Other projects such as an underpass to the Kristiine district are still being considered, and, more broadly, ways are being sought to balance all road user types in the capital, Jesse said in an interview with ERR.

In your opinion, what is the best way for a Tallinn resident to travel daily from point A to point B, for example from home to work?

The [Isamaa and Center Party Tallinn] coalition agreement states—and this is highly significant—that the various types of road users and modes of transport should not be pitted one against the other. People must be able to retain the freedom to decide. For this reason, it is key that we develop public transport in such a way that it offers a truly credible alternative, so that people themselves develop an interest and desire to use modern public transport and consider whether they really need to travel daily by their private car,

Good transfer options are certainly something that must be addressed on a daily basis. For 25 years or more now, we have been talking about problem areas such as the Kristiine transport hub. The issue is clearly on the table today, and a concept is being developed such that by 2029, transfers will be brought together and convenient for people.

We also need to look at the speed of public transport. Traveling by private car is essentially twice as fast nowadays. Buses have an average speed of about 22 kilometers per hour, stops included. Tram traffic is even slower, at 16 kilometers per hour (most streets and roads in Tallinn have speed limits of 30–50 kilometers per hour – ed.). We need to look at where to add public transport lanes, where priority systems are needed, what traffic management changes are required, and where stop locations need to be reconsidered.

When will the Kristiine transport hub start being rebuilt?

At the moment, the concept is being developed and the design contract is to be signed this July. The construction design must be ready by 2027, the construction contract is planned for February 2028, and after that the construction period will be 17 months. EU funding is also involved in cooperation with the Ministry of Climate.

here are other projects also carried out in cooperation with the Ministry of Climate — the Pelguranna tram, the Tehnika tänav cycle lane between the street and the railway embankment, and the Pärnu mnt cycle lane, from Freedom Square to the Pärnu mnt viaduct.

Let's talk about rail transport. Years ago, when you worked at the Harju County Government and the Association of Harju Municipalities, you were a big fan of rail transport.

I still am today.

Back then, major topics included the Tallinn circular railway, a fixed Tallinn–Helsinki connection, plus there were serious discussions that tram routes should extend from Tallinn to nearby municipal centers: Jüri, Tabasalu, Viimsi, Maardu. As of now, however, as the current coalition's deputy mayor for transport, rail transport seems to have fallen from grace.

No, rail transport has certainly not fallen out of favor. I was also involved in the Tallinn–Harju light rail feasibility analysis at the time, and knowledge increases over time. When we plan rail transport, the cost per kilometer is on the order of €25 million. We must also provide increased travel speed. But if we plan rail transport in the same corridor as other traffic, then this rail transport — costing 25 million per kilometer — ends up standing still with the rest of traffic and cars. In that case, such an investment does not make sense.

Rail transport must have a priority corridor and higher speeds, so that every traffic light and small obstacle does not reduce travel speed. If there is no speed, there is no competitive advantage.

For example, the new Pelguranna tram route runs along a former high-voltage line corridor, where there is good unobstructed movement and it is not mixed with other traffic. Currently, the solution extends to Kolde pst; whether there will be more in the future remains to be seen.

If we develop rail transport further in other directions, there has been talk of extending the tram line from Tondi to Järve. There have also been discussions and sketches of extending the Kadriorg line to Lasnamäe. Lasnamäe has a larger population than Tartu, yet it has no rail connection. These are the places where we should first pick the so-called low-hanging fruit — not place a tram on Liivalaia tänav and then think about routing it onto Suur-Ameerika tänav, where it would be mixed with traffic.

A month to a month and a half ago, I wrote about light metro, and I have also previously been part of a team discussing these ideas. If we want to achieve higher speeds for rail transport in the city center, there is a real need to go underground—in figurative terms, under Liivalaia tänav, under Suur-Ameerika tänav; in certain sections this is unavoidable. The same applies to Gonsiori tänav.

For example, regarding Liivalaia tänav, regardless of how the design proceeds, I have said that utilities should, where possible, be placed along the edges of the street so they do not obstruct future rail transport.

There are cities in Europe much smaller than Tallinn is where rail transport has been moved to another level. In that case, we can offer speeds of over 40 kilometers per hour, including stops.

So the idea of a tram line that would run from Liivalaia to Suur-Ameerika, then to Kristiine and in the future perhaps further to Mustamäe, has not been abandoned.

Certainly not — whether the line runs along Liivalaia or through Endla tänav, connecting East and West Tallinn through the city center, will be determined during the course of work. It is good that a new comprehensive plan for Tallinn is about to be initiated, as the current one dates from 2001.

The new plan must establish principles for how Tallinn's mobility connects with neighboring municipalities — such as the Tallinn ring railway or the small ring road. These connections must be defined, otherwise the corridors will be built over, as seen in northern Rae municipality, which has developed from fields into something approaching Tallinn's ninth district.

In reality, the entire region — including Viimsi, Harku, Saue, and Saku—is one whole, and mobility and connections must be ensured.

Looking at Tartu mnt alone, 40,000 vehicles come into Tallinn daily. Peterburi tee reached a new record last year, exceeding 50,000 daily entries, for the first time.

This demonstrates that connections are needed and that existing railways and corridors should be used within the city. The Tallinn–Harju rail study also showed that the western corridor gets heavily used. But we also have an eastern corridor and former rail corridors, on the Kopli peninsula (to the north – ed.). The study indicated these could be used for passenger trains. Tallinn has also conducted preliminary and follow-up studies. Why not run a train from Paljassaare through Kopli, via the Balti jaam train station to Kristiine, with a stop toward Ülemiste and, eventually, the Tallinn orbital railway? We must also consider places like Maardu, with its 15,000 residents.

But if we think about an urban train within Tallinn, wouldn't Tallinn have to pay for it?

The state should recognize that Tallinn has the largest population concentration and allocate additional resources to achieve a modal shift. It should be agreed which directions are the main ones, thereby avoiding the daily influx of 50,000–70,000 cars into the city.

We have been working toward this—extending connections beyond the city's borders: toward Viimsi, Peetri, Saue, Saku (Urda and Tänassilma), and certainly Tabasalu.

The state has introduced a motor vehicle tax, but it must also invest additional resources into public transport infrastructure and organization.

The first Škoda battery trolleybuses arrived in Tallinn this week and will go into service this summer.

The tram to the airport is expected to start running again from July 1. I understand that tram number four is planned to be extended there, but that would undermine the original idea of the Old Port tram, which was meant to connect the port and the airport.

In addition, we are planning smaller changes, which we will announce in May–June. The Old Port connection will definitely remain, and perhaps an additional line will be added – currently we have five tram lines, and there may be more in the future. In the long term, rail transport will certainly continue to be developed. So it is not excluded that more tram line numbers may be introduced.

It is known that you are still negotiating with the Ministry of Climate about funding for the modified Pelguranna tram route. What is the current status?

We have provided input to the ministry and confirmed that we are on schedule and that the new route alternative is also more cost-effective. I have personally met with the minister (Kuldar Leis – ed.) and requested support for the new Pelguranna tram solution. The meeting was very constructive, and I sincerely hope the minister will support it.

But there is a deadline due to European funding – won't everything end up happening at the last minute?

Since the route has become shorter and simpler and we do not need to expropriate private land there, it remains quite feasible and design work is ongoing.

Since you mentioned that Lasnamäe lacks a rail transport connection, the city government's action plan also includes a trolleybus line for Lasnamäe. But you're not going to introduce both a trolleybus and a tram to Lasnamäe, are you?

One does not exclude the other. When we talk about the tram, we are referring to the Rahu tee corridor, where the tram has a very good fast route along Narva mnt, which was already sketched out by Tallinn four to five years ago. This is a place where, in the future, we can proceed in cooperation with the state using various EU funding programs.

Up to now, tram development in Tallinn has followed the principle that vehicles have a driver's cabin at one end and doors on one side, which meant that an entire new line had to be completed at once. If that is, for example, seven or ten kilometers at once, it takes an enormous amount of time. It would be worth making a small modal shift here as well, so that in the future we would acquire trams with driver's cabins at both ends and doors on both sides. This would provide flexibility to extend lines in sections, as is done elsewhere in the world.

But trolleybuses are also extremely important. There has been a one-and-a-half-year technological window during which the trolley infrastructure was upgraded, and this summer 40 new trolleybuses will enter service. Five trolleybus lines will be restored – 81, 83, 84, 85, and 72. Their numbers are not the traditional trolleybus numbers we remember – 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 – but instead they will retain the current bus line numbers. We have used these numbers for a long time, and there is no need to turn everything upside down again.

When will the former trolleybus lines be restored and new ones opened?

Five routes are to be launched this summer, but for further developments we are working with the Ministry of Climate to obtain funding from the European Union Modernisation Fund. We are awaiting feedback on whether co-financing is possible for building trolleybus lines on Paldiski Road and Laagna Road.

With the current trolleybus procurement, we have the option to purchase an additional 30 trolleybuses. We are also considering launching another procurement so that the trolleybus fleet would grow to 100 vehicles.

On the topic of buses, the City of Tallinn recently stated in a press release that vehicles with different fuel types must continue to be in use, as this would render public transport more sustainable and resilient in crises. Does this mean diesel buses will not disappear altogether, even though that was previously planned?

Yes, a certain portion of diesel buses must definitely remain; reducing their number to zero is neither rational nor practical. At times [removing them] may have been considered, but if you ask me, I would definitely recommend mitigating risks. Whatever situations may arise in life, we must have alternatives when it comes to public transport services. Even if only to a limited extent, they must be present.

The city government's action plan also includes an entry that Tallinn's cycling strategy will be renamed a light mobility strategy. What does this mean, and what will happen to the cycling strategy?

The idea is that we do not want to oppose different types of road users or modes of movement. Everything is part of one larger mobility system, and does every aspect need its own separate strategy? The cycling strategy in its current form is valid until the end of next year, and colleagues from the Tallinn Transport Department, which will become the Mobility Department from May 1, will certainly analyze whether a separate document in this form is necessary for mobility planning. We must consider all modes of movement together.

In that cycling strategy, which expires next year, quite a lot of things are listed that have not yet been completed. Will it remain that way?

When a document expires, new development documents follow, and we continue developing the environment. Tallinn will get more cycling paths, sidewalks will be reviewed, road space will be reassessed to ensure there is room for everyone, and we must also consider how to integrate different types of road users smoothly.

We are all shared road users, we residents of Tallinn, and we must all fit into the urban space together, and get along with each other, side by side.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!