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.

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.

Mix of Trains and Coaches for Riga Suburban Transport

Yesterday morning I took an early suburban train (7:45 a.m.) from Riga to Jelgava and found that train load was very light – just about 5% of seats was filled in my car. Actually this is not a surprise for of-peak (weekend) train. The operator use a strategy to keep train headways of around 40 minutes with makes the service quite attractive for the costumers. But how to keep the operation costs down and keep the short service intervals at the same time? Easy – use lower capacity coaches on the instead of the heavy trains.

Mix of trains and coaches on the same line gives good cash and time savings and go well together because:

1. Busses are used for off-peak traffic when passenger numbers are lower and spacious trains are used only when crowd of pax is expected. There will be no need for peak passengers to cross-subsideze off-peak passengers and ticket prices would go down for everyone.

2. Suburbs (at least around Riga) are situated along transit corridors where both – railways and highways are present.

3. Off-peak on rail means also off-peak on roads so coach travel times would be acceptable for passengers. The travel distances are not typically extensively long (<50 km) so the difference in real travel times because of operation speed can’t be big.

4. In most cases all passengers from one off-peak train can’t be fit in 50-seat coach so number of runs could actually be increased and headways cut so making the average waiting time shorter and give a time saving (and make the service more attractive).

A problem for introduction of mixed train-coach service is lack of coach piers in Riga central station and even worse - problems of approaching some intermediate train stops. This means that some stops will be located physically separate from train stops (near a highway) or even passed. It gives serious limitations for dynamic change of vehicles because passengers can not quickly move from railway to highway in many cases (e.g. rail to highway distance in Salaspils is 1.3 km) but - if the schedule is stable and known for everyone – it should not be big headache for passengers.

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?

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).

Rail Baltica - 1435mm or 1520mm Gauge?

The idea of connecting the Baltic rail system to the rest of Europe is circulating already for a decade. So far the main problem was considered gauge differences between Poland (1435mm) and the Baltic states (1520mm) and - at least politicians – see the idea of building a 1435mm gauge from the border of Poland further to the north reasonable. In European Parliament election 2009 just one political party did put a single phrase about Rail Baltica project in their program: ‘We are supporting this project because it will allow reaching Berlin within 10 hours from Riga by train’. I voted for them although I knew that an aircraft reaches Berlin in 1hour and 35minutes and their statement just proved that Rail Baltic - as presented so far - is not a runner.

Rail Range – 3.5 Hours
Projects in Europe show that most passengers prefer train rather than plane if travel time on train is no longer than 3 – 3.5h. The current record of system-wide average speed 279.4 km/h is set by French TGV. If we suppose that a new system with average speed of 280 km/h is built the maximum travel range of 980km is set. The further city reachable from Tallinn would be Warsaw (air service dropped in 2008); from Riga – Poznan (no direct service); from Kaunas and Vilnius – Berlin (no direct service, just connections at RIX, CPH, WAW). 
Building the Earth's best standard gauge high-speed rail line trough Poland and the Baltic states would result in attracting passengers from Warsaw to Vilnius, Kaunas, Riga and Tallinn  - whith all currently have a poor air service and few daily (2 to 3) coach service. Berlin - one of the busiest air routes out of RIX – would see no impact. More real average speed v=180 km/h would give feasible connections just from Warsaw to Kaunas and Riga. I strongly doubt Baltic States need such multi-billion project to ease connection in very limited city pairs in North – South axis.

Rail Baltica as Baltic Domestic System
Rather than spending billions for building totally new and separate 1435mm tracks I advise building 1520mm high-speed lines for local use. The biggest problem in the Baltic railways is lack of direct lines between capitals. Riga-Tallinn rail route take a long detour trough Tartu (30% longer than the direct highway); Riga-Vilnius take detour trough Šaulai and Kaunas with make the route 20% longer then the direct highways. I propose new Rail Baltica concept in 4 stages.

Stage 1: Jonava to Panavėžys. This line ads the missing connection from Panavėžys to Vilnius, Kaunas and further south – Marijampolė and Alytus. As Panavėžys is the 4th city in Lithuania considerable flows can be attracted to the two biggest cities in Lithuania.  
Stage 2: Panavėžys to Riga. This section includes optional stops at Pasvalys, Bauska and Iecava. As Riga is the biggest city in the region business and tourism traffic will be attracted and induced. If RIX south and/or north rail link is built - this line can beat BT’s feeder routes from VNO and KUN. Nonstop services from Lithuania are possible to Jūrmala, Ventspils, and Tartu. Stage 1 and 2 is to be the most important rail corridor in the Baltic region because it connects the most populous cities.
Stage 3: Tallinn to Pärnu. Existing rail service is extremely poor – serious upgrades and new sections are required. Pärnu can be connected to North-East region.
Stage 4: Riga to Pärnu. New line needed at least between Saulkrasti and Pärnu. This line would attract all Riga- Tallinn passenger traffic and could provide direct service from Tallinn to various cities in Latvia and Lithuania.

Flexible Solutions
Broad gauge Rail Baltica would not require extremely expensive new tracks in mayor cities but uses the existing infrastructure. High speed passenger lines differ from classic lines with bigger radii (~7km) of curves, advanced catenary and signaling systems. If a new line is built it must correspond to highest geometrical and track standards – the rest can be installed later and speed increased gradually. Train sets must go on two voltage standards (3kV DC in Riga and Tallinn; 25kV AC in Vilnius – Kaunas route and new high-speed lines) – alternatively - 3kV DC can be substituted with diesel generators. Furthermore - more expensive dual gauge train sets could still cross the Polish border and reach Warsaw.

Freight trains require smaller slope gradients but this seems not to be a problem in the flat terrain of the Baltic States. Freight must be reloaded regardless on location of reloading terminal – weather in Tallinn, Riga and Kaunas as in 1435mm proposal – or near the Polish border in case of 1520mm gauge tracks.

I hope the policy-makers will leave their ambition of building standard gauge railway across Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as it would be very unflexible and expensive. Intra-Baltic network can give bigger benefits with lower cost.

Proposal: a High-rise District in Liepāja

Liepāja is a town in the West of Latvia famous with the wonderful beach, cultural heritage and charming historical low-rise architecture. The population is 85.000 and keeps dropping. So far policy-makers have worked to fit all development projects in the existing environment and hadn’t done anything to encourage modern high-rise development. Liepāja doesn’t have an impressing historical skyline but have a chance to get modern one. I propose a way to convert existing port and waste territories south of city channel (see map) to a modern skyscraper cluster. This area is on edge of the historical old town, next to the beach and seaside park.

The Key - New Rail Terminus

Current railway station in Liepāja is located 1.8 km from central (Rožu) square - booth are connected by the only tram line in the town. Due to train shortage existing intercity train service is ridiculous - just one daily train to Riga. If more trains are put on service – especially tilting ones – rail connection to Riga and Jelgava will easily beat the coach service. As Liepāja is a seaside resort – seasonal rail services may be established from all biggest Baltic cities.

A new railway link and terminus are essential to create a motive for high-density land use in the area. I propose building an underground station in the site of the old stadium and to connect it to existing railway through tunnel under the city channel. A new tram line to the center must be built to provide accessibility for the rest of city. It is worth adding tram lines to Ezerkrasts, Karosta, and a higher standard line through airport to Grobiņa.

Change Through Adding

Lot A is the very first to be developed because the railway terminal construction underground. All historical fortifications and pounds must be preserved but the rest can be built-up with no height or density restrictions (as higher as better). In lots A and B all buildings (and functions) must be preserved as long as possible. New high-rise buildings must be built in gaps between existing ones. Different functions must be left together - retail, residential, hotels, offices, fish warehouses and docks – to makes the urban life more attractive. Lot C must be developed later than lot B to make the more important development of lot B faster.

Benefits for Almost all Districts

Seaside parks and the channel waterfront would strongly benefit from the proposed development because of the increased number of visitors. The influence to historical center is unclear – it may loose some services but the improved accessibility probably will outweigh losses. The current train station area will face problems only if buss station is moved together with train station to the new district. All the other areas of the town and region would see strong benefit from tourism and other business. Building a new tunelled rail link and station may seem too ambitious for Liepāja, but I believe it will induce even more rail trafic and bring the city to a new level of development.