RIGA – Latvian lawmakers are calling for a complete redesign of the Rail Baltica project, arguing that the current plans are unaffordable and cannot be sustained by the state budget in the coming years.
The dispute highlights a growing divide between the official diplomatic optimism regarding the Baltic rail network and the fiscal reality facing the Latvian parliament, the Saeima. While the project remains a strategic priority for regional integration, critics within the government warn that funding shortages have already left critical infrastructure unfinished.
Rail Baltica is designed as a new European‑gauge high‑speed line linking Tallinn, Riga, Kaunas and Warsaw, co‑financed under the EU’s Connecting Europe Facility and anchored in the Trans‑European Transport Network (TEN‑T) regulation. For Latvia, it is one of the largest infrastructure commitments since independence – and one that now collides directly with tightening fiscal and defense constraints.
In Riga, the disconnect is visible in the construction of a bridge over the Daugava River, which has been described as a “bridge to nowhere.”
“One can only imagine the speed at which trains could travel from there toward Poland. Unfortunately, the money ran out before the bridge could be completed,” said journalist Ragnar Kond.
Infrastructure Gaps and Route Criticism
Construction has progressed in fragmented pockets, with work starting at the airport terminal, the central railway station, and along the Daugava. However, progress toward the Estonian border has stalled, leaving major stretches of the line as plans on paper rather than a continuous corridor.
Lawmakers have raised specific concerns regarding the utility and design of the current route, which implements decisions endorsed at regional level by the joint venture RB Rail AS and aligned with the EU’s TEN‑T legal framework:
- Urban connectivity: The route is criticized for effectively dividing the country without providing direct, high‑speed connections to larger cities or the capital, Riga, on several stretches.
- Freight and port access: Lawmakers say there is currently no sufficiently integrated planned connection to the port, undermining promised freight and logistics benefits.
- Cost concentration: The plan requires the construction of five high‑cost bridges over the river, concentrating financial risk on a few technically complex structures.
- Scope creep: Integration of various “side projects” – such as adjacent roadworks, station upgrades and real‑estate components – has significantly driven up overall expenditures.
Andris Kulbergs, a member of the United List faction in the Saeima, noted that the route fails to create essential connections, stating, “The route divides the country into two parts, but does not create a connection with any larger city. The train does not reach the capital, Riga, and no connection to the port is being built either. We also have to build five extremely expensive bridges over the river.”
Andris Šuvajevs, chairman of The Progressives faction in the Saeima, added that the project became “entangled in many side projects, which have significantly increased costs.” He stated that efforts have been made over the last two or three years to bring these obligations to public light and reduce them, but that political focus has moved more slowly than the construction timetable.
Defense Spending and Fiscal Constraints
The financial strain on the project coincides with a sharp shift in national security priorities following Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine. Much of the available state funding is being redirected to bolster military capabilities to meet NATO commitments, leaving less fiscal space for long‑horizon infrastructure.
Harijs Rokpelnis, chairman of the Greens and Farmers Union faction in the Saeima, argued that the total cost of the project remains unknown and that defense spending will take precedence over infrastructure.
“The project is so extensive that no one can even now say how much it will cost in total. All the free money that appears in the state budget in the coming years will be directed toward increasing defense spending. Whether there will be additional money left in the budget for Rail Baltica is difficult to say. It is possible that we will have to move forward more slowly.”
Rokpelnis further challenged the official timeline, stating, “In official documents, the completion date for Rail Baltica is still 2030, but anyone with even a little common sense understands that this is not realistic. And not only because of Latvia’s inability.”
The scale of the financial challenge was highlighted by independent MP Aleksandrs Kiršteins, who claimed it is “not possible to find €20 billion” to complete the project as currently envisioned. Kiršteins recommended that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs initiate new talks with Estonian and Lithuanian counterparts and with Brussels to restructure the approach, including possible phasing, rerouting, or a more modest initial standard for parts of the line.
Political Deadlock and Administrative Instability
Despite the vocal criticism, a parliamentary majority still officially supports the project. Edmunds Jurevics, chairman of the New Unity faction in the Saeima, stated that two‑thirds of deputies support Rail Baltica as a strategic investment tying Latvia more tightly into the EU single market and NATO’s logistical backbone. However, this political support has not yet translated into a clear, fully financed medium‑term budget line.
Under the administration of Prime Minister Evika Siliņa, discussions regarding scaling down the project to save costs have occurred, including options to build priority segments first and postpone more complex structures. But no concrete action plan has been implemented, and ministries are still working under earlier commitments even as the fiscal envelope tightens.
The project has also been marked by instability in leadership, with frequent changes in management both within the Ministry of Transport and the company overseeing construction. That churn has complicated coordination with European partners and delayed key procurement and design decisions, according to officials involved in the process.
This administrative volatility occurs as other state‑linked entities face similar pressures; the state airline airBaltic is also seeking government assistance, competing for political attention and scarce public funds.
According to Ragnar Kond, these entities “require from the Latvian state not only more money, but also more wisdom and experience than it has to offer.” For Rail Baltica, lawmakers now say that wisdom may mean accepting a leaner, slower and more clearly governed project – or risking that the bridge to nowhere becomes a symbol of a wider failure to match ambition with capacity.
