“On connections with stops, [there is] a significant reduction in travel times between cities with stations (Porto, Gaia, Aveiro, Coimbra, Leiria and Lisbon). Taking the connections to Lisbon and Porto as an example, Leiria will have a 50-minute journey to Porto and a 36-minute journey to Lisbon”, says the non-technical summary of the study.

The train connection between Leiria and Lisbon currently takes around three hours.

The document is open for public consultation until March 21st on the participa.pt Internet platform and indicates that, “in terms of traffic values, 52 train crossings (daily traffic in both directions) are expected”, to be achieved in 2031.

For example, 17 refer to the Porto-Lisbon connection without stops and nine Porto-Lisbon with stops. Porto-Caldas da Rainha (only between Soure and Leiria, nine), Figueira da Foz-Lisbon (only between Lisbon and Leiria, eight) and Guarda-Lisbon (nine crossings).

The summary highlights the “reinforcement of the regional centrality of Leiria and Marinha Grande resulting from the new Leiria station”, in addition to aspects in areas such as employment, climate change or the supply of rail transport.

Still, with regard to negative impacts, these are mainly “related to the construction phase and land occupation due to the implementation of the road, the barrier effect and the impact it has on its surroundings, in terms of disruption to the socioeconomic environment, quality of life and current visual setting”.

“Although these are partly permanent impacts, they can be minimized with appropriate measures,” explains the study, which analyzes, in sections, several aspects, from geology to water resources, from air quality to noise and vibrations, as well as flora and fauna and land use planning.

The document also lists the most favorable route alternatives, which, in general terms, are those that affect a smaller area of ​​agricultural land or do not have implications for underground water resources and that imply fewer expropriations of homes, business buildings and annexes.

A shorter route and less impact on natural habitats in areas of national agricultural and ecological reserves, for example, also influenced the choice of the most favorable solution.

“Based on the assessments carried out and the comparative impacts of the zero alternative (without a project), it is objectively concluded that the project is positive and presents environmental viability, for any of the alternatives studied”.

The zero alternatives, on the other hand, “makes it impossible to achieve its intended positive, significant to very significant effects on employment and the local economy, on mobility and on the transport of passengers and goods on the Lisbon-Porto axis, on intermodality, on the release of capacity on the Northern Line for the transport of goods, on the increase in rail transport to the detriment of less environmentally sustainable modes, and on the contribution to the reduction of carbon emissions”.

According to the non-technical summary of the environmental impact study, commissioned by Infraestruturas de Portugal, “in the execution design phase, the option for socially less burdensome alternatives, the optimization of design solutions that avoid or reduce impacts (tunnels, viaducts and bridges) and the implementation of other mitigation measures will make it possible to reduce the significance of the impacts”.

But this reduction will depend, above all, on compensation measures, which “must be fair and socially sustainable”, so that “those affected are, at the very least, in a situation equivalent to that which they had before the implementation of the project”.