The inspection of the support of the "Rail Baltica" bridge on the Daugava and the railway overpass near the airport revealed only partial fulfillment of the government's decision.
A service inspection of the unfinished support of the "Rail Baltica" bridge on the Daugava and the initiated railway overpass in Marupe concluded that the government's decision was only partially implemented, as the government established different project priorities, reported LETA agency, citing Peteris Vilks, Deputy Director of the State Chancellery for State Development and Intersectoral Management, Head of the Interagency Coordination Department.
He pointed out that the government's decision was partially fulfilled, as the government clearly defined other project priorities, rather than the construction of the southern connection to Riga Airport and the bridge over the Daugava. "This was certainly a process to stop it, because commitments were made both to the European Union and to the builders. That is, construction was partially ongoing due to inertia and continued," Vilks explained.
He clarified that the inspection assessed how accurately the government's decision from December 10, 2024, was executed, which was the first attempt to revise the entire project. Prior to this, the project's costs mainly increased, and the scope of work expanded, but a review of financing was not conducted.
The government's decision from December 10, 2024, stipulates that the tasks of the first phase are to be fulfilled in accordance with available financing, without incurring financial obligations without appropriate coverage, according to the protocol decision of the Cabinet of Ministers.
Vilks also reported that the service commission noted individual facts, received clarifications from the Ministry of Transport and the company "Eiropas dzelzceļa līnijas" (EDzL), and this information will be forwarded to the Prosecutor General's Office.
At the government meeting on Tuesday, Minister of Economics Viktor Valainis stated that, essentially, based on the builder's conclusion, a decision was made that contradicted the government's decision. "The builders' lobby proved stronger than the government's decision," the minister said.
The report confirms that institutions continued to invest in projects that were already known not to be implemented, thereby diverting funding from other sectors of the economy.
The minister expressed the opinion that after the government's decision on the priorities of the main route, all subsequent decisions should have been made at the government level or, at the very least, the government should have been fully informed about what was happening. According to Valainis, the situation once again confirms the existence of significant problems in project management. Although ministers changed during the project, the problem is deeper, so a serious discussion about the management model of the Ministry of Transport is necessary.
The minister also emphasized that in this case, the decisions made by the government were ignored. He pointed out that although the enterprise is responsible for the project's implementation, its shareholder - the Ministry of Transport - had a specific task from the government that was not fulfilled.
According to Valainis, the government had the right to decide on the acceptance or prevention of possible risks; however, in this case, the shareholder allowed the investment of several tens of millions of euros in a non-promising direction, although it was known that these investments would not yield results.
Minister of Transport Aitis Shvinka stated that it is difficult to argue if the Ministry of Economics lacks knowledge and competence in certain issues, and the builder is not EDzL, but the general partnership "B.S.L. Infra" (the railway station "Rail Baltica" and related infrastructure at Riga Airport), while the builder of the Riga Central Hub is "BeReRix." EDzL is the national executor of the project, representing Latvia in this process, while the construction is carried out by the builder.
The Minister of Transport also indicated that the Ministry of Transport does not agree with all the conclusions of the service inspection.
