The Railway Administration (SŽ) has to solve a big problem with the preparation of a high-speed line (VRT) between Prague and Dresden. The new council of the Ústí nad Labem Region is beginning to speak out against the proposed tracing again. The votes against are heard from both the coalition and the opposition. Nevertheless, the railway administration is working and is already awarding a competition for the preparation of a zoning decision this year.

“We don’t want unreasonable drilling into the landscape. We definitely want a high-speed railway in the region, but its route must not insensitively interfere with the landscape and the territory of municipalities. At today’s meeting with the Railway Administration, we unequivocally rejected variants of line management that do not respect the territorial development of the region, “ said last week the coalition Allies for the region on their own Facebook profile. According to them, there is agreement on such a procedure across all political parties in the region. Some parties issued a negative opinion after a video conference with the Railway Administration. Another is coming this week.

Opposition Pirates in the Ústí Region are also against. For example Jiří Baudis from the Czech Pirate Parties he wants only passenger trains to run on the route. “Freight transport using VRT would also reduce the life of the high-speed line and increase repair costs. “ states Baudis. “At the moment, this is a political matter and negotiations at working level with the Railway Administration. There is a consensus across the political spectrum of the regional council that the proposed options 2 and 3 are unacceptable for the regional leadership, the regional council and the municipal councils concerned. This was announced to the Railway Administration at working level. Further negotiations should continue. “ region spokesman Martin Volf specified.

Two years of preparation thrown off the table

“One of the main goals of the high-speed line and the tunnel under the Ore Mountains is the diversion of freight traffic from the Elbe Valley. We do not understand the requirement to leave it only for passenger transport, then the economic return on the entire project cannot be achieved either. “ says Oldřich Sládek, Executive Director of the Association of Railway Freight Carriers ŽESNAD.cz.

The greatest resistance to the route currently arose in Roudnice and Litoměřice, where the routing was changed against the original proposals. “The railway administration has been called upon to revise the tracing proposals. This could be withdrawn if SŽ communicated its intentions with representatives of the region and local governments. As a result, two whole years of preparations are being thrown off the table at the moment,“Baudis said.”

The opposition of the regional representatives comes only shortly after the central commission of the Ministry of Transport has approved the feasibility study. This was originally prepared by Cedop in a consortium with Egis Rail. The railway administration terminated the contracts and completed the study itself. They differ, for example, in the way they overcome the Elbe in Ústí nad Labem or the route around Křešice and Polep. It is in Roudnice and Litoměřice that there is considerable resentment in a number of municipalities.

According to approved studies, trains from Prague to Litoměřice should run at a speed of 320 km / h. In the tunnel under the Bohemian Central Mountains, therefore, passenger trains will run at speeds of up to 250 hours per hour in the Krušnohorský tunnel 200 hours per hour. In addition to trains with passengers, it operates up to 150 freight trains a day. The project is described on the website of the Railway Administration.

In the Czech Republic, there are speculations about tracing, the German side continues to prepare the Ore Mountains Tunnel. She closed last week DB Netz contracts for geological and hydrogeological services.

Statements of the Railway Administration

The submitted traces proposed for assessment in the process of updating the Principles of Territorial Development contribute to the variant discussed, which is still fundamentally recommended by the regional authority, which directly brings the new line to Ústí nad Labem. We therefore assume that these will be assessed and evaluated in the spatial planning process.

If a situation arises where the region’s management re-evaluates the priority and benefits for the region’s development resulting from the direct involvement of the regional city in the New Prague-Dresden railway connection could not help the region, a partial reassessment of the plan will be demonstrated and its benefits may be reduced. Technical difficulties arising, for example, from geological constructions of the area at the site of historical footprints in the Principles of Territorial Development of the Region (analogous to the D8 motorway) will also be considered. The sections that the Railway Administration is preparing for the territorial management of priorities (Krušnohorský tunel and VRT Praha – Lovosice) are invariant, ensuring the fundamental benefits of the project and work on them can thus continue smoothly. The complete benefits of the project, even for the Ústí nad Labem region, will, of course, be brought into operation by the entire RS4 Prague – Dresden arm.

The cooperation between the Railway Administration and DB Netz on the preparation of the cross-border part of the Prague-Dresden connection is not conceived as an obligation to build a tunnel, but together to participate in its preparation. According to regular cooperation, they do not fill in any sanctions for possible delays caused by a third party for DB Netz or the Railway Administration, but as with other projects with extended preparation time, we run the risk of making the currency project more expensive or another project being preferred due to risk.

As mentioned above, the Krušnohorský tunnel is invariant; the current opinion of the Ústí nad Labem Region on the Prague-Dresden VRT tracing has no influence on its preparation and implementation.

(Opinion of the Railway Administration added on 23.2. 13:04)

375 comments