Long Distance Coaches From Riga

Long distance coaches are rather developed and popular mode of passenger transportation in the Baltic States. Last year I wrote how coaches dominate the public transport market within Baltic States so now it’s time to look what are the possibilities for travel from Riga to destinations beyond borders of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. There also are several long distance coach routes not involving Riga but these are not taken into account here.

Altogether 131 unique cities and towns outside the Baltic States can be identified with direct service from Riga. As the map shows – all routes can be divided in two large groups based on their geography:

1) The closest destinations – Russia (excluding Moscow), Belarus and northern part of Poland. This group includes frequent services to the large cities as Warsaw, St Petersburg and Minsk and far less frequent services to regional destinations like Gomel and Baranavichy in Belarus or Velikiy Novgorod and Smolensk in Russia. Services in this group see competition from car travel and in lesser extent from air travel (limited number of destinations focused on feeding Riga hub) and trains (service being limited to St Petersburg, Minsk and few more stops on the way). Routes in this group have many stops in the Baltic States and further abroad and they are operated by various companies often strongly cooperating and, in some occasions, competing.  

2) Routes to more distant destinations in Ukraine, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Russia (Moscow) and other countries. All of them (except few in Ukraine) are operated by carrier Norma-A under Ecolines brand. These routes face strong competition from airlines (airBaltic and Ryanair) that outperform Ecolines by frequency and seat capacity, and of course – by travel time.

Nevertheless there are reasons why some costumers choose 31-hour bus ride instead of less than 3-hour flight to Düsseldorf. First of all - coaches serve many more cities and towns than air travel can offer. Almost all of West-heading coaches from Riga make a detour to pick more passengers at Vilnius and stop at all mayor towns all the way to Warsaw. In Germany and the Netherlands coaches stop at large number of medium-sized towns. So being closer to the origin and destination of passenger is a cornerstone in this service. This positively effects the overall travel costs as ground transport in Germany is monopolized and expensive.

Secondly, coach travel is generally cheaper than air travel for close departure bookings, yet directly comparison is hard as airlines use fare level system and extensive sales but Eurolines – flat fares. In the example of Düsseldorf, flat Eurolines fare of €110 is undercut by airBaltic for travel 7-8 weeks from today and by Ryanair – within a week from today. As Ryanair has recently restricted online bookings for travels from Latvia and Lithuania for departures within a week due to credit card fraud risk, choosing a coach is an alternative also in urgent cases.

And the last, but not the least reason is luggage allowance. While charging for checked-in luggage is a mayor revenue source for almost all airlines operating from Riga, Eurolines don’t charge for luggage at all and the luggage size regulations are less strict. This is a large travel cost saver for those passengers intending for a longer stay – guest workers and students for example.

Passengers loading luggage for their trip from Riga to Kiev at Riga coach station. Operated by Ukrlines under Ecolines brand. The €50 service is popular despite the more than 16-hour ride and need of Belorussian transit visa.  

Norma-A has publicly admitted that after the opening of German labor market their sales has strongly increased and some capacity will be added. But what are other development opportunities in the market? As top priority for Ecolines I see more complicated fare system that guaranties lower fare than air travel also for more distant departure dates and allows benefit from elements of yield management. If the number of departures is going to increase - the number of destinations per route should be decreased to reduce the travel times (similar to current route to Paris that skip all German destinations). The role of frequency seems to less important in this type of service, though I believe no destination should be served less than twice weekly anyway. If the market grows, different route structure of developed transfer opportunities and high route frequencies may be applied. From one side - long distance coach market is strongly linked to situation in air travel so increased airfares must increase the passenger number for bus travels, but from the other side - many of the potential passengers may choose not to travel at all because of the unacceptable travel time by coach or choose to make the journey by car to benefit from grater flexibility. 

Riga to Moscow Fare Watch

Moscow is one the busiest route from Riga airport, the traffic is strongly supported by the large Russian community in Latvia but also reflecting the booming tourism, business and transferring passenger numbers.

Up to summer 2010 Riga to Moscow market was served only by joint 3-daily Air Baltic and Aeroflot product to Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport (SVO) but in August last year things got more diverse. UTair started their own daily flight from Vnukovo airport (VKO) using 50-seat CRJ200 and also offering connections to their vast domestic network. In November 2010 another Russian airline Transaero started twice weekly Boing 737-500 flights to Moscov’s Domodedovo (DME) airport followed by Air Baltic’s supplementary two weekly flights on that exact route. On the other hand – RIX-SVO airport pair is still the dominant as are the two flag-carriers – Air Baltic and Aeroflot.

Aeroflot, Transaero and UTair typically charge more for one-way tickets than for corresponding segment on return ticket. For this analysis one-way prices are determined as those available for return tickets though they can’t be booked without buying also Moscow-Riga flight.

As seen in the graph, all airlines have set their base levels around 90€ mark, but only Air Baltic and Aeroflot manage to sell tickets more expensive than 200€. In the examined 2-month period average ticket prices are as follows: Aeroflot - 157€, Air Baltic - 125€, Transaero - 117€, UTair - 109€. Note that Air Baltic is the only airline charging for luggage on this route. The prices for all airlines make peaks also for well-ahead dates suggesting that lots of travelers on the route are date-inflexible.

Last year I analyzed Riga-Oslo route in a similar manner. The Riga-Oslo and Riga-Moscow routes have several common features – they are comparable in passenger flow and offered capacity, booth served by four airlines and three airports (in Oslo or Moscow) and are almost the same in lenght. The overall average available fare for Riga-Oslo in two month period was 71€ (including credit card fee) while for Riga-Moscow it is 128€. The higher price for Riga-Moscow flights seems to be a result of governmental control yet factors like different costumer groups and seasonality may have played a role.

Experience of urban farming

Ilgvars is a spacial planning student from Riga and has kindly made a guest post about allotment gardening in Riga. No advice on lettuce and radish this time, but - even better - discussion about the social and economic benefits from urban agriculture. Ilgvars is running his own blog http://ilgvarsjansons.blogspot.com/ about urban issues.

During the last decade the popularity of urban farming has increased. Not only in cities in developing countries like Cairo, Mumbai, Havana, but also in cities like New York and Detroit.

In developing countries urban farming is practised for income-earning or food producing but in developed countries urban farming may be undertaken for the physical and/or psychological relaxation it provides, rather than for food production. Because urban farming promotes energy-saving local food production, urban and peri-urban farming are generally seen as sustainable practices. Local production of food also allows savings in transportation costs, storage, and in product loss, what results in food cost reduction.

Social benefits that have emerged from urban farming practices are; better health and nutrition, increased income, employment, food security within the household, and community social life. Some researchers indicate that unemployed populations in large cities and suburban towns would decrease if put to work by local food movements.

I won’t question or deny the benefits of urban farming. I will briefly compare the situation in Latvia. To my opinion urban farming is nothing new in Latvia. For 50 years Latvia was part of USSR. This was time when urban farming took a serious role in each citizen’s life. So called community gardens took place in every city and surrounding area. These community gardens were made and supported by biggest factories and enterprises and provided recreational activities and extra food for their workers. The problem is that most of these areas are partly abandoned and are considered as degraded. Municipalities don’t know what to do with them. Remove or not, because these community gardens take a serious role in lives of old and poor people. Many of them are located in precious land like Lucavsala, Torņakalns in Riga and surrounding municipalities in Riga region. In many of these areas building of living houses has occurred during last years what makes the situation even more complicated. So what to do with this heritage?

Community gardens at Skanstes Street. Photo by Flickr user Kaspars Funts.

Another issue is that, because of the history how the community gardens were made, it is not prestigious to take part in it. That’s why when somebody mentions urban farming as a new practice people in Latvia are very sceptical. We might say that we have bad experience! Although ''the new economic situation'' and the experience of New York and Detroit has shattered this opinion a little.

Also we have a lot of vacant urban areas in cities where urban farming might take place. The question is - are people ready for reanimation of urban farming in Latvia? And if we look at example of Riga - is it reasonable to turn vacant urban places into agricultural land while surrounding agricultural land in Riga region is turned into suburbs?

High-speed rail Riga-Jēkabplis

In December 2010 Latvian Transport Minister Uldis Augulis came with a sensational proposal about High-speed rail (HSR) connecting Riga and Moscow. Instead of listing all reasons why Riga-Moscow HSR in unreasonable, I developed a new proposal – Latgale HSR stretching from Riga to Jēkabpils. French LGV Est has demonstrated that HSR can work not only with multi-million cities at booth ends but also as a trunk line with several branches to smaller cities all around the region - similar to the situation in Latgale. The primary use of Latgale HSR would be providing passenger transport from Riga to Jēkabpils and further east on three branches – to Daugavpils Rēzekne and Madona. And the secondary use – an additional freight capacity to Riga port. Though ‘classic’ HSR are passenger-only, several HSR in Germany and at least one in France have/will have mix of freight and passenger trains.

  

Where is the problem?

The existing railway between Riga and Jēkabpils was finished in 1861, since then dozen of towns and villages have emerged near the stops. It is the busiest railway in Latvia carrying big number of freight, suburban and bit smaller number of regional and intercity trains. If traffic will continue to grow, it will become very difficult to sustain so big variety of services on one railway so a need for alternative tracks may emerge. Furthermore – in favor to road transport, the construction of highway replacing the old and inconvenient road trough the towns and villages has already started. If no significant improvement is done to increase the intercity services on the railway, road traffic may steel significant part of passengers.

How this HSR to improve situation?

If a new rail line is considered, it must be build according to modern standards – e.g. the high speed no less then 300km/h. This would allow removing the slot-hungry intercity express service from the old railway. As passenger transport alone could not justify construction of new railway, it must be used also for freight traffic – especially the one heading to docks on the left bank of Daugava in Riga (supposed to be built soon) thus avoiding crossing of the busy Railway Bridge in Riga. The HSR should be routed south of river Daugava because the area is sparsely populated, flat and have vast state forest properties. The whole length of the new railway is approximately 130km; on average speed of 230km/h travel time would drop to 40minutes from Riga Central to Jēkabpils South so cutting the travel time to Daugavpils, Jēkabpils and Rēzekne by more then 1 hour.

A capacity increase by doubling the last single track sections is underway on the old railway so the slot problem will be solved at least for 20 years. But if politicians truly want to make passenger trains the mayor transportation mode in the state, the frequencies and operational speeds for intercity trains should be increased and that also leads to considerably smaller overall capacity of the railway. Latgale HSR is not a project desperately needed right now, but it should be carefully considered by planners. Riga to Daugavpils and Riga to Rēzekne are two of most developed intercity train routes in Latvia and market for passenger transport is bigger than for Rail Baltica or Riga-Moscow HSR project, meanwhile the 130km stretch require far less investments then the other two proposals.

Bicycle Rapid Transit for Riga

Most of modern cities currently try to sustain and upgrade booth mass transit systems and cycling infrastructure to attract people to sustainable modes of transport. On the other hand bicycling and public transport are actually competitors in several areas:

1. Users. The latest priority in several cities - cycling usually fight for passengers from public transport as being cheaper and often faster than the conventional busses and trams. Cycling infrastructure is usually aimed to reduce car trips but it may turn out to reduce mass transit trips.

2. Street space. Many cities have narrow streets so putting booth dedicated public transport and cycling lanes may be impossible.

3. Public funds. Public transport and cycling need funds for expansion and operation so sustaining booth modes puts bigger pressure on the city budget.

In Riga all these three arguments are often used to advocate focusing on conventional public transport and not support extensive upgrades in bike infrastructure. And the forth and biggest argument in favor of public transport is the seasonality of bicycling – there is no real way how to make people cycle in -10 degrees Celsius, during snowfalls or rainy days – so the year-round public transport must be supported. Really? Here is my question – why to prefer exactly weather-protected public transport instead of weather-protected cycling infrastructure? And it turns out that the cycling can be put ahead of mass transit even in cities with bad weather.

My idea is that cities can build dedicated cycling highways (see proposal for Toronto) with complete grade separation, high operating speed (>20km/h) between the districts. The system may be considered similar to existing undergrounds – a user arrives to the nearest station, pays for ride and heads to a station closest to his destination. Yet – unlike in a metro – user brings (or rents) his own vehicle, don’t wait for train in first and transfer stations and even don’t stop at unnecessary stations on his way and route himself to the exit station (similar of using a highway network). Altogether the result would be similar to the concept of Personal Rapid Transit system - with the difference of being slower on operation, requirement of user to drive and own (or rent) the vehicle yet with a big advantage of using the same vehicle for origin-to-station and station-to-destination movements.

An adequate riding climate is crucial for Bicycle Rapid transit – the users must be protected from precipitation, extreme temperatures, ice on pavement and direct sunlight, also good lighting is a must. As in practice the bikeways would be located in some type of tunnels – provision of artificial tailwinds may also be considered. Similar to using the conventional public transport – users are exposed to all types of weather while arriving/departing from station (in case of ground transportation passengers are often even forced to wait in bad weather), the controlled climate is provided only when entering the station or car.

New infrastructure required

The biggest challenge in this concept is provision of necessary infrastructure – the bikeways must be wide (>3.5m) each direction to provide high capacity. Maximum capacity for so wide bike path is not clearly known (though some sources state about 4500 bikes per hour per direction – a specific research must be done). The path must be fully separated and isolated from other modes to keep the flow non-stop, sustain the climate, restrict cyclists from entering the system without paying and provide safety. This makes Bicycle Rapid transit more costly to implement than usual on-street bus lines or trams yet cheaper than grade separate rail or bus transit. On the other hand cycling highways – unlike track based systems - can be effectively phased using existing streets for unfinished sections. Even one few kilometers long stretch of good bike highway would attract cyclists from districts yet directly unconnected to the system.

Operation compared to mass transit system

Travel time – generally shorter on Bicycle Rapid Transit because of no stops, no waiting time, no transfers and use of bicycle on the way to/from station instead of walking;

Peak performance – unclear as the capacity of Bicycle Rapid Transit System is unknown but even 4500 cyclists per hour per direction is sufficient for most routes in small to medium cities – it is equivalent to a tram with 200 riders running every 2min 40 sec. It is clear that bikes can’t handle very big flows but that is actually needed rarely;

Off-peak performance – as less crowded cycling would be even faster while public transport slower because of longer headways. If cycling network is closed for maintenance during nights – it would still be possible to use one’s bike to return home;

Accessibility – similar to public transport Bicycle Rapid Transit would not be very appropriate for wheelchair users and mothers with strollers during peak hours but during low hours would offer a comfortable ride. Cycling is appropriate for most of disabled people as specific vehicles like hand-powered tricycles are available. For others a simple bus network with long intervals and small capacity still must be sustained (possibly private). Bikes may provide also considerable hand luggage capacity if bags, baskets and trailers are used.

Building costs – high for cycling highways and associated stations compared to on-street transport. Also more land required than on-street pubic transport;

Running costs – extremely low for cycling highways as almost no moving parts (maybe only turnstiles, bike escalators and ventilators compared to additional trains and buses in conventional systems). Extremely low labor costs – no drivers, no vehicle repair stuff, just highway maintenance and possibly - station stuff. Also energy consumption is low and costs predictable - no moving cars, only highway lighting and ventilation.  Low operation costs is the biggest advantage of this type of system meaning that it can be kept open almost always – even during nights. Cycling is also oil-independent and ecologically friendly and contributes to public health giving huge savings for economy.

Possibilities in Riga

Readers may be tired of different concepts for Riga but I am not doing only because that’s the city I know best but also because of an unique feature – total lack of investment in public transport infrastructure (I don’t mean vehicles in this case – they are very good in Riga). Riga doesn’t have tunnels or elevated ways exclusively for public transport and even bus lanes are rare. That is why this city turns to be a good soil for new ideas.

Some of the cycling highways can be located along railway lines making their construction relatively cheap but still many cycling highways must be build above and parallel to main streets – usually elevated if located outside the railway ring and tunneled below streets in the central part. Districts of Bolderāja and Daugavgrīva are near the sea and booth are detached from other districts by a 6km wide meadow making the cycling highway building costs unreasonable and cycling time long. These districts can be included in the cycling system anyway – using specially equipped bus line for user ferrying together with their bicycles. The cost of ferry bus may be or may not be included in the cost of the rest of system. Theoretically – if such buses turn to be popular they can also link distant points of the system if the travel time by bus is considerably shorter and demand is sufficient.

Urban Cable Transit – The Future Transport Mode in Cities?

So far Cable Propelled Transit (CPT) has only been used for crossing natural obstacles – valleys, steep slopes or wide rivers. But the obvious advantage of going over artificial obstacles like junctions, congested streets and buildings is left unused partly due to undeveloped technology, partly by sticking to conventional transport modes and not willing to develop a new one.

Some South American cities have succeeded in using gondolas as feeders to main metro stations from the poor neighborhoods on the hills. The technology used is the same standard one used in ski resorts – but anyway it proves that cables can be used also outside mountains.

You can find out more about current technology (what is MDG, BDG, Funitels, 3S, what is detachability, what are approximate costs and capacity) here: http://gondolaproject.com/ 

High capacity urban CPT (if once developed) would have a great use in Riga as the soil conditions has turned off the deep underground project, also the building density in central part is high and streets narrow, there are several water bodies in the city – biggest obstacle being the 400m wide river Daugava. Maybe one day it will be reality to travel on easy-to-build gondola lines above the cities rather than trains in tunnels deep below the street level.

Riga to Oslo ticket prices

Riga to Oslo is one of two routes from the Baltic States served by four airlines (the second being Riga-Moscow). While Riga has only one airport, Oslo area is covered by three airports: the primary Gardermoen airport (used by Air Baltic and Norwegian), secondary Rygge/Moss airport (used by Ryanair) and Sandefjord-Torp airport located more than 100km from Oslo, but convenient for area South-West of Oslo and chosen by Wizzair.

The biggest carrier on the route is Air Baltic accounting for 51% of capacity share and – as using smaller aircraft than others – 68% of frequency share. Closest runner-up is Norwegian with 19% of capacity and 14% of frequency. Ryanair offers 18% of capacity and 11% of frequency while Wizzair 12% of capacity and only 7% of flights as offering only two departures per week.

Fare graphs indicates two price peaks – one on Oslo-Riga route on December 15 to 23 and the second on Riga – Oslo route on January 1 to 5. This strongly suggests that during Christmas time flights are used by Latvian workers visiting their families. Each of the airlines tries to differ from the others – Air Baltic and Norwegian provides connecting flights and uses the primary airport, Air Baltic offers big number of departures. Ryanair targets price-sensitive passengers and population South-East fro Oslo, Wizzair relies less on Oslo city but caches passengers South-West from Oslo. Here you can see how well the airlines manage to translate their strategies into cash from tickets:

Edited Nov21 - I found an official confirmation that Air Baltic's EUR 5 transaction fee can be avoided by using Baltic Miles MasterCard so ticket prices in the research are lowered by EUR 5 and five euro surcharge to usual Visa and MasterCard is added.

The average fares in the two-month span (November 18 to January 17) are as follows: Ryanair – EUR 29, Wizzair – EUR 37, Norwegian – EUR 74, Air Baltic EUR 81 EUR 77. Prices for Air Baltic and Norwegian are extremely similar and they even peak at the same days indicating that the two companies compete for the same passengers. Less successful are the two youngest operators - Ryanair and Wizzair. Booth started the service over seven month ago but tickets are still extremely cheep and are not coming significantly more expensive closer to the flight dates. On the other hand during Christmas period Wizzair has as high prices as Air Baltic and Norwegian showing that their strategy of targeting specific region near Oslo works. Overall it is clear that the ticket prices for Riga – Oslo route is low due to the high supply and some operators (Ryanair and Wizzair in particular) may even drop it.

airBaltic Oulu Base – New Gateway to the Arctic

Though airBaltic’s intention to open a base in one of Finland’s regional airports was known already for several months – the official announcement came today - Oulu has been chosen over Tampere and Turku. Opening is going to happen in 2012, when Oulu terminal capacity will be increased. This decision is hardly explainable from point-to-point strategy as Southern Finland is more populous, the competition is still limited (especially from Turku) and flight times to Western European destinations are shorter. Furthermore - Tallinn and Vilnius base examples demonstrated – all other point-to-point bases for airBaltic has been a target for cuts if not working so well as from Riga. So is there any way how Oulu base can become a complementing not competing base in BT’s network?

  

The unique market - Arctic

RIX is in perfect location for serving Southern Finland, but the airports of Northern Finland are too far and with too less traffic to Western and Southern Europe. But the demand for Arctic and sub-Arctic routes can be high enough to sustain daily or double-daily flights if traffic from Oulu and other Finnish cities is added. Here is my vision how to make it work: 

The far north towns are proposed to be served with overnight flights arriving in Oulu at early morning. In Oulu passengers could change to:

1. Direct flight to Riga and further to any destination in Europe;

2. Any flight proceeding to towns in Southern Finland;

3. Other direct flights – for instance Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Copenhagen, St. Petersburg.

Most of planes continue travel southwards with one-stop flight to Riga in order to provide link between Oulu and mayor Finnish cities and to pick up passengers for Riga hub departures starting at 10:00AM. Once arrived in Riga planes participate in daytime flights to destinations in Europe. As the Oulu-based planes most probably will be turboprops, they must serve the closest destinations from Riga – cities in Central Europe. Northwards journey starts shortly before 3:00PM and goes exactly the opposite way as the morning travel.

I see such advantages in this complex routing:

1. High aircraft utilization;

2. The widest possible market to towns in Arctic – important as the population is low;

3. Key markets using this routing: Arctic to Southern Finland via Oulu, Arctic to Riga and other mayor daytime destinations via Oulu; Southern Finland via Riga to Europe; Central Europe to nighttime destinations in N, E Europe and Asia via Riga;

4. Planes in utilization at Riga during the busiest daytime hours.

And such disadvantages:

1. Delay strategy is needed – being late is some segments may cause missed connections and delayed onward flights. But as booth Riga and Oulu are going to be bases, replacement capacities can be provided.

2. Tricky maintenance scheduling;

3. Arctic to South, West, Central Europe markets served with two transfers – one in Oulu, second in Riga. Situation can be improved by adding some direct flight to Arctic towns from Riga or offering more direct flights from Oulu to destinations in Europe.

Riga urban and suburban mass transit consolidation

Riga city public transport has always been - and in foreseeable future will be - a ground-transport based as no massive underground projects are on horizon. The system consists of 9 tram, 20 trolleybus and about 54 bus routes and involves about a thousand vehicles, but on the other hand it suffers of strict mode distinction, route overlapping, too frequent stops and lack of interchange opportunities; the stops lacks amenities and even basic service information. Inspired from success of Bus Rapit Transit systems (BRT) in several cities I revised the transit route system in Riga and came to a core route proposal:

Routes are numbered G1 to G11 with terminal stations A, B or C (say a trolleybus with code G4C on it is heading to Pļavnieki). The new routes are based on these existing ones:

G1 – trams 6 and 7;

G2 – trams 4 and 11;

G3 – bus 3 with modifications on the right bank;

G4 – trolleybus 22 and 25;

G5 – tram, part of route 5;

G6 – trolleybus 14;

G7 – bus 53;

G8 – trolleybus 3 and 19;

G9 – trolleybus 23;

G10 – buses 2, 11, 22 and 24;

G11 – a new bus route. 

The main idea is to create a metro-like network (in witch transfers are extensively used) from transit lines that already exist. This in most cases means leaving a single, strong transport line from center to each district (unlike the current two or three) and providing vast interchange opportunities at several stations. Vehicles on the remaining lines would run with very short intervals (even less than 60s in peak hours) so making the system very attractive. Exclusive transport lanes may be required but the system may also work on usual city streets together with other traffic. At least in initial stages the introduction of such a system would be focused on branding, stop spacing, stop improvements and creation of line hierarchy rather than increasing the driving speeds.

As only the main districts would be covered by this network, feeders and some local routes also must be created to provide public transport in  less populous neighborhoods.

Suburban trains to do what they are supposed to

Right now suburban trains and the few regional trains in the city make frequent stops at small, poorly equipped stations not providing transfer opportunities and focusing just on the surrounding market. In order to make the train market wider I propose calling just at few but high-quality interchange station that serve the whole city. Instead of terminating at Riga central station the trains must continue the journey to other stations in the city to serve even more passengers. Here is the route-scheme for the reorganized system:

The colored lines are frequent suburban services (20-40 min intervals), black ones - all regional services (40-120min intervals). Currently Zemitāni-Pētersala and Imanta-RIX sections are non-existent but both are highly possible to be built. Until these rail links are getting built trains could terminate at Zemitāni and Torņakalns instead.

This plan don’t requires an excessively large funds but concentrates on making hierarchy (starting from local feeder buses, than to core routes, up to suburban, regional, intercity trains, coaches and planes) but it requires lot of political will and understanding. If such a consolidation would go hand-in-hand with exclusive bus lanes on streets or even separate level roads for public transport, Riga would have fast, modern and rather cheap public transport network with fully sufficient capacity.

Proposed Rumbula Residental Area: the Transportation Problems

The most recent european10 architect competition in Riga was dedicated to Rumbula district. The idea of transforming the abandoned military airfield and allotment gardens to modern residential neighborhoods has been included in development papers for years but nothing has been done yet. Despite the wonderful waterfront Rumbula is not attracting developers – let’s see what is wrong and what can be done with that.


Biggest Problem - Distance to the Center
Rumbula development site is about 10km from the Old Town (city hall) with is big distance in case of Riga. Residential areas like Bolderāja, Vecmilgrāvis and Jugla are located about the same distance from the center and only one – Daugavgrīva are located even further. All of named districts are considered to be inconvenient for commuting, the estate prices are lower and all of them (at least initially) were providing notable number of jobs (sea-port, manufacturing etc).

There are a number of possible development areas which are suitable for public and private residential development closer or at the same distance to the CBD so Rumbula have to withstand competition. As mentioned earlier the main advantage of the site is river Daugava. Also A6 highway to Daugavpils and other cities may be used as an advantage.

Main Strategy - Good Connectivity
Theory says that travel time is more important than the covered distance thus fast connections should be the focus in site preparation. Other strategy could be making self-sufficient community with small or no need to commute but arrival of labor-consuming and well paid business is less predictable than arrival of dwellers and can actually turn the district to a ghetto with low property prices.
The core of all transportation strategy I propose is fast public transportation branch from station Gaisma to the primary hub of district – station Jaunrubula and secondary hub – station Lidlauks. The link may be realized as city rail derived from suburban rail service or bus rapid transit line derived from trolley-bus line number 15 running along the existing rail. The line would link Rumbula to the CBD, airport, Akropole shopping and some secondary business districts – Skanste and Spilve.
The existing high standard tram line number 7 which ends at Dole can be prolonged to station Jaunrumbula trough station Zoom. It would also be possible to continue tram service to station Lidlauks if connectivity with rail/BRT system is provided.

As the riverfront will be the pedestrian area, connections between stations Jaunrumbula and Lidlauks and the riverside must be created. In case of station Jaunrumbula – a wide pedestrian street with retail on booth sides must become the mayor attraction of the neighborhoods. On the other side of river Daugava Nature Park Doles sala is located - ferry connection from Rumbula to recreation areas in Doles sala would bring extra attractiveness to Rumbula.
Already now car-based manufacturing, offices and retail is based along the highway so no need to change that. The district will see more commerce if the local streets and car access is brought up to date.

If all of this is realized Rumbula will became truly attractive place for living, working of recreation. To pay for the entire infrastructure needed the neighborhood must be urbanized very densely. The main question is still open: isn’t there cheaper development site somewhere in the city with better transport and are there so many costumers willing to pay for living/working near the river?

Riga to London fare watch

Right now two airlines offers direct Riga – London service: airBaltic (Gatwick) and Ryanair (Stansted). FR operates twice daily (morning and evening) flights; airBaltic makes daily midday flight and additional evening flight on selected days during summer. Wizzair will start three weekly Luton flights in end of March so bringing some fresh air in the market.

Here is a graph of available ticket prices in March, April and September:


Wizzair is cleverly using the drop in Latvian advertising sector by putting their pink posters with cute flight attendants on virtually every free billboard in the town. Also promotional pricing with average March&April fares of €27 for Riga – London and €33 for London – Riga creates big public attention.

Average available fares on March and April for BT is €66 (RIX-LGW) and €76 (LGW-RIX); for FR €69 (RIX – STN) and €60 (STN – RIX). The very similar fare levels for FR and BT breaks the popular stereotype of Ryanair being the cheapest and airBaltic the most expensive. In London – Riga section the airport fares seems to make the actual difference between BT an FR (as all depart from one airport in Riga but different airports in London area).
In September the ticket prices for BT and W6 flights are actually higher than in April. airBaltic and Ryanair now put bigger accent on monthly sales with cheap tickets for close travel dates rather than traditional cheep fares for distant dates. For budget travelers it means that “book well in advance” tactics must be changed to “keep your bags packed and hope that your destination will be in the next sale list”.

Cutting Costs on Riga Northern Transport Corridor

Riga Northern Transport Corridor is the most ambitious and most car-centered project in Riga ever seen (http://www.ziemelukoridors.lv). The aim is to build a 27-30 km urban highway and a high bridge (or a tunnel) across river Daugava. Meanwhile the main goal is to provide better truck connections to the port. I propose to abandon the any plans for elaborating the car traffic within Northern Transport Corridor because:
1. Cutting travel times on car will encourage suburban sprawl thus damaging natural environment, making car-dependant communities and putting tax flow away from Riga;
2. The new development sites – with are patronized by the planners – will be car- not mass transit- based so encouraging even more sprawl and damaging current CBD (with needs activities to be added not to cut);
3. The traffic shifted to the Northern Transport Corridor will not lower the flow on existing streets and bridges because the spare capacity will be used by people now using public transport. The centre by-pass may be developed from the Southern and Salu bridges by further upgrading their access roads;
4. There will be small benefits from the project unless it is fully realized;
5. Sky-high expanses (no matter private of public funding) for massive construction and vast properties needed;
6. Damaged urban environment by noise and fragmentation.

I propose building a brand-new Truck-Only System (TOS) so boosting manufacturing and freight transit. TOS would consist of two lane road – fully or partially separated from city streets with off- and on- ramps near industrial activities and port facilities, other main streets. These roads would not have junctions with roads to or in residential areas. 

TOS have several pros over urban highway:
1. 2 (or - if reasonable - 1) lanes unlike 6 in highway, so less need for extra properties. See stage 4 – in the base variant it is located on unused railroad branches, even using the existing bridge over river Jugla;
2. Smaller speeds thus smaller radius thus higher use of existing public land and higher integration in the landscape;
3. Less traffic over river Daugava so ferry line, moveable bridge or transporter bridge would be enough;
4. Smaller junctions;
5. May be used for public transport and emergency vehicles;
6. Good usability if just few sections are built (see picture – stages in prioritized order)
7. Very easy pedestrian crossings – just zebra crossing or no marking at all.

By such a system the main goal – making truck traffic to port easier – will be reached and will have spare capacity for decades. The saved resources must be invested in public transport.

Riga Back in 1700

A detailed map of Riga surroundings was drawn when Saxons blocked the town in 1700. The map is drawn in scale and shows features of Riga surroundings: roads, churches, windmills, pubs, manors and other elements.

Daugava river has overcame major transformations – the right riverbank has gone further in river (most notably upstream and downstream the city). All islands have new configurations. Just a few elements other than the inner town can be recognized in modern city:

1. A road to Vidzeme (the road to bottom right corner of the old map) is now Brīvības Street. The old location seems to be bit further to North. The place where the road went trough a palisade fence is now the busy section of Brīvības Street between Lāčplēša Street and Ģertrūdes Street (pictured).
2. Jesus church is clearly marked in the old map but the location of current church is different. The modern church (pictured) is already the 4th Jesus church building and was fininshed in 1822.
3. Pasture dam – now Pulkveža Brieža iela. It is an old dike built trough a wet pastureland. An alley on the dike is drawn in the map. No trees have survived till nowadays but Pulkveža Brieža Street (see picture) is still exactly at the same location. 

Proposal for Riga: Intra-city Train Line Central Station – Ziemeļblāzma

It is now 20 years since Riga metropolitan project was stopped due to several problems. As the first big infrastructure project – the Southern Bridge – will be finished in few years the next project – the Northern Bridge – has came in spotlight of political discussions. Manville not a single transportation building for public transport is built and visions reach no further than a 800 m tram tunnel under Gaisa bridge. Yes – the vehicles goes under massive replacement program but no improvement in speed is made so far.

The City Development program states at least three possible fast transport systems: light rail (on tram basis), city trains (to split regional service from intra-city service) and train-tram or tram-train service (trains and trams may have common rail sections).  How to use these concepts?
Current ambitious port development leaves little hope that existing rail tracks could be used for frequent intra-city service so alternative solution must be found. Here is my concept of gradually increasing speed standards in Vecmīlgrāvis direction. This direction was chosen because Vecmīlgrāvis is a densely populated neighborhood far (9.3km) from the Centre. Now it is served by bus route with suffers from frequent delays.
Tram and railway tracks in Riga have almost the same gauge – 1520mm (trains) 1524mm (trams) - so the rolling stock is interchangeable. Meanwhile heavy rail have higher safety standards so no ordinary streetcars are allowed on train rails. Trams in Riga use 600V DC, but suburban trains 3kV DC – whith according to some unofficial information could be altered to 25 kV AC. 

Stage 1 – Expanding the Existing Tram Line No 5
This stage consists of building new heavy rail line (long and high platforms, high centenary voltage and advanced signaling) from Aldaris to Ziemeļblāzma. A 1.9 km tunnel must be built in Vecmīlgrāvis, an additional bridge over Mīlgrāvis and a new pair of tracks in section Mīlgrāvis – Aldaris. Four new stations are proposed – Aldaris, Jaunmīlgrāvis, Vecmīlgrāvis and Ziemeļblāzma. In station Aldaris trains switch to the existing tram line in direction to the centre. Dual power train sets must be used (but not too long to fit in city streets). Station Ziemeļblāzma could become terminal for busses to other neighborhoods (Mangaļi, Vecāķi, Jaunciems, Kalngale). Further North two city train branches are possible – to Vecāķi and Kalngale (where city trains could shared tracks with suburban trains) and to Mangaļi. Ziemeļblāzma city rail line would cut 3 min on evening trip (scheduled) from Central station to Ziemeļblāzma and make public transport much more reliable.

Stage 2 – Tunneling the City
The slowest part in Ziemeļblāzma route is Pētersala – Central station section as it goes through the densely built centre. Two tunneling options are provided – the red one is the straightest, the orange one goes under city districts with poor public transport accessibility. Booth lines would be useful but passengers to Ziemeļblāzma most probably prefer the straightest route (the red one). 3.15 km underground tunnel from Pētersala to Central market (Tirgus) include six stations with connection to street level and rail transport. At station Tirgus trains could continue ride on tram rails to Ķengarags. This tunnel would cut travel times from Central station to Ziemeļblāzma by 10 min.

Stage 3 – Connecting the Two HQ Sections
The missing section from Aldaris to Petersala could be build along existing railways. Station Sarkandaugava is proposed on a new bridge over Tilta street; station Dunte on a new flyover from Vecaķi railway to Krasta freight station. This section altogether will cut travel times to Ziemeļblāzma by 6 min.

The Goal - Reliable and Fast Service
If all stages are realized total travel times in Central station - Ziemļblāzma route will drop from current 39 min by evening bus to 20 min by modern train service with multimodal stations and excellent reliability. If all Tirgus – Ziemeļblāzma section is upgraded to heavy rail standard longer trainsets with single voltage power unit can be used.  
The new line will reduce need for suburban train stops within the city so no more then one stop in Saulkrasti direction must be sustained (most probably Sarkandaugava or Vecāķi will stay).