Agenda Profile: Anti Poolamets
Interpellation regarding the necessity and construction of Rail Baltic (No. 262)
2024-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
Political Position
The speaker is highly critical of the current Rail Baltic project, deeming it overly expensive, based on unnecessary demand projections, and environmentally unfriendly. He/She proposes a clear alternative: upgrading the existing Tallinn–Tartu–Valga–Riga railway line to allow speeds of 160 km/h, linking this approach to regional policy objectives. The political framework is primarily results-oriented, emphasizing the project's inefficiency and financial risks.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates a thorough understanding of the financial, logistical, and environmental impacts of Rail Baltic, utilizing specific data and projections. He references estimates from the Latvian Ministry of Transport regarding a fourfold increase in costs and highlights specific environmental metrics, such as the requirement for 5.7 million cubic meters of gravel in Pärnu County. Furthermore, he draws upon the opinions of logistics experts concerning the limits of competitiveness between road and rail transport.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's style is critical and concerned, employing both personal anecdotes and logical arguments. He uses rhetorical questions and exaggerated examples (e.g., waiting five hours in Valga, only two or three passengers on the train) to highlight the project's lack of demand. The tone is formal, yet it includes sharp criticisms (e.g., "the most environmentally hostile projects").
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker referenced a recent trip to Valka and a meeting with the Estonian friendship group in the Latvian parliament, where he also spoke with the deputy head of the Latvian Ministry of Transport. He performed a personal "demand test" by taking the train from Riga Airport to Valka. This demonstrates active involvement in cross-border communication and personal data gathering.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The criticism is aimed at the leaders of the Rail Baltic project and the European Commission's funding plans, who are accused of having unrealistic visions and wasting resources. He/She also criticizes past incompetence, citing the decades-long synchronization of timetables as an example. The criticism targets policies and procedures, and is not personal.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker noted cooperation with Latvian colleagues (the friendship group and a ministry representative) to gather information and acknowledge positive developments, such as the synchronization of timetables. He/She demonstrates a willingness to reach an agreement with the European Commission regarding the funding of an alternative rail project.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker focuses heavily on the development of Southern Estonia (Tartu, Valga) and on utilizing regional policy to serve this goal. He/She emphasizes the negative impact of the route passing through Pärnu County, citing the squandering of gravel resources and the opposition from local municipalities.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The speaker is concerned about the uncontrolled cost escalation of major projects and the uncertainty surrounding European Union funding, citing the impact of the war in Ukraine and ongoing crises. They prefer more cost-effective solutions that support regional policy (such as upgrading the existing railway) over a massive, inefficient billion-euro project.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Insufficient data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The speaker is acting within the scope of the inquiry, being an opponent of the Rail Baltic project and the initiator of an alternative solution. His priority is developing the existing railway infrastructure (Tallinn–Valga–Riga) to allow speeds of 160 km/h, thereby improving connectivity across the Baltic states.
2 Speeches Analyzed