In Estonia, the construction of the Rail Baltica railway connection, its costs and the benefits to the country have once again come under public scrutiny. Among the questions raised is whether we should halt the now more expensive project. My message to both decision-makers and project leaders is clear: we must complete what we have started. This is important to us both politically and from a security standpoint, and the construction phase of Rail Baltica will bring in a billion euros in taxes for the state, while also stimulating our economy.

When discussing Rail Baltica, I would first emphasize the importance of this connection. Although it has been clear for years that, from a purely economic perspective, this is not a profitable project when comparing the construction costs to the expected revenue from passenger transport. Building the railway is an expensive undertaking, and it is unlikely that the investment will be recouped through passenger transport revenue. Additionally, until we have a rail tunnel connection to Finland, it is hard to see large-scale freight traffic between Estonia and the rest of Europe commencing.

However, from a political standpoint, the railway sends a clear message – we are an integral part of the European Union, with a fast connection to other European countries. By building Rail Baltica, we also demonstrate that we consider this connection important enough to establish.

The second aspect that we as a nation should not overlook is security. Of course, in the event of a direct military conflict, some railway bridges might be bombed and not repaired within a day or two. But as a message, Rail Baltic clearly signals to any potential aggressor that if substantial amounts of equipment and troops need to be brought here preemptively, it can be done very quickly and on a large scale by rail.

Prices change over time entirely normal

Turning now to the cost of the railway, which has recently caused an uproar, it is clear that large projects like this become significantly more expensive over time. If we thought ten or even seven years ago that a construction project would cost a certain amount, it is unrealistic to expect that it would cost the same today or only slightly more.

I recently took a look back in history and calculated that about 30 years ago, at the beginning of Estonia's re-independence, a family could live in Tallinn for a month on €10 – including food, clothing, utilities, etc. Today, €10 might get you three cups of coffee.

It is evident that we cannot foresee everything with major projects, and if we estimated around a decade ago that an infrastructure project would cost €1.3 billion, we cannot expect it to still cost €1.3 billion today.

Take, for example, the construction of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in Finland across the bay. The completion times for such projects inevitably extend, sometimes even several times over. Similarly, the costs increase because it is impossible to predict every last detail of massive construction projects. Developments in the surrounding environment, changes in regulations and technical solutions, among other things, affect construction.

If we consider our personal budgets and think, for example, that we plan to start building a house in ten years, with a projected cost of €500,000, we can be more than certain that we won't manage with the planned €500,000 if we still want the same kind of house. Energy, labor and materials all become more expensive over time.

Effect on economy and jobs

The second aspect of Rail Baltica is the financing model for its construction. So far, the European Union has funded 85 percent of the project, and assuming this proportion continues, Estonia's share of the €3 billion construction cost will be €450 million. However, based on studies and practices from various parts of the world, the state will recover a billion euros from these €3 billion in taxes. If the construction cost ends up being €4 billion, our expenditure will be €600 million, and €1.3 billion will be returned to the state budget in taxes. In any case, the state budget will receive significantly more revenue than we invest – provided the state's co-financing share in the financing model does not change.

The construction of Rail Baltica is also critically important from the perspective of the infrastructure construction sector. If we do not wish to see this field die out in Estonia and lose highly qualified specialists with the necessary engineering knowledge, it is essential to continue.

The underfunding of road maintenance over the past two years has already led to the halving of Estonia's asphalt production capacity, as there have been almost no major orders, and companies have accordingly cut back their resources. Fortunately, other key infrastructure construction workers, from engineers, designers and project managers to various machinery operators and other specialists, are already significantly involved in the construction of Rail Baltica facilities. As the construction of the main line sections expands, they will become even more engaged.

Essentially, the infrastructure construction sector in Estonia currently survives mainly on railway construction. If we were to halt this now, an entire school of road construction would die out as people move to other fields. If we then decide to start building again in the future, we would no longer have the local capacity. Training new specialists, along with practical work experience, takes 7-8 years, and during this period or even longer, foreign companies would come to build our roads and railways.

While the asphalt sector has been undermined, our local infrastructure construction capacity remains largely intact in other areas. As I mentioned, building the railway with EU assistance is very sensible and beneficial for us in terms of tax revenue – so let's use this capacity. Otherwise, if we simply abandon the idea of Rail Baltica construction now, our economy would take a significant hit, and the European Union would likely demand repayment of the EU support. Or, if we take a break of two or three years, preserve the already built viaducts and eco-ducts, and leave them as museum exhibits in the forests and fields, waiting to see what happens next, we would become a laughingstock in the eyes of the rest of the world – a small, peripheral nation that made ambitious plans, overestimated itself and tried to leap beyond its shadow.

We do not want to erect a monument to human folly but to create a modern rail connection with the rest of Europe. It no longer makes much sense to debate whether to build or not to build – the time for such a debate is long past. Let's proceed with the construction and work together to complete the Rail Baltica railway.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!