At one time, you were one of the most active exposers of the OIK affair. It seems that you were also the first to point out the obvious more than 10 years ago Rail Baltica (RB) for project inconsistencies.
These inconsistencies were so obvious that a legitimate question arose – how is this possible? Either no one looked at the rationale for the project at all, or it was deliberately designed and pushed from the start, knowing clearly that there was no economic justification for it, and it was simply sung to give the project a boost.
Suspicions were reinforced by the reluctance of those in charge to provide the public with information supporting the project. After repeated requests, as a former member of the Saeima, I managed to get it and familiarize myself with it in its entirety - with this justification for the project in the Ministry of Transport, which was allegedly developed by a reputable consulting company AECOM.
It was not adequate in form or substance – its structure was opaque, there was a lack of logical connections between its individual parts, especially regarding the validity of the conclusions and results of the study - it was often impossible to trace the validity of the judgments and interpretations made in the report and its appendices for incomprehensible reasons redundant, unnecessary and unused information was provided, which was also often repeated. We had to conclude that the AECOM study has significant flaws, gaps, obvious errors and unexplained oddities, which would not be acceptable for studies of this level.
Read the newspapers throughout the conversation Day in the issue of Thursday, November 14! If you want to continue reading the content of the newspaper in printed form, you can subscribe to it+
What are the main concerns raised by experts regarding the Rail Baltica project?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and an Expert on Rail Baltica Project Inconsistencies
Time.news Editor: Welcome to our interview today! We are joined by [Expert’s Name], a seasoned authority on transport infrastructure projects, who has been vocal about the inconsistencies surrounding the Rail Baltica project. Thank you for joining us!
[Expert’s Name]: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss this important topic.
Time.news Editor: Let’s dive right in. You were among the first to raise concerns about the Rail Baltica project over a decade ago. What were the key inconsistencies you identified back then?
[Expert’s Name]: Absolutely. The inconsistencies in the Rail Baltica project were glaring from the outset. It seemed either no thorough examination of the project rationale was done, or it was intentionally flawed from the beginning. This raised substantial questions about its economic justification.
Time.news Editor: That’s fascinating. You mentioned the reluctance of the authorities to provide transparency in their justifications. What impact does this lack of transparency have on public trust and the project’s legitimacy?
[Expert’s Name]: A significant impact, indeed. When authorities are hesitant to share information, it naturally breeds skepticism among the public. In the case of Rail Baltica, despite requests for clarity, I found the supposed rationale—developed by AECOM, a well-known consulting firm—to be inadequate in both form and substance. This lack of transparency raises doubts about the integrity of the project and whether it’s genuinely beneficial for taxpayers.
Time.news Editor: Can you elaborate on what you found lacking in the project’s justification?
[Expert’s Name]: Certainly. The justification document was opaque and lacked clear logical connections between its parts. There were vague assumptions about benefits that didn’t hold necessarily when matched against economic realities. Key details about cost-benefit analyses and long-term sustainability were either absent or insufficiently backed by data. This raises questions about the credibility of the project’s claims.
Time.news Editor: Given your findings, how do you believe the authorities should address these concerns moving forward?
[Expert’s Name]: Transparency must be prioritized. Authorities must be willing to engage with experts and the public openly. They should conduct thorough, unbiased evaluations of the project, ensuring that all stakeholders understand the potential risks and benefits. Only then can we build trust and move forward with any infrastructure initiative.
Time.news Editor: It sounds like an essential step for restoring credibility. What is your vision for the future of transport infrastructure projects like Rail Baltica in the region?
[Expert’s Name]: My hope is that we shift towards a more collaborative and open approach to planning and executing transport infrastructure. We need to incorporate comprehensive public consultations and rigorous assessments that prioritize economic viability and community benefit. Such a shift can help secure sustainable projects that truly enhance regional connectivity.
Time.news Editor: That sounds like a constructive path forward. Thank you, [Expert’s Name], for sharing your insights on the Rail Baltica project and the importance of transparency in infrastructure planning. It’s been enlightening!
[Expert’s Name]: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial we continue to discuss these topics for the benefit of our communities and future projects.
Time.news Editor: And thank you to our readers for joining us! Stay tuned for more discussions on pressing topics in infrastructure and development.