Sit down, two. With confiscation? What the management of Rail Baltica thinks and what will happen to them for it 0 96

Let us remind you that 2591 students did not meet the minimum threshold, of which 1599 are 11th graders and students of vocational educational institutions. Additionally, 660 students from 12th grade distance learning programs and 332 students from 12th grade general secondary schools and gymnasiums did not pass the mathematics exam at an optimal level.

Against this backdrop, the genuine astonishment of experts and officials regarding how Latvia could mess up such a project as Rail Baltica, for which the European Union brought us billions of European money on a silver platter, seems strange.

How did they calculate this?

Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs emphasized that the Baltic countries need to find ways to revise the project and reduce its cost. According to Kulbergs, it "went beyond" in terms of additional solutions that were not included in the original project model. As one possibility, he mentioned reducing the planned train speeds, which, in the Prime Minister's opinion, could lead to savings.

Kulbergs also questioned the passenger flow calculations. The Prime Minister is puzzled as to why the 2024 study predicts that by 2050, Rail Baltica will be used by 53 million passengers, while the 2011 study mentioned 3.4 million passengers. In his assessment, in such a situation, money is being spent without any connection to reality.

As a result of poor arithmetic knowledge, according to the latest estimate, the cost of the first phase of Rail Baltica in the Baltic countries may reach 14.3 billion euros. Of this amount, Latvia accounts for 5.5 billion euros, but taking into account indexing, costs may rise to six billion euros. The total project cost, according to the cost-benefit analysis, may amount to 23.8 billion euros.

For comparison, in the previous cost-benefit analysis from 2017, the total cost of Rail Baltica was estimated at 5.8 billion euros.

Their rails are longer, but lighter

Political scientist Philipp Raevskis was even more surprised.

As an example of strange decisions, he cited the tender for the purchase of railway switches, which, according to him, ended up costing 40% more. A similar increase in cost occurred with the purchase of rails.

"How could they mess up the tender like that?" the political scientist wondered, expressing hope that Latvia would not end up buying switches and rails at inflated prices and that common sense would prevail in this matter. That is, the ability to count.

Let us remind you that the joint venture of the Baltic countries, AS RB Rail, rejected claims made in the program Nekā personīga that the rails for the Rail Baltica project are being purchased significantly above market price. The company emphasized that comparing a centralized seven-year contract with small one-time purchases by Latvijas dzelzceļš (LDz) is incorrect.

The program's report stated that LDz recently received offers for the purchase of thermally strengthened rails at about 300 euros per ton cheaper than in the RB Rail tender. However, the joint venture explained that these are fundamentally different procurement mechanisms. The consolidated contract is designed for seven years, covers volumes many times larger, and includes guarantees of price, supply, and quality for the entire period.

This is how it is. But wait, has one of the fundamental principles of trade — "bulk is cheaper" — been canceled in the case of Latvia?

RB Rail insists: direct comparison with the purchases of Latvijas dzelzceļš (LDz) is incorrect, as they involve completely different scales and conditions.

We fully agree: rails purchased in giant scales should be much cheaper than a one-time purchase by LDz. If the railway is purchasing relatively small batches of rails for specific current needs, then Rail Baltica is signing a framework agreement for seven years ahead and for a volume of tens of thousands of tons.

Particular attention in the company is also paid to technical differences. For high-speed rail, longer and reinforced rails are used, designed for trains traveling at speeds of up to 249 kilometers per hour. So, maybe the Prime Minister is right? Maybe we don’t need to rush headlong to the West? We still have airBaltic for that, and Ryanair too.

The length of the rails does not change the distance

It is said that the longer the rails, the fewer welded joints on the track. Great, that means the purchased longer rails will contribute to savings. If only it were so. It turns out that longer rails are more expensive. But the total distance of the railway line does not depend on the length of the rails — let’s say, 300 kilometers from border to border will not turn into 400. And another nuance — the cost of rails does not depend on their length, but on weight, and 300 km should weigh the same, whether the path is made of long or short rails. Unless we consider savings on welding work in the first case.

In public discussions, it is particularly actively discussed that Lithuania refused to participate in the joint procurement and purchased part of the rails separately — at a lower price. Perhaps they have different math there.

Expensive "switchmen"

However, they know how to count in Rail Baltica. "This is the same company where the board receives astronomical salaries," noted Raevskis. It’s no surprise if their salaries are counted in tons. And the leaders of the megaproject are counted by dozens — at the enterprise responsible for implementing the project in Latvia, there have been 12 different leaders in almost 12 years of existence. Such high-paid switchmen.

And if we are not politically correct — in the past, such "errors in accounting" were called padding and deception, and also embezzlement of public property. And for them, one could well be "held back for a second year" and longer — up to 15 years according to the verdict.

By the way, about the deadlines: according to experts' estimates, if construction continues without changes, the Latvian section of Rail Baltica will be completed only by 2045.

The most decisive was the former mayor of Ventspils, Aivars Lembergs. He characterized the situation using the principle of safety, pointing out that at moments when losses become inevitable, it is necessary to make a decision to abandon the idea, rather than continue to fight for it at any cost.