They make a "very negative assessment" of the study presented by the executive



Andrail, the rail platform in Andorra, believes that the study that the Government has carried out to unlock the country and that the Ministers of the Presidency, Economy and Business and Territory and Housing presented to the General Council, contains a series of arguments they assess as "incorrect" and conclude that their assessment is "very negative". In this way, they regret that the executive does not "reject the arrival of the railway in Andorra, but rather that it is refusing to lead such a project, putting it in the hands of the administrations of the neighboring states". From the platform that defends the railway it is noted that they make "a strong criticism of the figures proposed by the study" regarding what the railway would cost and point out that the estimates "


In this way, they detail that the document values ​​the cost of the branch between Cerdanya and Andorra at 810,000,000 and add that Ferrmed ​​estimates a cost of 250,000,000 euros and the Generalitat 500,000,000 euros. They give as an example that the cost of the high-speed line between Madrid and Barcelona has had a cost of 8,966,710,000 euros. Regarding the tunnel between l'Hospitalet and Encamp, they point out that the study suggests costs ranging from 4,000,000,000 to 148,000,000 euros, when the Pajares tunnel cost 3,800,000,000.



They add that the "sources provided are highly inadequate", since a tunnel of "much greater magnitude and in an area with a much higher labor cost than our environment (Saint Gothard tunnel, Switzerland) is valued, and the personal assessment of a particular person (for the Cerdanya-Andorra branch "only an estimate by Pau Noy is cited").


They also regret that "all of the civil agents interviewed are employers" and emphasize that this "strongly conditions the orientation and objectives of the study: the expressed resistance to change and the priority need to improve mobility for luxury tourism". And they add that the citizens should have been listened to.


Likewise, they criticize that the study "evades its own objectives set at the beginning: it does not resolve the capacity limitations that are becoming more and more obvious and contradicts the reduction of Andorra's greenhouse gas emissions with a view to 2030 and 2050". And they add that the capacity that the national heliport or La Seu airport can provide, in the most optimistic case (maximum capacity of the heliport and ten times the number of flights at the airport), would not reach the airport 1.5% of total tourism trips in Andorra", and they also remember the impact they have on greenhouse gas emissions.


They value positively, however, that the study opts for segregated electric transport from mixed traffic between Andorra and La Seu d'Urgell. Despite this, they argue that it must be "a railway means", since it has "more capacity", is "more energy efficient" and requires "the same civil works" as making it exclusively road. In addition, they believe that it could be "the natural extension of the central valley tram" and argue that "it could be continued as far as Cerdanya" for the rail connection with Toulouse and Barcelona.