Estonia, Latvia Find Common Ground on Rail Baltic Plan

[Albion]

It is competitive only because road maintenance is subsidized by the state. Railroad isn't to the same extent.
And the road damage is not linearly proportional to the weight of a freight truck - it is more like a squared proportional. If the trucks would pay a squared road tax, it would become uncompetitive.




Railways are not worse in that respect than any ordinary road.

Railways are excessively subsidized, especially in Western Europe. In the UK the subsidies and high usage costs are the only thing keeping the network running and lines maintained.

I concede that focusing on rail freight may be Estonia's best option though judging by what I've read and what you've written. I'm not convinced for the Western Europe yet though and I don't think updating the rail links to the Baltic is really in our interest.

[Pure ja]

Railways are excessively subsidized, especially in Western Europe.

How excessively?
You mean railways get more subsidies than motorways?

In the UK the subsidies and high usage costs are the only thing keeping the network running and lines maintained.

I guess that is usually because of a single lane and lack of passing opportunities.
Or because of a monopoly on railroad usage.

[Pure ja]

Yeah, so the rest of Europe should invest in Baltic infrastructure that is going to be wasted until oil runs out? Oil isn't going to disappear for at least a few decades yet, and when it does we'll switch to gas - from fields and waste.

Car traffic is already diminishing in Europe. Oil use is already diminishing in Europe.
Train traffic is 4 times more efficient than motorway traffic.

Mostly using motorways has been a luxury that western Europe has been able to afford with annual above 3% of budget deficits.
But not much longer.

As to switching gas, that is also easier with trains.

I'm not sure why the rest of the EU should fund this, there's little gain for any other EU countries from trade with the Baltic.

Trade is trade. Travel is travel. You CAN argue about the economic feasibility of a specific project, but you can't really disregard railways in general.

If the line continued to St Petersburg, with another further south from Poland to Moscow, then it would perhaps be worth while. But to Tallinn? It's hardly worth bothering with.

That line could continue to St. Petersburg.

The US varies. When you say 'more densely populated than the US', you need to take into account the vast emptiness of the Rocky mountains.

Sure. And Estonia has Soomaa.

Build your roads as good as the rail lines then. Napoleon's army wasn't travelling on today's tarmac motorways...

With concrete? That is much more expensive. Could be a solution.

How does this only apply to roads and not rail? If the land shifts, sinks or erodes, than a rail line will go the same as a road.

I don't know. It just doesn't.

The Baltic states only need one good road from Poland to Tallinn, preferably a motorway.

I disagree. We need at least two - and one of those should be a railway.

Rail is only efficient if there are vast spaces between origin and destination of freight.

Not only.
Rail is also efficient if there are vast quantities to be moved.
Mines use railways, at least in Estonia.
Fuel efficiency of rail traffic is 4 times better than that of motor traffic.