> When the Rail Baltica project started in 2010, it looked to be one of the most transformative train projects Europe has seen this century. An 870-kilometer (540-mile) railway line running at speeds of up to 234 kilometers per hour (145 miles per hour), the new link was supposed to be running services across the Baltic states from Tallinn in Estonia south to the Polish border and beyond by 2026. Trains this fast along this route are a revolutionary concept. High-speed rail may now be common between major cities in Europe’s heavily built-up west, but it remains rare in northern Europe, and all but unheard of in its sparsely populated Northeast. With Rail Baltica in place, journey times from Tallinn to Warsaw — roughly the same distance as New York City to Detroit — could fall from 22 hours to just seven.
> Rail Baltica would provide more than just speed, however. It remains, in an unusually literal sense, a European integration project, a political tool somewhat akin to China’s new high-speed rail links to southeast Asia. Intended to re-orient the Baltic region’s rail network on a north-south axis, the link would not just speed rail access to the European Union heartlands and provide a green alternative to air travel, but also harmonize the rail gauge between the Baltic countries and the rest of the continental EU. This would remove current barriers to speedy border crossing.
> The project was first proposed as a sustainability measure. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has given the railway the potential to be something more — a tool to emphasize EU solidarity with its easternmost members and to help reroute goods flow in a region where past trade routes have been disrupted. “Rail Baltica is a connection for people and goods, but its security dimension has only grown over time,” Estonian President Alar Karis wrote in an op-ed in June.
> Right now it’s not entirely clear when these goals will be delivered on. A shortlist of five companies was chosen to complete construction this November, but cost estimates have almost tripled, and the project’s delivery pushed back from 2026 to 2030. This date itself is also not guaranteed, because Rail Baltica still has a gap in its funding and it is unsure where it will come from. While the project is still very much alive — its key section in Estonia may even be completed early — progress has been so slow that one commentator has dubbed the project “low-speed rail.”
> The project is badly needed because Baltic state railways are currently one of the European rail network’s greatest anomalies. Despite joining the EU 20 years ago, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have lines that still run on a Russian gauge different from that of most of the union. While trains can run seamlessly in and out of the Baltic states’ increasingly hostile Eastern neighbor, Baltic passengers traveling to Poland — the region’s chief land gateway to central and western Europe — have to change trains at the border. This slows travel down drastically and may have disincentivized upgrades in the past. Traveling from Warsaw to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius currently takes longer by train than by car — eight hours versus six — an all-but-unprecedented situation in Europe for two adjacent capitals. Making this route speedier could have clear economic benefits.
> Delivering better passenger rail times to the Baltic states’ modest joint population of 7.5 million might not have become as much of an international priority, however, were in not for Rail Baltica’s potential strategic significance. A fully integrated rail system could help the region defend itself in the case of open hostilities with an increasingly belligerent Russia, with European connections becoming yet more important if US President-elect Donald Trump softens American officials’ previously strained relationship with Russia.
> Rail Baltica’s proposed route from Lithuania to Poland runs through one of Europe’s most strategically significant regions: The “Suwałki Gap,” a narrow 104 kilometer (65 mile) corridor that — sandwiched between Belarus and the vulnerable Russian exclave of Kaliningrad — represents the Baltic states’ sole land border with the rest of the EU. General Ben Hodges, former commander of the US Army in Europe and current NATO Senior Mentor for Logistics, says the primary military benefit of a fast line with a unified gauge through this region may be as a deterrent. “It’s about demonstrating that NATO forces can move as fast or faster than Russian forces,” he said. “Before an actual crisis begins we want to be able to move heavy equipment, ammunition — we also want to be able to signal to them not to make a terrible mistake because we are prepared.”
> Military concerns aside, Rail Baltica could also help ease a logistical bottleneck created by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Before the invasion escalated in 2022, Ukraine’s vast grain exports usually left the country to markets in Africa, Asia and the Middle East by ship from its Black Sea ports. Russia’s subsequent attempts to blockade the Black Sea have not stopped these exports — Ukrainian shipping has continued on a longer, slower route through Bulgarian, Romanian and Turkish waters. They have nonetheless created a shift towards alternative “solidarity lanes” established by the EU, primarily by rail through Poland. Polish ports are under strain from this increased volume of grain, because it has to be shipped in a timely fashion right after harvest. The Baltics’ ports could help ease the flow, but the disconnect between Baltic and Polish rail gauges makes freight transit slower and more complex. Rail Baltica would ease this process greatly and help to retool part of Europe’s freight map in a way that reflects contemporary realities.
> Unfortunately, predicted costs have skyrocketed from €5.8 billion to €15.3 billion ($5.7 billion to $16.5 billion). Current funding allocations will not cover most of this cost, with the Estonian Audit Office estimating in October 2024 that the current shortfall is at least €10 billion. Rail Baltica’s latest cost-benefit analysis found that overall benefits would still outweigh these costs, delivering €6.6 billion in direct benefits and indirect benefits of between €15.5 to €23.5 billion. Finding the cash to plug the whole will still prove a challenge. The main culprit for the cost rises is inflation. The Baltic states have seen inflation rates exceed 20% in recent years. With every aspect of the project now coming at a far higher cost, the project will likely need to be trimmed down even when, or if, more funding is forthcoming.
> But cost hikes are hardly unprecedented, says Marcelo Blumenfeld, assistant professor in Future Transport Systems at the University of Birmingham. “Sadly, escalating budgets are almost the rule rather than the exception when it comes to railway projects,” he wrote in an email. “The likelihood of needing adjustments in track alignments or other technical requirements is high. Also, high-speed rail necessarily demands electrified lines with sufficient power, and sometimes that itself also requires new infrastructure.” The route from Poland across three countries has also created complexities. Despite being routinely grouped together as a trio, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all independent states and there has been some disagreement along the way on issues such as procurement — should each state do it individually or should they do it jointly?
> A downgrading of some ambitions could thus be imminent. Rail Baltica has always been planned as a trunk railway — that is, along a path taking the most direct route from Poland to Tallinn, with short offshoot lines linking this trunk to Riga and Vilnius. These lines will not be ready by 2030, meaning that travelers may have to change trains (and go back on to the old Russian gauge) to reach these capitals for a few years until all links are complete. Meanwhile, costs are being cut by building only single tracks in places, but leaving space for twin lines in the future. This can be done safely, but only if the number of services is reduced, which might particularly impact slower freight services. There has also been some discussion of not fencing some sections of the line — a cheaper option that would mean trains might have to go slower for safety reasons.
> Were these changes adopted, Rail Baltica wouldn’t be quite the sleek super-fast train initially proposed, but it would still slash journey times and deliver most of the promised benefits. And while extra funding might be controversial, failing to fund the project could be more so. Even if it doesn’t become a Baltic bullet train, the project remains too valuable to be allowed to fail.
1 Comment
> When the Rail Baltica project started in 2010, it looked to be one of the most transformative train projects Europe has seen this century. An 870-kilometer (540-mile) railway line running at speeds of up to 234 kilometers per hour (145 miles per hour), the new link was supposed to be running services across the Baltic states from Tallinn in Estonia south to the Polish border and beyond by 2026. Trains this fast along this route are a revolutionary concept. High-speed rail may now be common between major cities in Europe’s heavily built-up west, but it remains rare in northern Europe, and all but unheard of in its sparsely populated Northeast. With Rail Baltica in place, journey times from Tallinn to Warsaw — roughly the same distance as New York City to Detroit — could fall from 22 hours to just seven.
> Rail Baltica would provide more than just speed, however. It remains, in an unusually literal sense, a European integration project, a political tool somewhat akin to China’s new high-speed rail links to southeast Asia. Intended to re-orient the Baltic region’s rail network on a north-south axis, the link would not just speed rail access to the European Union heartlands and provide a green alternative to air travel, but also harmonize the rail gauge between the Baltic countries and the rest of the continental EU. This would remove current barriers to speedy border crossing.
> The project was first proposed as a sustainability measure. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has given the railway the potential to be something more — a tool to emphasize EU solidarity with its easternmost members and to help reroute goods flow in a region where past trade routes have been disrupted. “Rail Baltica is a connection for people and goods, but its security dimension has only grown over time,” Estonian President Alar Karis wrote in an op-ed in June.
> Right now it’s not entirely clear when these goals will be delivered on. A shortlist of five companies was chosen to complete construction this November, but cost estimates have almost tripled, and the project’s delivery pushed back from 2026 to 2030. This date itself is also not guaranteed, because Rail Baltica still has a gap in its funding and it is unsure where it will come from. While the project is still very much alive — its key section in Estonia may even be completed early — progress has been so slow that one commentator has dubbed the project “low-speed rail.”
> The project is badly needed because Baltic state railways are currently one of the European rail network’s greatest anomalies. Despite joining the EU 20 years ago, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have lines that still run on a Russian gauge different from that of most of the union. While trains can run seamlessly in and out of the Baltic states’ increasingly hostile Eastern neighbor, Baltic passengers traveling to Poland — the region’s chief land gateway to central and western Europe — have to change trains at the border. This slows travel down drastically and may have disincentivized upgrades in the past. Traveling from Warsaw to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius currently takes longer by train than by car — eight hours versus six — an all-but-unprecedented situation in Europe for two adjacent capitals. Making this route speedier could have clear economic benefits.
> Delivering better passenger rail times to the Baltic states’ modest joint population of 7.5 million might not have become as much of an international priority, however, were in not for Rail Baltica’s potential strategic significance. A fully integrated rail system could help the region defend itself in the case of open hostilities with an increasingly belligerent Russia, with European connections becoming yet more important if US President-elect Donald Trump softens American officials’ previously strained relationship with Russia.
> Rail Baltica’s proposed route from Lithuania to Poland runs through one of Europe’s most strategically significant regions: The “Suwałki Gap,” a narrow 104 kilometer (65 mile) corridor that — sandwiched between Belarus and the vulnerable Russian exclave of Kaliningrad — represents the Baltic states’ sole land border with the rest of the EU. General Ben Hodges, former commander of the US Army in Europe and current NATO Senior Mentor for Logistics, says the primary military benefit of a fast line with a unified gauge through this region may be as a deterrent. “It’s about demonstrating that NATO forces can move as fast or faster than Russian forces,” he said. “Before an actual crisis begins we want to be able to move heavy equipment, ammunition — we also want to be able to signal to them not to make a terrible mistake because we are prepared.”
> Military concerns aside, Rail Baltica could also help ease a logistical bottleneck created by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Before the invasion escalated in 2022, Ukraine’s vast grain exports usually left the country to markets in Africa, Asia and the Middle East by ship from its Black Sea ports. Russia’s subsequent attempts to blockade the Black Sea have not stopped these exports — Ukrainian shipping has continued on a longer, slower route through Bulgarian, Romanian and Turkish waters. They have nonetheless created a shift towards alternative “solidarity lanes” established by the EU, primarily by rail through Poland. Polish ports are under strain from this increased volume of grain, because it has to be shipped in a timely fashion right after harvest. The Baltics’ ports could help ease the flow, but the disconnect between Baltic and Polish rail gauges makes freight transit slower and more complex. Rail Baltica would ease this process greatly and help to retool part of Europe’s freight map in a way that reflects contemporary realities.
> Unfortunately, predicted costs have skyrocketed from €5.8 billion to €15.3 billion ($5.7 billion to $16.5 billion). Current funding allocations will not cover most of this cost, with the Estonian Audit Office estimating in October 2024 that the current shortfall is at least €10 billion. Rail Baltica’s latest cost-benefit analysis found that overall benefits would still outweigh these costs, delivering €6.6 billion in direct benefits and indirect benefits of between €15.5 to €23.5 billion. Finding the cash to plug the whole will still prove a challenge. The main culprit for the cost rises is inflation. The Baltic states have seen inflation rates exceed 20% in recent years. With every aspect of the project now coming at a far higher cost, the project will likely need to be trimmed down even when, or if, more funding is forthcoming.
> But cost hikes are hardly unprecedented, says Marcelo Blumenfeld, assistant professor in Future Transport Systems at the University of Birmingham. “Sadly, escalating budgets are almost the rule rather than the exception when it comes to railway projects,” he wrote in an email. “The likelihood of needing adjustments in track alignments or other technical requirements is high. Also, high-speed rail necessarily demands electrified lines with sufficient power, and sometimes that itself also requires new infrastructure.” The route from Poland across three countries has also created complexities. Despite being routinely grouped together as a trio, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all independent states and there has been some disagreement along the way on issues such as procurement — should each state do it individually or should they do it jointly?
> A downgrading of some ambitions could thus be imminent. Rail Baltica has always been planned as a trunk railway — that is, along a path taking the most direct route from Poland to Tallinn, with short offshoot lines linking this trunk to Riga and Vilnius. These lines will not be ready by 2030, meaning that travelers may have to change trains (and go back on to the old Russian gauge) to reach these capitals for a few years until all links are complete. Meanwhile, costs are being cut by building only single tracks in places, but leaving space for twin lines in the future. This can be done safely, but only if the number of services is reduced, which might particularly impact slower freight services. There has also been some discussion of not fencing some sections of the line — a cheaper option that would mean trains might have to go slower for safety reasons.
> Were these changes adopted, Rail Baltica wouldn’t be quite the sleek super-fast train initially proposed, but it would still slash journey times and deliver most of the promised benefits. And while extra funding might be controversial, failing to fund the project could be more so. Even if it doesn’t become a Baltic bullet train, the project remains too valuable to be allowed to fail.
!ping EUROPE&TRANSIT