas and the Lithuanian-Polish border is
missing.
Source
of the picture: Transport Ministry of Lithuania.
|
-----------------
If you are interested in a more elaborate analysis on Rail Baltic issues, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or via newsbrokers.fi.
The Derailed Rail Baltic
Esa Nurkka, 24.2.2015
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania signed RB Rail's shareholders´ agreement on the 28th of October 2014 in Riga. The Baltic joint company was needed to coordinate the Rail Baltic II project and to submit a joint finance application to European Commission. Unfortunately "one common finance application" proved to be too ambitious a target. While Estonia and Latvia had no problem with committing to it, the Lithuanians once again opted to stick to their very own agenda.
RB Rail’s Recent History
Money matters
RB Rail is going to apply for 461 million euros from the first round of financing. Estonia is looking for 191 million euros, Latvia 240 million euros and Lithuania 30 million. This financing is for preliminary studies, cost-benefit analysis and designing the route.
Besides the 30 million euros applied through the Baltic joint venture, Lithuania is applying separately for 160 million euros to be used for “acquisition of land for public purposes” as well as “construction and partial electrification of a rail section between Rokai and Palemonas”. It is easy to see why this 160 million application is not a part of the RB Rail application. Rokai – Palemonas -section is a part of the old rail Baltic I project, which has nothing to do with the high speed double track Rail Baltic II project or RB Rail.
Lithuania has also other reasons for a separate financing application. According to minister Sinkevicius, the bulk of Rail Baltic works in Lithuania will probably be carried out through the Lithuanian railway monopoly Lietuvos Geležinkeliai (never mind the EU procurement rules…), and the VAT on that work should therefore be collected by Lithuania, and not Latvia.
Rail Baltic: The Mother of All Bottle Necks?
Rail Baltic is one of the European Commission’s TEN-T Priority Projects, and its aim is to close the gaps between Member States' transport networks and remove bottlenecks that hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market. The current Rail Baltic 2 project and RB Rail are based on AECOM’s feasibility study.
AECOM's study suggests that a 728 kilometer double track 1435 mm 240 km/h railway would be constructed from Tallinn all the way down to the Lithuanian/Polish border. At the moment it seems that the Estonian and Latvian parts of Rail Baltic might be well on track, while the Lithuanians have shown very little interest in constructing the high speed Rail Baltic railway line connecting Latvia and Poland via Kaunas.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania signed RB Rail's shareholders´ agreement on the 28th of October 2014 in Riga. The Baltic joint company was needed to coordinate the Rail Baltic II project and to submit a joint finance application to European Commission. Unfortunately "one common finance application" proved to be too ambitious a target. While Estonia and Latvia had no problem with committing to it, the Lithuanians once again opted to stick to their very own agenda.
RB Rail’s Recent History
- 21.6.2014: The Baltic Prime Ministers´ Joint statement “stressed the importance to prepare and submit the joint Rail Baltic/Rail Baltica CEF application for the first CEF call for the project proposals to be opened in from September 2014 through February 2015”.
- 23.8.2014: The Baltic countries were supposed to launch the RB Rail joint company in Riga as a part of Baltic Way 25th anniversary celebration, but due to different views on shareholder agreement’s wording, the signing ceremony was cancelled.
- 28.10.2014: After onerous negotiations, RB Rail was eventually established in Riga. To get the signatures on the dotted line, some compromises were needed:
o Estonia and Latvia did not want to carry any risk on the financing of Kaunas – Vilnius connection, and they got “each party co-finances the railway construction only within its territory” clause in the agreement.
o Lithuania wanted to get the “provision for Vilnius connection” in the contract, as well as the statement that “owner of the rail infrastructure in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the country in which the infrastructure is located”.
o Lithuania wanted to get the “provision for Vilnius connection” in the contract, as well as the statement that “owner of the rail infrastructure in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the country in which the infrastructure is located”.
- 5.12.2014: The Prime Ministers of the three Baltic states met in Maardu, Estonia, in a Baltic Council meeting. Once again, to get the joint statement signed, compromises were needed:
o Estonia and Latvia managed to get the phrase “a fast conventional double track 1435 mm gauge electrified railway line with the maximum design speed of 240 km/h on the Route from Tallinn through Pärnu-Riga-Panevezys-Kaunas to Lithuania-Polish border” in the statement, and Lithuania’s Prime Minister, Ms. Laimdota Straujuma did indeed sign the paper. Lithuanian transport minister Sinkevicius would have probably refused to sign such a commitment, but luckily this meeting was on a prime-ministerial level.
o Lithuanian prime minister would not have signed the paper without the Vilnius clause, and thus “as proposed by AECOM study with a connection of Vilnius-Kaunas as part of the Route” was added to the statement.
o Lithuanian prime minister would not have signed the paper without the Vilnius clause, and thus “as proposed by AECOM study with a connection of Vilnius-Kaunas as part of the Route” was added to the statement.
- 19.2.2015: According to the Lithuanian Ministry of Transport and Communication’s press release, ”The joint venture of the three Baltic States, established last autumn, will coordinate the implementation of the project from Kaunas via Vilnius to Riga and Tallinn”. This raises two questions:
o Does “from Kaunas via Vilnius to Riga and Tallinn” really mean that to get from Kaunas to Riga, you need to visit Vilnius?
o Does “implementation of the project from Kaunas via Vilnius to Riga and Tallinn” mean that Lithuania does not intend to build a high speed dual track connection between the Polish border and Kaunas?
o Does “implementation of the project from Kaunas via Vilnius to Riga and Tallinn” mean that Lithuania does not intend to build a high speed dual track connection between the Polish border and Kaunas?
Money matters
RB Rail is going to apply for 461 million euros from the first round of financing. Estonia is looking for 191 million euros, Latvia 240 million euros and Lithuania 30 million. This financing is for preliminary studies, cost-benefit analysis and designing the route.
Besides the 30 million euros applied through the Baltic joint venture, Lithuania is applying separately for 160 million euros to be used for “acquisition of land for public purposes” as well as “construction and partial electrification of a rail section between Rokai and Palemonas”. It is easy to see why this 160 million application is not a part of the RB Rail application. Rokai – Palemonas -section is a part of the old rail Baltic I project, which has nothing to do with the high speed double track Rail Baltic II project or RB Rail.
Lithuania has also other reasons for a separate financing application. According to minister Sinkevicius, the bulk of Rail Baltic works in Lithuania will probably be carried out through the Lithuanian railway monopoly Lietuvos Geležinkeliai (never mind the EU procurement rules…), and the VAT on that work should therefore be collected by Lithuania, and not Latvia.
Rail Baltic: The Mother of All Bottle Necks?
Rail Baltic is one of the European Commission’s TEN-T Priority Projects, and its aim is to close the gaps between Member States' transport networks and remove bottlenecks that hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market. The current Rail Baltic 2 project and RB Rail are based on AECOM’s feasibility study.
AECOM's study suggests that a 728 kilometer double track 1435 mm 240 km/h railway would be constructed from Tallinn all the way down to the Lithuanian/Polish border. At the moment it seems that the Estonian and Latvian parts of Rail Baltic might be well on track, while the Lithuanians have shown very little interest in constructing the high speed Rail Baltic railway line connecting Latvia and Poland via Kaunas.
Minister of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Lithuania Rimantas Sinkevičius is going to meet Violeta Bulc, European Commissioner for Mobility and Transport in Brussels on 24th of February 2015, ie. today. It will be interesting to see how Ms. Bulc reacts to Lithuania’s initiative. If the chances of getting a proper Rail Baltic connection across Lithuania look slim, how could the European Commission award financing even for Estonia and Latvia? Rail Baltica's Estonian project manager Miiko Peris stated yesterday, that a common application has a better chance of being funded by the European Commission.
Rail Baltic with no connection to Europe would be purely and utterly infeasible.
UPDATE: Lithuanian Ministry of Transport announced in the evening that the meeting between Mr Sinkevičius and Ms Bulc was "constructive and efficient". They agreed that "the TEN-T Core network has to be developed mainly by establishing the cross-border missing links, and, therefore, the project “Rail Baltica” is one of the key components of it". Wow.
The most interesting piece of news can be found at the end of the press release: Lithuania will apply for a total of EUR 365 million of co-funding under the CEF cohesion envelope. We do not know what this actually means, but here is an educated guess: Lithuania will still apply independently for 165 million to finance Rail Baltic I project, and Lithuania's original 30 million euros stake in the RB Rail's pan-Baltic application has been raised to 200 million euros.
Rail Baltic with no connection to Europe would be purely and utterly infeasible.
UPDATE: Lithuanian Ministry of Transport announced in the evening that the meeting between Mr Sinkevičius and Ms Bulc was "constructive and efficient". They agreed that "the TEN-T Core network has to be developed mainly by establishing the cross-border missing links, and, therefore, the project “Rail Baltica” is one of the key components of it". Wow.
The most interesting piece of news can be found at the end of the press release: Lithuania will apply for a total of EUR 365 million of co-funding under the CEF cohesion envelope. We do not know what this actually means, but here is an educated guess: Lithuania will still apply independently for 165 million to finance Rail Baltic I project, and Lithuania's original 30 million euros stake in the RB Rail's pan-Baltic application has been raised to 200 million euros.
Rail Baltic - To Vilnius or not to Vilnius, That is the Question
Esa Nurkka, 11.11.2014
Baltic countries eventually managed to sign the shareholders’ agreement for RB Rail on 28th of October in Riga, and media coverage on Rail Baltic has been rather positive ever since. And why not, establishing the Baltic Joint Company looks like a major breakthrough in the negotiations.
Even the geopolitical climate supports the positive interpretation of Rail Baltic’s progress. Russia’s political, economic and military activities are a constant worry for the three Baltic states, who have been card carrying members of EU and NATO since 2004.
Although the Rail Baltic task force has worked hard, their achievements so far have been rather humble. To get the Rail Baltic train on the move, they need to pick up the speed radically! It does not help that the sluggish progress of project Rail Baltic has never been a real concern for the Transport ministries in Latvia and Lithuania.
Who needs Rail Baltic the most?
Estonia stands to gain the most from Rail Baltic. Unlike Latvia and Lithuania, Estonian Railways have practically no east-west business with Russia, and Rail Baltic would offer new business opportunities for both the state owned Eesti Raudtee and the private entrepreneurs operating in the Estonian logistics business.
Latvia used to be the nerve-center for Baltic railways in the Soviet era, and the Latvian Railways still regards the freight trains shuttling between the harbors of the Baltic Sea and Russia as the only viable business. Although the Latvians do not object Rail Baltic, they are doing an excellent job hiding their possible enthusiasm towards it.
The Lithuanian Railways’ primary interest is the east-west axis. In the west there are Port of Klaipeda and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, and in the east Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and China. Although the Lithuanian Railways claim to support Rail Baltic, their support could be described as questionable but volatile.
Conclusion: Estonia wants Rail Baltic, and Latvia does not object it. Vilnius does not actively want or need Rail Baltic (at least north of Kaunas), and their support comes with a price. Lithuanians are eager to capitalize their valuable position as the “strategic gatekeeper” to the European 1435 mm rail network.
RB Rail: Who’s got the upper hand?
RB Rail’s shareholder agreement was signed on the 28th of October. The photograph taken after the signing ceremony shows, who had the upper hand in October’s negotiations.
 |
| Palo, Matiss and Sinkevicius: Who's got the upper hand? (photo LETA/diena.lv) |
However, it is hard to understand the Lithuanians fetish to argue about the Vilnius connection with the other Baltic states. The fate of Lithuania's internal Kaunas-Vilnius connections’ financing lies completely on the hands of the European Council, never mind how much or how little Estonia and Latvia support it. Hopefully the Lithuanian mastery of negotiation tactics will be next time used in Brussels, to the benefit of Rail Baltic and Baltic states.
Latvian Minister of Transport Mr. Matiss was optimistic after the signing ceremony: “I am convinced that the signing of the Contract will ensure the implementation of Rail Baltica II.” But to be honest, starting a statement with “I am convinced” does not sound too convincing.
Another shade of the Latvian attitude towards Rail Baltic can be heard in the comments of Latvian Rail Baltic manager Dins Merirands, who did not want to rule out a partial failure of the project. Mr. Merirands pointed out that in a tripartite project like Rail Baltic there is always a risk that the “will” to finish the project may not be always shared by all the participants. But then again, Mr. Merirands reasoned that everyone should work hard in the Rail Baltic project, in order to get at least something done. “Even the separate elements of this infrastructure could be used for the benefit and the purpose of what they were built for.” (Mr. Merirands comments are at 23 minutes of this video recording, taped at the Globālās transporta kustības vīzija 2050 conference in Riga on the 14th of September 2014).
Estonian Minister of transport Urve Palo was more or less forced to sign the shareholder’s agreement, as that was the only way to move forward with the project. After the signing ceremony Ms. Palo did not comment on the past problems of the project, and opted to concentrate on the future instead. She stated that the most urgent tasks for RB Rail are to prepare the financing application ASAP, contact the European Commission, prepare the business plan and evaluate the benefits of the project.
It is an excellent idea to contact European Commission, and ask whether all the planned adjustments to project plan are acceptable for the financier. If RB Rail’s finance application is made according to the specifics that have been presented in the ministerial declarations and joint statements, the EC will need to consider issues like “Does it matter who owns the infrastructure, once it has been constructed using EU financing?” and “Is it all right if the 1435 mm 240 km/h railway from Tallinn leads to Vilnius, instead of Poland?”.
The European Commission and the Vilnius Issue
AECOM’s extensive Feasibility study from 2011 found project Rail Baltic to be feasible and eligible for EU funding, but the feasibility was based on assumption of a double track 240 km/h railway from Tallinn all the way down to the Polish border. Currently the “bottom 100 km” from Kaunas to the Polish border is a slow speed single track connection, with only a fraction of the capacity that would be required to digest the cargo and passenger flows between Kaunas to Europe.
However credible or incredible the Lithuanians’ arguments for a new Kaunas-Vilnius track are, the state of the current 1520 mm connection between Kaunas and Vilnius should also be considered. It is the highest quality railway in Lithuania at the moment, and it would serve as an ideal connection for Kaunas area’s intermodal terminals and future Rail Baltic connections to north and south. This is how Lithuanian Railways illustrates the dramatic improvement in the 1520 mm connection between Kaunas and Vilnius, achieved with the help of EU funding:
Conclusion: To Vilnius or not to Vilnius?
The Vilnius issue has delayed Rail Baltic, and it looks like the problem might possibly have been solved now. However, moments of optimism have often been followed by a return to harsh reality. Here's a recap of the situation:- Lithuania wants to add Kaunas-Vilnius connection to the Rail Baltic 2 project to maximize its stake of EU financing.
- Estonia and Latvia have not opposed the idea of constructing a 1435 mm railway from Kaunas to Vilnius per se, but their logical view has been that there is no reason to complicate the already daunting project Rail Baltic. Kaunas-Vilnius is purely Lithuania's domestic issue, and they should discuss it directly with Brussels.
- Eventually a compromise was reached, and RB Rail's shareholders' agreement was signed in October. Lithuania was happy because the "Vilnius provision" was included in the agreement after onerous negotiations, while Estonia and Latvia were probably pleased with the “each country will co-finance the railway construction only within its own territory” clause added to the agreement.
The European Commission has been following this Baltic mud wrestling act mostly on the sidelines. Considering that we are talking about a 4+ Billion euros project, the EC might consider taking a bit more vocal role. Giving clear guidelines of what can and what can not be included in the Rail Baltic 2 finance application would help. Creating a sense of urgency and instigating the fear of missing the 3 Billion euros financing to other TEN-T Priority Projects would help keep the Rail Baltic folks in Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius well motivated and focused. Money is the ultimate motivator.
 |
| “The Rail Baltic Task Force continue working on the establishment of the Rail Baltic Joint Venture as mandated by the ministers” (Source: Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Latvia) |
This article is based mostly on information available on public internet sites. If you are interested in more in-depth analysis on Rail Baltic issues, do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail, esa.nurkka@gmail.com.
Rail Baltic – Autumn up-date
(This is an English language summary of recent Finnish
language Rail Baltic monitoring comments and analysis from Baltirail
website.)
Rail Baltic – Autumn up-date
(Esa Nurkka, 15.10.2014)
Baltic countries were supposed to launch the RB Rail joint company on 23rd of August in Riga, as a part of Baltic Way 25th anniversary celebration. Unfortunately the signing ceremony had to be called off. Since then the schedule for establishing the Baltic joint company has been adjusted a few times, and further readjustments might be on the way.
Adjustments to Rail Baltic’s schedule
23.8.2014 The Baltic joint company was not established, but the Lithuanian Minister of Transport Rimantas Sinkevicius stated that the delay was only due to technicalities, according to him “the shareholders’ agreement had been prepared and the talks were over.” At the time, Mr Sinkevicius believed that the joint company could be launched already in September, as soon as the Estonians had established their national Rail Baltic company.
3.10.2014 Estonian Minister of Transport, Ms. Urve Palo announced the establishment of Rail Baltic Estonia OÜ, and appointed Mr. Indrek Orav as the head of the company. Already on October the 4th Transport Minister of Latvia Anrijs Matijss stated that the Baltic joint company would be established in Riga already in mid-October.
13.10.2014 Latvian Transport Minister Matiss readjusted the date of the signing ceremony, it was now scheduled to Tuesday 28.10.2014. Depending on the source, the shareholders’ agreement “will be signed” or “is planned to be signed” on October the 28th.
According to Baltic News Service, even Estonian Economic Ministry’s adviser Rasmus Ruuda had confirmed that Estonia was indeed ready to sign the shareholders’ agreement. Unfortunately we do not know the exact background of Mr. Ruuda’s comment. He may have answered to a question like “Now that Rail Baltic Estonia OÜ has finally been established, do you have the technical ability to sign RB Rail’s shareholders’ agreement?” or maybe even “Has Estonia agreed with Latvia and Lithuania on the exact wording of the shareholders’ agreement, and is thus ready to sign?”
14.10.2014 Lithuanian Rail Baltic Statyba's CEO Dainius Budrys visited Panevezys municipality to discuss Rail Baltic's impact to Panevezys area. Nothing wrong with that, but according to local newspaper article, Mr Budrys had told that the financing application for EU funds would be submitted only in 2016. Hopefully that does not present the official view of the Lithuanian Rail Baltic team.
The Lithuanian views
Lithuania has been actively spreading its own views on Rail Baltic and rail transportation. Here are some recent examples:
8.10.2014 Lithuania released a 40 minutes long Youtube video, showing a helicopter view of 101 kilometers of Rail Baltic track and construction sites between Kaunas and Polish border. According to Lithuanian Railways, more than 50 % of the work has already been done:
Maybe the purpose of this video was to demonstrate that the 373 million euros of EU and NIB funding are being well spent. As an interesting side note, the Lithuanian Railways’ fully owned infra subsidiary UAB Geležinkelio Tiesimo Centras generated record profits in 2013, driven by strong revenue growth from Rail Baltic projects. That is a shrewd way to cover a part of internal funding that is required in EU projects.
9.10.2014 Vice-Minister of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Lithuania Arijandas Šliupas stated, that Lithuania embraces EU’s aim to optimize management of rail infrastructure as well as preserve its competitiveness. However, Lithuania wants to hang on to a model, where one state-owned company can manage both infrastructure and passenger and freight transportation without competition also in the future. This might become a problem, when the management issues of Rail Baltic are negotiated.
13.10.2014 Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Lithuania published a “feasibility study” on Kaunas-Vilnius connection‘s affect to Rail Baltica project. The project was prepared by AECOM, and it found “great potential” in connecting Vilnius and Kaunas city centers as well as Vilnius and Kaunas airports with a 1435 mm railway. The cost of the connection was estimated at 850 million euros, and according to Minister of Transport and Communications in Lithuania Rimantas Sinkevicius “we shall submit the application [for EU’s structural funds] now, but it is difficult to expect funding in this [2014-2020] period”. Mr. Sinkevicius did not clarify, whether “we” in his comment referred to Lithuania or the Baltic joint company.
How about Latvia?
Latvian Railways is not interested in Rail Baltic. Latvijas Dzelzcelss (LDz) CEO Ugis Magonis stated in August, that Rail Baltic might be financially feasible for Estonia, but not for Latvia. In September Magonis reiterated his view at Globālās transporta kustības vīzija 2050 seminar, where he stated that for LDz only the east-west -direction is meaningful and “Russia is the market”. Latvian Ministry of Transport seems to be of the same view, at least at the above-mentioned seminar a Transport Ministry spokesman very carefully avoided committing too keenly on Rail Baltic.
In order to get the Rail Baltic train finally moving…
There are only four months to set up the RB Rail company in Riga, prepare the common finance application and submit it to CEF. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should now prioritize the “original” Rail Baltic 2 railway, the one that leads from Tallinn via Riga and Kaunas to Polish border.
If Kaunas-Vilnius -connection cannot be set aside for a while, it should be handled as a completely separate issue. Call it Rail Baltic 3, or whatever. Although Kaunas-Vilnius connection with its airport loops is purely Lithuania’s internal project, Estonia and Latvia are free to support its applications for EU funding as much as they want to. However, Estonia and Latvia are ever-never going to commit themselves to obtaining a positive financing decision for Kaunas-Vilnius connection from Brussels. If Lithuania does not recognize this, the whole process is a waste of time and money.
If it becomes obvious that the shareholders’ agreement cannot be signed by the end of October, the Baltic countries should not start blaming each other for the situation. Maybe European Commission officials could take a stronger role in the negotiations, and help the Baltic countries understand what can be done and what cannot be done.
Although the views presented in this article are not very optimistic, and at times they might even be cynical, I still do hope that RB Rail will be established during 2014 and one common finance application will be submitted to CEF in January 2015. Missing the current financing window would paralyze or possibly even kill the whole project, and that would mark a truly bad start for Lithuania as a new euro country.
Rail Baltic – Autumn up-date
(Esa Nurkka, 15.10.2014)
Baltic countries were supposed to launch the RB Rail joint company on 23rd of August in Riga, as a part of Baltic Way 25th anniversary celebration. Unfortunately the signing ceremony had to be called off. Since then the schedule for establishing the Baltic joint company has been adjusted a few times, and further readjustments might be on the way.
Adjustments to Rail Baltic’s schedule
23.8.2014 The Baltic joint company was not established, but the Lithuanian Minister of Transport Rimantas Sinkevicius stated that the delay was only due to technicalities, according to him “the shareholders’ agreement had been prepared and the talks were over.” At the time, Mr Sinkevicius believed that the joint company could be launched already in September, as soon as the Estonians had established their national Rail Baltic company.
3.10.2014 Estonian Minister of Transport, Ms. Urve Palo announced the establishment of Rail Baltic Estonia OÜ, and appointed Mr. Indrek Orav as the head of the company. Already on October the 4th Transport Minister of Latvia Anrijs Matijss stated that the Baltic joint company would be established in Riga already in mid-October.
13.10.2014 Latvian Transport Minister Matiss readjusted the date of the signing ceremony, it was now scheduled to Tuesday 28.10.2014. Depending on the source, the shareholders’ agreement “will be signed” or “is planned to be signed” on October the 28th.
According to Baltic News Service, even Estonian Economic Ministry’s adviser Rasmus Ruuda had confirmed that Estonia was indeed ready to sign the shareholders’ agreement. Unfortunately we do not know the exact background of Mr. Ruuda’s comment. He may have answered to a question like “Now that Rail Baltic Estonia OÜ has finally been established, do you have the technical ability to sign RB Rail’s shareholders’ agreement?” or maybe even “Has Estonia agreed with Latvia and Lithuania on the exact wording of the shareholders’ agreement, and is thus ready to sign?”
14.10.2014 Lithuanian Rail Baltic Statyba's CEO Dainius Budrys visited Panevezys municipality to discuss Rail Baltic's impact to Panevezys area. Nothing wrong with that, but according to local newspaper article, Mr Budrys had told that the financing application for EU funds would be submitted only in 2016. Hopefully that does not present the official view of the Lithuanian Rail Baltic team.
The Lithuanian views
Lithuania has been actively spreading its own views on Rail Baltic and rail transportation. Here are some recent examples:
8.10.2014 Lithuania released a 40 minutes long Youtube video, showing a helicopter view of 101 kilometers of Rail Baltic track and construction sites between Kaunas and Polish border. According to Lithuanian Railways, more than 50 % of the work has already been done:
Maybe the purpose of this video was to demonstrate that the 373 million euros of EU and NIB funding are being well spent. As an interesting side note, the Lithuanian Railways’ fully owned infra subsidiary UAB Geležinkelio Tiesimo Centras generated record profits in 2013, driven by strong revenue growth from Rail Baltic projects. That is a shrewd way to cover a part of internal funding that is required in EU projects.
9.10.2014 Vice-Minister of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Lithuania Arijandas Šliupas stated, that Lithuania embraces EU’s aim to optimize management of rail infrastructure as well as preserve its competitiveness. However, Lithuania wants to hang on to a model, where one state-owned company can manage both infrastructure and passenger and freight transportation without competition also in the future. This might become a problem, when the management issues of Rail Baltic are negotiated.
13.10.2014 Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Lithuania published a “feasibility study” on Kaunas-Vilnius connection‘s affect to Rail Baltica project. The project was prepared by AECOM, and it found “great potential” in connecting Vilnius and Kaunas city centers as well as Vilnius and Kaunas airports with a 1435 mm railway. The cost of the connection was estimated at 850 million euros, and according to Minister of Transport and Communications in Lithuania Rimantas Sinkevicius “we shall submit the application [for EU’s structural funds] now, but it is difficult to expect funding in this [2014-2020] period”. Mr. Sinkevicius did not clarify, whether “we” in his comment referred to Lithuania or the Baltic joint company.
How about Latvia?
Latvian Railways is not interested in Rail Baltic. Latvijas Dzelzcelss (LDz) CEO Ugis Magonis stated in August, that Rail Baltic might be financially feasible for Estonia, but not for Latvia. In September Magonis reiterated his view at Globālās transporta kustības vīzija 2050 seminar, where he stated that for LDz only the east-west -direction is meaningful and “Russia is the market”. Latvian Ministry of Transport seems to be of the same view, at least at the above-mentioned seminar a Transport Ministry spokesman very carefully avoided committing too keenly on Rail Baltic.
There are only four months to set up the RB Rail company in Riga, prepare the common finance application and submit it to CEF. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should now prioritize the “original” Rail Baltic 2 railway, the one that leads from Tallinn via Riga and Kaunas to Polish border.
If Kaunas-Vilnius -connection cannot be set aside for a while, it should be handled as a completely separate issue. Call it Rail Baltic 3, or whatever. Although Kaunas-Vilnius connection with its airport loops is purely Lithuania’s internal project, Estonia and Latvia are free to support its applications for EU funding as much as they want to. However, Estonia and Latvia are ever-never going to commit themselves to obtaining a positive financing decision for Kaunas-Vilnius connection from Brussels. If Lithuania does not recognize this, the whole process is a waste of time and money.
If it becomes obvious that the shareholders’ agreement cannot be signed by the end of October, the Baltic countries should not start blaming each other for the situation. Maybe European Commission officials could take a stronger role in the negotiations, and help the Baltic countries understand what can be done and what cannot be done.
Although the views presented in this article are not very optimistic, and at times they might even be cynical, I still do hope that RB Rail will be established during 2014 and one common finance application will be submitted to CEF in January 2015. Missing the current financing window would paralyze or possibly even kill the whole project, and that would mark a truly bad start for Lithuania as a new euro country.
Rail Baltic - Connecting Europe or Connecting Vilnius? (part 3/3)
Rail Baltic - Connecting Europe or Connecting Vilnius?
Esa Nurkka, 12.9.2014Project Rail Baltic’s target is to link the three Baltic countries and Finland to the European 1435 mm rail network in Poland and the rest of Europe. The first part of the project (Rail Baltic 1) involved refurbishing the existing 1520 mm track in Baltic, and the second part (Rail Baltic 2) consists of the construction of a new north-south double track 1435 mm railway through Baltic.
Rail Baltic in Estonia
Estonia has been evaluating different route options and doing preparatory work like Environmental impact assessments and preliminary design of construction work. Estonian government has also authorized Minister Urve Palo to set up a Rail Baltica holding company, which will be the shareholder of the Baltic joint company. Considering the fact that establishing the Baltic joint company has been “under construction” for two years, the project has proceeded in Estonia satisfactorily.
Rail Baltic in Latvia
Situation is the same as in Estonia, preparatory work has been done. The transport ministry of Latvia has confirmed its readiness for the Baltic joint company, and established a holding company to own one third of the Baltic joint company.
Rail Baltic in Lithuania, from Latvian border to Kaunas
The Lithuanian government decided in June 2014 to align Rail Baltic from Latvian border to Kaunas through Panevezys (the eastern option) instead of Siuaulia (the western option). Unfortunately Prime Minister Sinkevicius pointed out that, depending on the success of Kaunas-Vilnius line’s EU financing application, the decision might be reconsidered. The problem with this comment is, that no decision from Brussels is to be expected until 2017, at the earliest.
Rail Baltic in Lithuania, from Kaunas to Polish border
First the good news. The European gauge railway from Polish border to Kaunas should be finished already in 2015. Some parts of the track were constructed in 2011, and the work was restarted in 2013. There are currently 5 general contractors, who are busy working on the track south of Kaunas. The 373 million euros project is being financed by Nordic Investment Bank, EU structural funds and the Lithuanian Railways.
This is basically good news, but… AECOM’s feasibility study from 2011 suggested a new dual track 1435 mm railway from Tallinn all the way down to Polish/Lithuanian border. However, in this section Lithuania opted to combine refurbishing of old 1520 mm track and construction of a new 1435 mm track.
As we can see in the video, the old 1520 railway has many twists and turns. Building a new 1435 mm railway alongside the old one means, that the maximum speed will be only 120 km/h for passenger trains and 80 km/h for freight trains.
At the moment Lithuanian Railways is looking for tenders for the design and technical construction supervision of Rail Baltica section Rokai – Palemonas – Kaunas. According to the tender document, the project’s targets can be achieved “either by having a double railway line with the 1435mm track inside the 1520mm track or the 1435mm one being built by the side of the 1520mm one”.
That sounds slightly worrying, and a bit more ambitious target for the project would have been advisable. When a double track 240 km/h railway from Tallinn transforms in Kaunas into a single track 120 km/h railway, a severe bottleneck is created. If transportation flows from Vilnius direction are squeezed into the same channel, due to dual-gauge portions of the railway, the situation gets even worse.
A 7 km dual gauge 1435/1520 mm track from Mockava to Sestokai was finished already in 2011
Although the southern section of Rail Baltic looks like a bottleneck, it is still better than no connection at all. The Polish part of Rail Baltic is going to be an upgraded version of an old 1435 mm gauge track, and the top speed over there is going to be 160 km/h. Thus the most optimistic scenarios about travel time from Tallinn to Warsaw and Berlin will not be reality in 2024, when the Baltic part of Rail Baltic should be finished.
Rail Baltic in Lithuania, from Kaunas to Vilnius?
This is how project Rail Baltic looked like in 2007. The alignment of the route has evolved over the years, but the basic reasoning behind the project is still the same.
Even in 2012 the vision was clear. In this video Lithuania’s erstwhile Minister of Transport Eligijus Masiulis describes the benefits and potential of developing intermodal services in Kaunas and smaller cities south of Kaunas, like Marijampole, Sestokai and Mockava.
Only in 2013 Lithuania came up with the idea of adding Vilnius to Rail Baltic. It started as a humble wish, but in September Lithuanian Ministry of Transport managed to lure Estonian and Latvian ministers into signing a joint declaration, where the ministers, more or less, agreed to adding Vilnius into Rail Baltic and getting 85 % financing for it from Connecting Europe Facility. Unfortunately the ministers had no authority to make such decisions.
In October 2013 Lithuania released a Rail Baltica News video update, where they subtly and skillfully forwarded the message, that Vilnius would indeed be a part of Rail Baltic. The style of the video is a hilarious mix of the Muppet Show and a Hunger Games movie trailer, but the message delivered by the host of the video is, albeit hidden underneath rather complex grammatical structures, clear:
"Ministers responsible for the transport from five countries signed a declaration, in which they agreed in regards to the implementation of the second stage of the Rail Baltica project, also known as Rail Baltica 2, where European standard tracks will stretch across Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, and as is planned in the white paper, will connect the capital cities of all the nations mentioned above."
As the deadline for setting up the Baltic joint company was missed on 1.1.2014, Lithuania had to change tactics. During spring and early summer 2014 Lithuanians delivered numerous fake positive comments about the progress of Rail Baltic negotiations, and eventually managed to fool Prime Ministers of Estonia and Latvia to sign another Joint statement on 21.6.2014. And once again, the ministers agreed that it would be cool to get financing for Kaunas-Vilnius connection from the Connecting Europe Facility.
How Lithuanians justify their “Connecting Vilnius” agenda in the Rail Baltica project
“According to the white paper, Rail Baltic is meant to connect all the Capital cities.”
However: Also Finland and Finnish capital Helsinki have been part of Rail Baltic from day one. If Helsinki is connected to Rail Baltic only via ferry, the existing 1520 mm railway from Kaunas to Vilnius should do as well. No-one has (seriously) demanded that Helsinki should be connected to Rail Baltic with a fixed 1435 mm railway as a part of the current Rail Baltic PP27 project. Unless you believe in the official Rail Baltica web page managed by Lithuanian Railways, which boldly suggests a railway bridge from Tallinn to Helsinki.
“Vilnius produces 40 % of GDP in Lithuania.”
However: Critics claim that a major part of Vilnius’ GDP derives from administration.
“Lithuania needs to protect its national interest, it is just sensible to try maximize the portion of EU funding for the project.”
However: The governments of three Baltic countries committed to the basic terms of this project already in 2011.
“Lithuania is a sovereign state and will not let Latvians and Estonians decide where and when to build railway lines.” or “We have a decision adopted by Seimas...”
However: It’s not about Estonia and Latvia, or Seimas. The money comes from the European Commission, and they decide how that money should be spent.
Some facts about Lithuania
- Lithuania is a member EU (not the Comecon) and NATO (not The Warsaw Pact), and Lithuania intends to adopt Euro (not Ruble) in the beginning of 2015.
- Lithuania’s geographical position may be problematic in war-time, but it is good for business. Any fluent landline connection from north to continental Europe, or from the Baltic Sea (or Kaliningrad) to East, goes via Lithuania.
- The railway branches Kiev–Minsk–Vilnius–Klaipeda and Kaunas–Kaliningrad carry about 90% of all railway transit cargo and about 70% of the railway passenger transportation in Lithuania.
- The current 1520 mm railway between Kaunas and Vilnius is the best one there is in Lithuania.
- Lithuanians know how to bargain.
- Lithuania wants to prioritize a 1435 mm branch line from Kaunas to Vilnius, while the capacity of the 1435 mm railway between Kaunas and the Polish border is only a fraction of what it was supposed to be. Thus AECOM's Rail Baltic feasibility calculations are not valid. A smooth connection to Europe was the basic idea behind Rail Baltic, but now it seems that Estonians and Latvians might have to settle with a smooth connection to Vilnius.
- The Baltic countries hope to sign the shareholders’ agreement for RB Rail in October, and submit the finance application to Brussels immediately thereafter. Hopefully that happens. However, if the common joint company cannot be established, submitting separate finance applications would be a bad idea. But then again, the officials at Connecting Europe Facility would probably turn down separate applications anyway.
- It is hard to say what are the real reasons behind Lithuania’s reluctance towards Rail Baltic, but here are some possible explanations:
- Constructing a branch line to Vilnius might nevertheless be a good idea, although no-one outside Vilnius understands it at this moment.
- Lithuania may be just bargaining for a bigger portion of the EU financing of Rail Baltic.
- Maybe politics are involved. Russia does have a lot of influence in Lithuanian Railways (and thus The Ministry of Transport), and maybe the historical tensions between Kaunas and Vilnius could also play a role. It is a funny coincidence, that although Lithuania has disagreed on most things about Rail Baltic, they have never contested the decision to establish the Baltic RB Rail company in Riga. Of course, the natural Lithuanian alternative for Riga would be Kaunas, and that is something that the Lithuanian Transport Ministry, with head quarters in Vilnius, would not like.
- There has been some speculation about Lithuanian Railways' strategic plan to become the logistic center for transportation to North-Western Russia and St. Petersburg area. If that plan is based solely on 1520 mm railway lines, Rail Baltic might be a competitor for it. But on the other hand, if Lithuanian Railways' future strategy is founded on just a single customer, they might need to take a look around. Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Energy could educate the Ministry of Transport about the pros and cons of operating with just a single customer or supplier.
23.5.2013 MEP Roberts Zile from Latvia and MEP Ivari Padar from Estonia discuss Rail Baltic:
2.10.2013 A Lithuanian language presentation on Rail Baltic:
19.2.2014 A Lithuanian current affairs program about Rail Baltic:
26.5.2014 Helicopter footage from Rail Baltic construction in Marijampoléje:
1.8.2014 Helicopter footage from Rail Baltic construction in Mauručiai:
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)