transport investment priorities under structural and ... · the development of new transport...
TRANSCRIPT
Study on Strategic Evaluation on
Transport Investment Priorities
under Structural and Cohesion
funds for the Programming Period
2007-2013
No 2005.CE.16.0.AT.014
Country Report Poland
Final
Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO
ECORYS Nederland BV
Rotterdam, September 2006
ECORYS Nederland BV
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
W www.ecorys.com
Registration no. 24316726
ECORYS Transport
T +31 (0)10 453 87 59
F +31 (0)10 452 36 80
Table of Contents
Table of Acronyms 5
1 Introduction 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 The Strategic Evaluation 8
1.3 The Country Report 8
1.4 Structure of the Report 8
2 Transport Sector: Current Situation 10
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2 Poland 10
2.3 Situation Per Mode of Transport 12
2.3.1 Roads and Road Transport 12
2.3.2 Railways 15
2.3.3 Urban Transport 18
2.3.4 Inland Waterway Transport 19
2.3.5 Maritime Transport 21
2.3.6 Civil Aviation 21
2.3.7 Trends and Indicators 27
2.3.8 Current Transport Policy Issues 28
2.4 Conclusions: SWOT Analysis of the Transport System 29
3 Accessibility analysis 32
3.1 Introduction 32
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index 32
3.3 Transport needs 33
4 Previous Support Programmes 39
4.1 National Public Funding for Transport Infrastructure 39
4.2 EU Funding 39
4.3 Other Sources of Financing 41
5 National Transport Strategy 46
5.1 Introduction 46
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning 46
5.3 National Strategic Reference Framework 49
5.4 Operational Programmes 2007-2013 50
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013) 53
6.1 Introduction 53
6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines 54
6.3 Additional Factors for the Prioritisation of Transport Investments 55
7 Assessment of Impacts 59
7.1 Introduction 59
7.2 Methodology 59
7.3 Scenarios 61
7.4 Impact assessment 67
7.5 European effects 82
8 Conclusions on Investment Priorities 87
8.1 Introduction 87
8.2 Transport Investment Priorities 2007-2013 87
Annex B: Accessibility “red flag” analysis 96
Annex C: The Four Goals of the Transport Development Strategy 2007 – 2013 101
Annex D: Transport Priorities Contained within the 16 Regional Operational
Programmes (2007 – 2013) 104
Annex E: Indicative Financial Allocations for Transport-Investments in the
Draft 16 Regional Operational Programmes (2007 – 2013) (Mln €) 109
5
Table of Acronyms
API Accessibility Problem Index
AWSA Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A.
BOT Build-Operate-Transfer
CBA Cost-benefit Analysis
CF Cohesion Fund
DG REGIO Directorate General for Regional Policy (of the European Commission)
DG TREN Directorate General for Transport and Energy (of the European
Commission)
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EIB European Investment Bank
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF European Social Fund
EU European Union
FIDIC Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs Conseils (International Federation
of Consulting Engineers)
GDDKIA Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad (General Directorate of
Public Roads and Motorways)
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IROP Integrated Regional Operational Programme
ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession
ITS Intelligent Transport Systems
IWT Inland Waterway Transport
KFD Krajowy Fundusz Drogowy (National Road Fund)
KFK Krajowy Fundusz Kolejowy (National Railway Fund)
Km Kilometre
kph Kilometres per hour
MGPPS Ministerstwo Gospodarki, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej (Ministry of
Economy, Labour and Social Policy)
NDP National Development Plan
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIS Newly Independent States
NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework
NTP 2006 – 2025 National Transport Policy 2006 – 2025
OP Operational Programme
OP DEP Operational Programme Development of Eastern Poland (2007 – 2013)
OP IE Operational Programme for Infrastructure and the Environment (2007 –
2013)
Phare Pologne Hongrie Assistance à la Reconstruction des
Economies (Poland, Hungary Assistance for Economic Reconstruction)
PKP Polskie Koleje Państwowe (Polish State Railways)
6
PLK Polskie Linie Kolejowe (Polish Railway Lines)
PLN Polish Złoty
PPL (1) Public Procurement Law
PPL (2) Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe Porty Lotnicze (National Airports Company) PPP Public-Private-Partnership
PRAG Practical Guide to contract procedures financed from the General Budget of
the European Communities in the context of external actions
PSO Public Service Obligation
ROP Regional Operational Programme
SASI Socio-Economic and Spatial Impacts (model)
SOPT 2004 – 2006 Sectoral Operational Programme Transport 2004 - 2006
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (Analysis)
TDS 2007 – 2013 Transport Development Strategy 2007 – 2013
TEN-T Trans-European Networks - Transport
TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (intermodal shipping container)
VAT Value-added Tax
7
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States clearly creates a new challenge
for its Cohesion Policy. Disparity levels within the EU have increased substantially and
will further increase with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. This is an
explicit point of attention as the Treaty states that, in order to strengthen its economic and
social cohesion, the Community shall aim at reducing the disparities between the levels of
development of various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or
islands, including rural areas. This aim lies at the core of the Commission’s regional
policy.
One of the key elements of the cohesion policy of the Commission is the contribution of
the development of new transport infrastructure to regional economic development.
Extensive spending has taken place in this domain under the ERDF, Cohesion Fund and
ISPA.
One of the prominent initiatives in the European Union in this respect is the development
of the Trans-European transport networks (TEN-T). In 2003 the Commission has
identified the 30 priority projects of the TEN-T up to 2020 (see Annex A).1 The priority
projects include: “the most important infrastructures for international traffic, bearing in
mind the general objectives of the cohesion of the continent of Europe, modal balance,
interoperability and the reduction of bottlenecks”.
For the new programming period 2007-2013 the Commission is seeking to strengthen the
strategic dimension of cohesion policy to ensure that Community priorities are better
integrated into national and regional development programmes. In accordance with the
draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic
Guidelines for cohesion policy to “give effect to the priorities of the Community with a
view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development”2.
To assess the impact of programmes in relation to Community and national priorities the
Commission has indicated that evaluations on a strategic level should be undertaken. The
present evaluation should be seen as one of these specific strategic evaluations. The
strategic evaluation should feed in the process of determining transport investment
priorities and the preparation of the national strategic reference frameworks and
1 Decision 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004. The total investment of the 30 priority projects amounts to € 225 billion at the 2020
horizon. 2 COM(2004)492
8
operational programmes. As such, it should serve to enhance the quality, effectiveness
and consistency of Fund assistance.
1.2 The Strategic Evaluation
This strategic evaluation is focussed on the transport sector.
Three specific objectives have been formulated for this strategic evaluation:
• To provide an analysis of the situation in selected fields relevant to transport, using
structural indicators across Member States, plus Romania and Bulgaria;
• To assess the contribution of Structural and Cohesion funds relative to the current
and previous programming periods and draw lessons of relevance for the purpose of
the study in terms of identification of potential shortcomings in the development of
transport priority projects that might have hampered the utilization of those funds or
their expected benefits;
• To identify and evaluate needs in the selected fields and identify potential investment
priorities of structural and cohesion funds for the programming period 2007-2013.
1.3 The Country Report
The strategic evaluation results in specific country reports for all 15 countries and a
synthesis report. The current report is the Country Report for Poland. Its main aim is to
give a more detailed indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the transport system in
the country and to address areas for future intervention. Where relevant this accompanied
by recommendations with respect to the overall transport policy of the country. The
country reports feed into the joint programming effort with the Member States for the
next period, as will be detailed in the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the
subsequent Operational Programmes.
1.4 Structure of the Report
The report is structured around three building blocks:
• First, a needs assessment is presented based on an analysis of the current transport
systems and a modelling analysis which reveals the current (relative) level of
accessibility per region. This leads to first conclusions strengths and weaknesses of
the current transport system and related transport investment needs (Part A).
• Next an overview is presented of the transport investment priorities in the past period
(Part B).
• Finally, future areas for priority transport investments are identified (Part C). This
builds on the needs assessment in the first part but also addresses other factors such
as the contribution to EU and national policy objectives, the availability of other
sources of funding and the administrative capacity of the country.
9
Part A: Needs assessment current situation
10
2 Transport Sector: Current Situation
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the current transport situation and policy in Poland. After a brief
presentation of the geographical and economic characteristics of the country, it describes
the situation per mode of transport. The analysis of the current situation is summarized in
a SWOT table outlining the main strengths and weaknesses, threats and opportunities.
The assessment of the transport system is followed by an analysis of the key transport
policy issues in Poland.
2.2 Poland
Poland is one of the larger EU countries. The terrain is mostly flat plain with mountains
along the southern border. The country is crossed by four TEN-T corridors: Corridor I
(Tallinn-Riga-Gdańsk/Warsaw), corridor II (Berlin-Warsaw-Moscow), corridor III
(Berlin/Dresden-Wrocław-Lviv-Kiev) and corridor VI (Gdańsk-Warsaw-Katowice-
Brno/Zilina).
Figure 2.1 Poland
11
Table 2.1 Basic Data
Population (2005) 38.16 million
Population (1998) 38.67 million
Total area 312,685 km2
Population density 123 inh/km2
Main cities Poznań, Wrocław, Łódź, Warsaw, Kraków and Katowice
Source: Polish Central Statistical Office (www.stat.gov.pl)
In the period 1970-1998 the population of Poland grew from 32.7 million to 38.7 million.
Since 1998, the population has fallen to 38.16 million in 2005.
Table 2.2 Socio-Economic Data
GDP (2004) 203.7 bn€
Government debt as % of GDP (2004) 43.6%
Government deficit as % of GDP (2004) -3.9%
GDP per capita, Poland (2004) 5,300 €
GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25,700 €
GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22,600 €
Unemployment Rate (2004)* 18.9%
Youth Unemployment Rate (2004)* 41,2 %
Unemployment rate on rural areas
(2004)*
16.2%
Population below poverty line (2003)** 17%
Source: Eurostat, * Polish Central Statistical Office (www.stat.gov.pl), ** World Bank
GDP per capita in Poland is one of the lowest in the transition economies of Central and
Eastern Europe. Moreover, the national average conceals a significant degree of regional
variation (see the map below). The highest levels of GDP per capita are found in the
regions of Mazowieckie (around
Warsaw) and Śląskie (Katowice
and environs).Conversely, the
lowest levels of GDP per capita
are found in the regions of
Lubelskie and Podkarpackie in
the east of the country (see the
table below). The five eastern
regions of Poland are the poorest
in the enlarged EU.
The table below presents the
regional GDP of the 16 Polish
regions indexed against the
average for the EU-15.
Figure 2.2 – Regional GDP Variation in Poland (2005)
Source: PMR Publications reprinted in The Economist
(11th
May 2006)
12
Table 2.3 – Regional GDP per capita 2005 (EU-15=100)
Voivodship GDP per capita Voivodship GDP per capita
Mazowieckie 68.2 Lubuskie 39.2
Śląskie 49.6 Małopolskie 38.7
Dolnośląskie 45.6 Opolskie 36.7
Wielkopolskie 46.2 Świętokryzskie 35.0
Pomorskie 44.6 Podlaskie 34.5
Zachodniopomorskie 44.3 Warmińsko-Mazurskie 33.5
Kujawsko-pomorskie 40.9 Podkarpackie 31.9
Łódzkie 40.5 Lubelskie 31.4
Source: Polish Ministry of Regional Development
Poland is relatively rich in natural resources, with the largest extractive industries being
coal, sulphur, copper, lead, and zinc. The country's principal manufactures include
machinery, iron and steel products, chemicals, ships, food processing and textiles.
Germany, Russia, Italy, France and the Netherlands are Poland’s most important trading
partners.
Industry, which had been state controlled, began to be privatized in the early 1990s,
although restructuring and privatization of the country's large coal, steel, and chemical
industries has moved forward only very slowly, where it has progressed at all. Economic
reforms initially resulted in high unemployment, hyperinflation, shortages of consumer
goods, a large external debt, and a general drop in the standard of living. The situation
later stabilized, however, and during the 1990s economic growth in Poland was among
the highest in Central and Eastern Europe. The current unemployment rate of 18% is
however high compared to the European average.
2.3 Situation Per Mode of Transport
2.3.1 Roads and Road Transport
Infrastructure
Poland’s road network has not been expanded to support the current number of vehicles.
The number of vehicles per km of all paved roads in the period 1999- 2001 came close to
the average for the EU while the rate of growth of the road traffic amounted to 5.6% per
year, relative to the EU average of 4.5% per year.
The motorway network steadily increased in the last decade, especially along the
corridors II (A2: Świeko-Poznań-Warsaw) and VI (A4: Wrocław-Katowice). By 2009
most of the largest cities (Poznań, Wrocław, Łódź, Warsaw, Kraków and Katowice) will
have a motorway or expressway connecting them with the network of Western Europe.
13
Table 2.4 Length of road network in Poland (1995-2004) in km
1995 1999 2004
% change
Motorways 246 317 552 124%
Expressways - 192 233 21%
State roads - 18,114 18,315 1%
Local and municipal roads - 111,357 114,719 3%
Source: Eurostat, Polish Central Statistical Office
A comparative shortcoming of the Polish road network is the low proportion of
motorways and expressways in the network. Poland’s existing motorway and expressway
network is dispersed in nature and fails to ensure traffic continuity on any of the
international transit routes. This is also reflected in the low motorway density compared
to the EU15 and EU25:
Table 2.5 Motorway density in Poland (km/1000 km2)
Length motorway/1000 km2
Poland (2004) 1.8
EU15 16
EU25 14
Source: Eurostat
Apart form the low density road, Poland also faces a low quality of the network. The
length of national roads, which require immediate action in terms of rehabilitation is
currently about 5,500 km, of which about 1,400 km requires strengthening, about 2,900
km evening up and about 1,200 km pavement rehabilitation.
Demand
Car ownership in Poland is substantially lower compared to the European average. It is
particularly important to mention that road vehicles in Poland are in general in poor
condition. In 2004 around 53% of the total number of passenger cars was composed of
small, light vehicles with small engines. Among the total number of passenger cars, only
20% were less than 5 years old and 56% were 11 or more years old.
Table 2.6 Car ownership in Poland
Poland (2004) EU15 (2002) EU25 (2002)
Cars/1000 inh 314 491 459
Source: Eurostat
The number of registered cars increased strongly in the past decade (67%). Also the
number of freight vehicles showed a similar strong development in the same period.
14
Table 2.7 Number of vehicles 1994-2004 (in 1000 vehicles)
1994 2004 Percentage change
Cars 7,153 11,975 67%
Trucks > 3.5 tons 1,307 2,263 73%
Source: Eurostat, Polish Central Statistical Office
The low car ownership is also reflected in the modal split of passenger demand. Of the
total passenger transport performance (in passenger kilometres) passenger cars represent
a share of around 65%, which is substantially lower than the EU15 average of 83.5%. The
same pattern occurs for freight transport, approximately 65% of the total freight transport
is shipped with trucks.
Road charging
In the road sector there is a mixed system of finance: ‘fuel excise tax’ and ‘special tax for
national roads’ are part of fuel taxing (apart from VAT), they are earmarked only for the
development of the national roads network. For all remaining types of roads there is no
relation between the fuel consumption and charging, these roads are financed directly
from regional and local governments’ budgets.
Currently two toll roads are in operation, one of them being the A2 Nowy Tomyśl-Poznań-Września-Konin (149 km). These motorways (with concessions) have individual
charging systems (tolls), and the tariffs there are related to costs of their construction and
maintenance, including financing-costs of the state or private investor. Tolls increase with
the size of the vehicles. Currently toll rates for passenger cars on the A2 are 0.06 €/km
(33 PLN for 149 km) and 0.33 €/km (189 PLN for 149 km) for 2/3 axle trucks > 3.5 tons.
In order to accelerate the infrastructure investment processes a new state institution – the
National Road Fund (KFD) - was established in January 2004. The aim of the National
Road Fund is to support the government motorway construction programme by
accumulation of financial resources for construction, modernisation and maintenance of
motorways, expressways and other national roads in Poland. The National Road Fund is
managed by the Bank of National Economy.
Road accidents
Poland has a traffic death rate per million inhabitants of 146 and a death rate of 43 per
billion motor vehicle km (EU-average: 13). This is among the worst in the EU, only in
Latvia and Lithuania are these numbers higher.
In 2001 the Government adopted the national road safety programme called Gambit 2000
with the target of limiting number of fatalities from 6,500 in 2000 to 4,000 in 2010. The
recent document prepared for the period 2005 – 2013, adopted by the Government in
2005 includes the target of a 50% reduction of people killed in road accidents within this
period (i.e. the target is to have only 2,800 road accident fatalities in 2013 in Poland).
15
Table 2.8 Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants)
Poland EU25
1994 2000 2003 2002
- 160 146 110
Source: Eurostat
Ruts resulting from traffic of heavy goods vehicles on roads with an inferior pavement
quality have become a major road safety problem.
2.3.2 Railways
Infrastructure
Taking into account the length of Polish railways lines, the network is well developed. It
is relatively well electrified, often with two and more lines. In spite of the fact that within
the last 20 years Poland’s rail network was significantly reduced, its density is in line
with the average density in the EU-15.
Table 2.9 Railway density
Railway line/1000 km2 Railway line/100,000 inh
Poland (2004) 64 52
EU 67 42
Source: Eurostat
In comparison to the EU-15, however, Polish railways infrastructure exhibits far worse
technical parameters (very few sections with maximal train speed above 100 km/h, bad
tracks and turn-outs - only 22.9% and 19.7% respectively are of a good standard). The
poor condition of the infrastructure results in the need to impose speed limits on many
lines, resulting in the worsening quality of the services on offer.
There is a need to carry out serious investment works, in the field of modernisation and
interoperability on the main transport lines.
A serious problem is that railways are not able to meet the needs of the fast movement of
the passenger streams between Warsaw and the main Polish cities. In addition, regional
and local Polish railway infrastructure is particularly poor from a technical perspective.
16
Figure 2.3 Poland’s Railway network
Means
The number of freight wagons, passenger coaches and electric railcars increased in the
period 1994-2004, especially the number of freight wagons.
Table 2.10 Number of freight wagons, passenger coaches and electric railcars 1994-2004 (in 1000 vehicles)
1994 2004 Percentage change
Freight wagons 62,443 107,315 72%
Passenger coaches 4,468 4,895 10%
Electric railcars 1,006 1,167 16%
Source: Polish Central Statistical Office
Demand
The demand for passenger rail transport, in terms of passenger-kilometres, decreased in
the period 1994-2004 with 32%. In freight transport a similar decrease is found, however
less drastic with 20%.
Poland continues to maintain a relatively high share of railways in inland freight
transport. In 2001 this amounted to 33.1% of all transport activities, compared with only
11.6% in the EU as a whole. On the other hand, in passenger transport the share of the
railways is declining gradually and is now only slightly higher than the average in the
EU-15.
The overall tendency is one of passengers switching from rail transport towards private
passenger cars. That change has been especially visible through the 1990s and has carried
17
on into the 21st century. Two main factors have contributed to this trend: the greater
affordability of cars to the average citizen and the poor quality of services offered by
Polish state railways (PKP).
The above-mentioned decline in interest in passenger transport services is particularly
significant in terms of local-level passenger trains (as opposed to inter-city trains). These
are mainly rural trains, usually meant to be used by commuters and inhabitants of smaller
cities.
Rail infrastructure charges
Currently the rail system is theoretically independent and self financing – but the state
subsidy for rail operations, especially for Regional Railways is considerable (in 2004 over
€125 million). The regional passenger-services have year by year budget support (no
specific system exists). The public-service-obligation system exists only partially: it is
used for state re-payments for concessions in rail services and inter–urban bus services,
but there is in general no state re-payment for concessions in urban public transport,
although some cities introduce a public-service-obligation system approach (e.g.
Wroclaw, Bialystok, Bydgoszcz, and Gdynia).
One of 10 general aims of the Transport Development Strategy for 2007 -2013 is to
decrease rail infrastructure charges. The company responsible for management of national
track network and stations in Poland is PKP Polish Railway Lines Joint Stock Company
(PKP PLK S.A. –member of PKP Group). PKP PLK charges the rail carriers for using the
infrastructure. In comparison to other EU countries the level of charges in Poland is very
high. Although in case of the passenger trains they are comparable to the fees in Italy,
France and Germany, they are twice- or three times higher in the case of freight trains.
Also there is no relation between the quality of the available infrastructure and the level
of charges. According to the assessment of carriers, access costs for the infrastructure
account for 25% of their total costs. The main reasons for such high charges are the need
to collect revenue for upgrading poor quality infrastructure, a lack of co-financing from
the national budget, as well as the transfer of high operating costs of PLK onto rail
carriers3.
Rail infrastructure regulation
The system of access to infrastructure rail charges is mainly regulated within the Act on
Rail Transport of 28th March 2003
4 and the Decree of the Minister of Transport from 30th
May 20065.
The Decree refers to the following areas:
• Conditions of access and utilisation of rail infrastructure by train operators;
• Procedures for submitting and examining applications for allocating rail routes;
• Types of services rendered by the administrator;
• Proceedings in case of the situation of insufficient rail infrastructure capacity;
3 Transport Development Strategy 2007-2013. Draft Version from February 2005, p.33. 4 Dz. U. No 86, item. 789, with future amendments. 5 Decree of the Minister of Transport from 30th May 2006 on access and usage conditions of rail infrastructure, Dz. U. No 107,
item. 737
18
• Detailed principles for establishing charges for using rail infrastructure, increasing
charges and using price concessions;
• The scope of matters which require regulation through the agreement on utilisation
of allotted rail routes and through framework agreements;
• The method of establishing rules on allocating rail routes and the use of allotted
routes by the licenced carriers; and
• Forms of cooperation of administrators in the scope of items 1-3, if the administrated
rail infrastructure enables crossings of trains through railway lines managed by
different administrators.
On 22 February 2005 the Polish government adopted a Strategy on the restructuring of
Polish Railways (Polskie Koleje Państwowe S.A)6. The strategy aims at increasing
railway transport competitiveness and improving the efficiency of PKP S.A. The strategy
consists of 4 main elements:
• Law on the Railway Fund;
• Law on Financing of Inland Transport Infrastructure;
• New law on Commercialisation, restructuring and privatisation of Polish Railways
(PKP); and
• New law on railway transport.
The Strategy established a new state institution – the National Transport Fund, which is
composed of two sub-funds: the National Road Fund (KFD) and the Railway Fund
(KFK). The main objective of the Railway Fund is to ensure additional financial
resources for railway infrastructure investment. Implementation of the Railway Fund will
allow a reduction in the level of railway infrastructure access charges in Poland and thus
increasing the competitiveness of railway transport.
2.3.3 Urban Transport
The main problems of urban transport are very similar to those encountered in other
modes of transport. The lack of appropriate financing and poor state of repair of the
vehicles of rolling stock are key issues.
There is a tendency that the carrying capacity of urban bus services is deteriorating. This
situation is partly caused by lower level of subsides to the municipal public services.
Although it is not visible through statistics, the same state of affairs is characteristic for
the condition of vehicles. Most of them are more than 11 years old.
Such conditions of service distract potential clients/commuters who in large quantities are
turning to the passenger car. Ownership rates are also being boosted by growing levels of
personal income.
Poland currently has only one metro line, in Warsaw; a second line in the city is currently
under consideration.
6 Available at: http://www.mtib.gov.pl/prezentacje/jednostki/22/dokumenty/strategia_2005.02.22.pdf
19
2.3.4 Inland Waterway Transport
There are 3600 km of inland waterways in Poland. However, the length of waterways
actually in use has decreased significantly and poor conditions - especially after floods in
1997 and 1998 - makes transport on other sections difficult. The state and condition of
Polish waterways do not correspond to the needs of modern waterway transport. Only
around 5% of total water routes reach the class IV or V level (for France 29%, Belgium
55% and Germany 70%). There are two main barriers for the development of the inland
waterway transport sector in Poland - the poor condition of the infrastructure of
waterways and financial difficulties of ship-owners.
According to the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment 2007-2013 (OP
IE) inland waterway transport in Poland faces many difficulties. In 2004 inland waterway
transport carried just 0.6 % of the total cargo transport.
At present, the greatest volume of inland waterway transport is carried on the Odra (II
class). The Odra 2006 programme has been designed to help prevent future large-scale
flooding along the Odra – of the type last seen in 1997 and 1998.7 The programme will
also create opportunities to offer sea/inland waterways service using the areas of Szczecin
port for reloading operations.
The Bydgoski Canal offers the prospect of a strategically important east-west IWT
connection between the Wisła and Odra/Warta rivers. However, it is currently not used to
a significant extent as a result of it only being accessible to barges with a gross tonnage of
400 tonnes or less and the fact that it includes six locks in just a 24 km stretch.
Other inland waterway transport is of a fairly localised nature with movements along the
Lower Wisła, Elbląg region and Zalew Wiślany gaining in importance. Inland waterways
also play an important role in the case of the Szczecin- Świnoujście port.
The Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment 2007-2013 provides for
The Priority VII Environmentally-Friendly Transport which covers Action 7.5 -
Improvement of the Inland Waterways. The budget for this action totals €78.5 mln.
The aim of the Action 7.5 is to stop the deterioration of inland waterway infrastructure
through investments in new waterways and improvements to existing waterways. The
Action provides for waterways investments along the lower Odra, which participates in
the TEN-T network. The types of projects covered within this Action are as follows:
• Modernisation of the existing water system facilities on the Odra River;
• Modification of navigable passages;
• Protection of shores together with deepening works (dredging);
• Purchase of equipment to monitor ships navigating inland water ways.
The minimum size of each Project within Action 7.5 is €5 mln.
7 For more information on the Odra 2006 Programme, please see http://www.programodra.pl/info.htm.
20
Some of the Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) for 2007-2013 also provide for
financial support for actions aimed at improving inland waterway transport at a regional
level. The following paragraphs therefore describe the regions where funding for IWT
projects is envisaged and provide, where necessary, additional contextual information.
The ROP for the Kujawsko-Pomorskie region (Toruń, Bydgoszcz and environs) includes
Priority 1 Development of the technical infrastructure within which support will be given
to projects aiming at development of infrastructure enabling to use waterways mainly for
tourist passenger navigation.
Priority 5 (Regional Transport System) of the ROP for the Pomorskie region (Gdańsk and
environs) lists Action 5.3 (Development of transport junction infrastructure and
improvements to their accessibility) which provides for financing of projects aiming at
construction, modification and expansion of infrastructure of small sea ports and inland
ports.
In Warmińsko-Mazurskie region the length of inland waterways totals 352 km. The most
important inland waterways are: Elbląski Canal, Jagielloński Canal, Jeziorak Lake and
Miłomłyn – Szeląg, Pisa River, Great Mazurian Lakes Trail. The City of Elbląg plays the
role of the junction point of inland and sea waterways. Priority 5 (Local and regional
transport infrastructure) of the ROP offers the prospect of support to projects developing
the infrastructure of inland waterways.
The most important inland waterway in Wielkopolskie region (Poznań and environs)
connects the Wisła and Odra rivers (see above on the Bydgoski Canal). The inland
waterways of the region are however only occasionally used for transport purposes.
Regulation/deepening of water ways and modernization of other facilities are essential for
increased usage. Priority 2 of the ROP (Infrastructure of essential importance for
development) focuses on supporting of projects aiming at expansion and the
modernization of river ports, wharfs, trans-shipment places, hydrotechnical infrastructure
on waterways. Such projects have however only been allocated €3 m or 0,7% of available
funding for Priority 2.
The ROP for Zachodniopomorskie (North-West Poland – including the cities of Szczecin
and Świnoujście) offers the prospect of the financing of projects aiming also at
development of transport infrastructure of sea and river ports not covered within the
(national) OP Infrastructure and Environment. The SWOT analysis within the ROP
describes the opportunity of using the waterway of the Odra (and linking with the Berlin
inland waterway system and Western Europe) as one of the biggest opportunities for the
region. Also investments in railways and inland navigation complementary to motor
transport are perceived as constituting a great opportunity for the region.
The SWOT analysis within the ROP in Śląskie region (Katowice and environs) lists ITW
on Gliwice Canal as a key opportunity for the region (it currently accounts for just 0.6%
of total transport within the region). However, the ROP for 2007-2013 does not provide
any opportunities for the funding of IWT projects within the region.
21
2.3.5 Maritime Transport
Significant growth has been experienced in intermodal/container transport over the past
eight years in Poland. The Gdańsk Container Terminal for example has reported
significant growth in the number of TEUs handled. In 2003 20,000 TEUs were handled
and the volume grew by 100% reaching over 40,000 TEU in 2004. In 2005 there was
again a significant increase in the total number of TEUs handled in Gdańsk, to 69,000.
The infrastructure of that port is currently developed to have capacity to handle 100,000
TEUs per year.
At the same time an entirely new container terminal is about to be built, eventually able to
handle 1 million containers per year.
Table 2.11 (International) Cargo handled in 4 major ports (in 1000 tons)
Source: Polish Central Statistical Office
When compared to other north-western European ports, Polish seaports are at a
competitive disadvantage because of relatively poor location with respect to the major
transoceanic routes. In order to make up for this, Polish ports require better infrastructure
and better access. In the meantime, however, current infrastructure providing access both
from the sea and hinterland is poor and eventually leads to longer dwelling times, higher
cost of services and a more limited range of port services.
Railway transport dominates in freight traffic to and from Polish seaports. All major ports
have relatively good railway connections with the hinterland and further to neighbouring
countries. The situation is much worse when it comes to road access to ports for freight
traffic.
2.3.6 Civil Aviation
General Trends and Indicators
The key trends and indicators of the Polish civil aviation sector are:
Port 1994 2004 Percentage change
Gdansk
Containers (1000 TEU) 1,197 43,739 3,554%
Other cargo 22,413 24,078 7%
Gdynia
Containers (1000 TEU) 80,989 377,237 366%
Other cargo 8,055 10,711 33%
Szczecin
Containers (1000 TEU) 10,789 27,255 153%
Other cargo 11,771 9,480 -19%
Swinoujscie
Containers (1000 TEU) - 1,852 -
Other cargo 8,067 9,753 21%
22
• The number of passengers served by Polish airports has grown continuously since the
beginning of the 1990s.
• Almost 12 million passengers flew with airlines in Poland during 2005 (almost 31 %
more than in 20048). This is a substantial increase and, according to analysts, it is
highly probable that Poland saw the fastest growing market in the world (in
percentage terms) in the period 2004 - 2005, overtaking even China.
• In the period January to November 2005, Polish airports handled around 10.5 million
people. The international airport Kraków Balice has served almost 1.6 mln
passengers in 2005 – a 90% growth on 2004 levels.
• Low cost airlines nearly tripled their share of the rapidly-growing Polish passenger
numbers - to almost 28% in the first three quarters of 2005 (Civil Aviation Authority
report released 22 Nov 2005). In the first three quarters of 2005, low-cost carriers
transported 2.14 million passengers to and from Poland, a 270% rise from a year
earlier.
• Despite the increased importance in low-cost carriers, the Polish flag carrier LOT
continues to take the biggest share of the market, carrying 3.5 million passengers in
the first three quarters of 2005.
Airport Infrastructure
Poland’s largest airport is Frederic Chopin Airport in Warsaw. In 2005 it handled
7,071,667 passengers – a 16% increase on 2004. The airport currently has scheduled
passenger service to nine domestic and 76 international destinations in Europe, Africa,
Asia and North America. The construction of a second terminal to deal with rising traffic
is currently under way. The combined Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 will triple the airport's
capacity and was to be open by spring 2006, but the construction was delayed. Currently,
opening is tentatively scheduled for summer 2007. There are also plans to move low cost
airlines to the former military airfield in Modlin north of Warsaw as well as longer-term
projects of building a completely new airport to serve the city with Modlin, Sochaczew
and Mszczonów listed as being possible locations.
Poland’s second largest airport is John Paul II International Airport Kraków-Balice 11km
west of the city of Kraków. Largely as a result of burgeoning operations from low-cost
carriers, the number of passengers using the airport is increasing rapidly. In 2005, more
than 1.5 million passengers used the airport – a nearly 95 per cent increase on 2004.
Prospects for further growth of the airport are extremely good - almost 8 million people
live within 100 kilometres of it and it has a favourable location in the network of existing
and planned motorways in Southern Poland. In addition, transport to and from the centre
of Kraków is now extremely quick (around 15 minutes) following the May 2006 opening
of a railway link.
8 According to statistics of The Civil Aviation Office, available at
http://www.ulc.gov.pl/index_1.php?dzial=wiadomosci&plik=26_01_2006.
23
In addition to the above two airports, Poland has a number of smaller regional airports
that have domestic as well as limited international routes. The main regional airports
offering international connections (with the number of passengers in 20059) are:
• Katowice-Pyrzowice (1,083,517)
• Gdańsk Lech Wałęsa Airport (677,946)
• Copernicus Airport Wrocław (454,047)
• Poznań-Ławica Airport (399,255)
• Szczecin-Goleniów "Solidarność" Airport (100,847)
• Bydgoszcz Ignacy Jan Paderewski Airport (38,682)
• Łódź-Lublinek Władysław Reymont Airport (18,063)
• Rzeszów-Jasionka Airport (2,091)
Two general observations should be made about the passenger numbers presented in the
above list. Firstly, the values presented in nearly all cases constitute a dramatic increase
in passenger numbers over the corresponding values for 2004. The main reason for this
growth is the rapid expansion of routes operated by low-cost carriers. Secondly,
passenger numbers for airports such as Łódź-Lublinek and Rzeszów-Jasionka are now
much higher following the introduction of new international routes by the low-cost carrier
Ryanair in late 2005 and early 2006.
According to the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment 2007-2013
eight airports (Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, Szczecin, Poznań, Wrocław, Katowice and
Rzeszów) in the TEN-T network will be financed through Priority 6 of the Cohesion
Fund as part of the TEN-T network. Remaining airports are likely to access financial
support through the ERDF within the context of Regional Operational Programmes 2007-
2013.
According to the Structural Funds eligibility criteria for the 2007 – 2013 period, regional
airports in Poland can receive grants to cover up to 50% of the cost of upgrading/
expanding existing facilities. In the near future new terminals will be open at airports in
Bydgoszcz, Katowice and Krakow. Jesionka Airport in Rzeszow as well as in Wroclaw
and Łódź plan to extend the runways.
New investments in regional airports infrastructure are also covered within many of the
Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) for period 2007-2013. These are presented in
the table below.
9 The source of all of these passenger numbers is the Polish Office of Civil Aviation.
24
Table 2.12 Planned Investments in Regional Airports 2007-2013:
Region Relevant Priorities/Projects of the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007
– 2013
Existing/Planned Airport Infrastructure Listed in the ROP
Dolnośląskie No information is given in the ROP No information is given in the ROP Kujawsko-
pomorskie
Support will focus on: • Expansion and the modification of runways and access roads to airports, car
parks and other airport facilities aiming at improvement of passengers safety and the quality of services.
• At Bydgoszcz Ignacy Jan Paderewski Airport the passenger terminal will be expanded and a cargo terminal built.
• Financial support for local airports in Włocławek, Toruń, Grudziądz, Innowrocław to maintain their existing functions and safeguard their potential role resulting from the increase in individual tourist and business traffic
• Bydgoszcz Ignacy Jan Paderewski Airport • Local airports in Włocławek, Toruń, Grudziądz and Innowrocław
Lubelskie Priority III - Transport, Action 3.5. Aviation Transport:
• Construction of a regional airport and expansion of existing small training-communication airports.
• Creation of better links with the rail and road network. • A new international airport at „Lublin –Niedźwiada”
• There are various military or sports airfields in Dęblin, Zamość, Biała Podlaska, Radawiec and Świdnik.
• There is a plans to create international airport near the municipalities Niedźwiada and Ostrówek (36 km from Lublin - this airport is also included in the spatial plan of the region).
Lubuskie Action 1.1 - Improvement of Regional Transport Infrastructure:
• Expansion and modernization of regional airport and airport infrastructure
• The region has two existing airports: a civil aviation one in Babimost (Zielona Góra Airport) and a sports one in Przylep.
• The ROP also stresses the need to create the conditions to support the development of airports with a “tourism business” profile.
Łódzkie Priority VI - Regional Transport Infrastructure:
• Projects aiming at connecting regional transport network with the national road network, trans-european transport network (TEN-T) and airports.
• Łódź-Lublinek Władysław Reymont Airport - modernisation and expansion • Development of air transport in Lublinek and Łask and the possible future construction of
a new international airport between Łódź and Warsaw Małopolskie Priority 3 - Infrastructure for Economic Development:
• Cohesion within the transport network investments in local airports will be supported.
Action 4.3 - Development of Integrated Metropolitan Transport:
• Support to investments in airport infrastructure. • Construction of new infrastructure and means of transport improving access to
airports.
• John Paul II International Airport Kraków-Balice is the main airport in the region. • In addition there are three sports airfields: Kraków-Pobiednik Wielki, Nowy Targ and
Nowy Sącz - Łososina.
Mazowieckie Priority III - Regional Transport System:
• Projects aiming at construction of a regional airport serving mainly budget airlines, charter flights and cargo transport.
• Projects aiming at construction of passenger and cargo terminals, parking
• Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport (Okęcie Airport) • Airport infrastructure which might be used for construction of the regional airport (e.g.
Modlin Airport) as an alternative for existing Okęcie airport in operation of budget airlines and charter flights
25
Region Relevant Priorities/Projects of the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007
– 2013
Existing/Planned Airport Infrastructure Listed in the ROP
facilities and access roads to airports Opolskie Priority 3 – (Action 3.3) Improvement of transport accessibility of region through
creation of links between the A4 motorway, border crossings and airports with
the main cities of the region
• Establishment of a regional civil airport (cargo and passenger flights). • Support of actions activating development of local sports and recreation airfields
as well as airports crucial for fire protection and medical rescue services.
• There is no regional passenger airport in the voivodship and the distance to the nearest airports in other regions is 100 km.
Podkarpackie Priority I. Technical and IT Infrastructure:
• Investments in expansion and modernization of the regional airport and local airports (expected results: a 700 metre extension of the runway at Rzeszów-Jasionka Airport facilitating further international routes from the airport).
• The main regional airport is Rzeszów-Jasionka Airport. • There are additional airports in Mielec, Krosno and Turbia.
Podlaskie Priority V - Development of the transport infrastructure (Action 5.2. Airport
Transport):
• Project aimed at the construction of a regional airport (at Krywany near Białystok), modernisation of sports and other local airports.
• There is currently no commercial aviation in the Podlaskie region. • Sports airfields in Białystok and Suwałki are not suited to transport • Construction of the regional airport in Białystok area is expected as well as a local airport
in Suwałki and a sports airport in the Czerwony Bór area Pomorskie Action 4.1 - Development and integration of the public transport system:
• Construction of attractive public transport connections with the airport and maritime terminals.
Action 5.3 - Development of infrastructure of transport junction points and
improvement of their accessibility:
• Investments in infrastructure of sea and inland ports as well as airports.
• The need for expansion of „Lech Wałęsa” Airport in Gdańsk and the establishment of operations at other regional airports not currently utilised by civil aviation (e.g. Gdynia-Oksywie Airport and Redzikowo Airport).
Śląskie Priority - Transport (Category of Project – Airports):
• The so-called key project 10 is for the upgrading of infrastructure at Katowice-Pyrzowice International Airport.
• International Airport „Katowice” in Pyrzowice. • Regional airports: Balice (Kraków, Małopolskie) and Ostrava (Slovakia).
Świętokrzyskie Priority 2. Improvement of quality of the communication system in region
• It is necessary to build a multifunctional airport which will provide national and international services.
• There is an airport in Masłów (8,5 km from the centre) which operates only for small and medium-sized sports aircraft.
• According to a study by the City of Kielce in 2005 expansion of the airport in Masłów is impossible.
• Local Authorities in Kielce have therefore decided to build a new regional airport. Warminsko-
mazurskie
Priority V: Regional and Local Transport Infrastructure: Airports:
• One of the regional goals is to improve the competitiveness of the region and this
• Regional Airport in Szymany near Szczytno (charter flights and international traffic) • Local Airports in Olsztyn – Dajtki, Kętrzyn and Elbląg • There is a well located airport in Gryźliny, 12 kilometres from Olsztyn, (constructed before
10 Key projects – projects essential from the point of view of priorities of the Development Strategy for Śląskie Voivodship 2007-2013
26
Region Relevant Priorities/Projects of the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007
– 2013
Existing/Planned Airport Infrastructure Listed in the ROP
will be achieved in part through projects related to the regional airport.
World War II) which has better conditions for development than Olsztyn-Dajtki Airport where an extension of the runway for international flights is impossible.
Wielkopolskie Priority II - Infrastructure of a significant importance for development (airport
infrastructure):
• Expansion of Poznań-Ławica airport and other airports of regional importance (Project of a maximum €10 mln value)
• The most important airport is Poznań-Ławica.11 • The main goal of the voivodship in the transport field is to strengthen airport transport
through creating new air links (especially those of “European importance”).
Zachodnio-
Pomorskie
Priority II - Development of transport and energy infrastructure:
• Projects aimed at strengthening of local airports through improvement of infrastructure
• Szczecin-Goleniów "Solidarność" Airport needs to be modernised. • Local airports e.g. in Zegrze Pomorskie, Klucz and Szczecin Dąbie have the potential to
play a complementary role at the regional level.
Source: Draft Regional Operational Programmes 2007-2013 (versions available as of 26 July 2006)
11 Although not mentioned in the ROP there is a long-standing debate in Poznań about the construction of a new airport. This relates to the current airport’s location requiring significant overflight of the city – leading to
safety concerns.
27
2.3.7 Trends and Indicators
Modal split
The comparison of the modal split in passenger travel demand reveals the rather weak
position of the passenger car in Poland. This is caused by the low degree of car
ownership, and the poorly developed road network (especially motorways). Railway
transport takes a relatively modest position (slightly lower than the EU15 average) and
bus transport is the second most important mode of transport.
Table 2.13 Modal split passenger transport (share in passenger kilometers, 2002)
Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro
Situation 2002
Poland 68.9 21.4 6.1 3.6
EU15 83.5 8.8 6.6 1.0
Rail transport accounts for 22% of all tonkilometers and this share is substantially higher
compared to the EU15 average. It is remarkable that, with a share of almost 68% the
position of road freight cargo transport is strong, in spite of the poor road network.
Table 2.14 Modal split freight transport (share in tonkilometers, 2002)
Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline
Situation 2002
Poland 67.9 22.1 - -
EU15 75.5 12.9 6.9 4.6
Source: Eurostat
The development of the modal split in the last decade, especially the last two years,
shows a rather strong decline for rail transport.
Figure 2.4 Development of the modal split in freight transport (share in tonkilometers)
-
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
120.000
140.000
160.000
180.000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(mln
to
nn
es-k
m)
28
2.3.8 Current Transport Policy Issues
Intermodal transport
Measures for linking-up the modes of transport are mainly introduced by the private
sector: there are numerous initiatives of logistic operators, organised on general economic
rules. PKP Cargo, which has a very valuable real estate portfolio and access to main rail
terminals, is also active in this business field.
These issues are mentioned within the major Polish transport-policy-documents, but
without any particular measures for implementation. There is no particular national or
regional system for the promotion of this policy direction. There is lack of precise
legislation on standards (especially on road maintenance), so there is no mechanism to
enforce standard and safety measures (this is true for all types of roads).
It is assumed that due to the current, unequal conditions of competition between road and
railway transport sectors, development of intermodal transport will be financially
supported by the State by:
• Supporting investments in specialist rolling stock.
• Granting single, initial assistance to launch new services.
• Supporting development of terminal infrastructure, port terminals included.
In most Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) for the 2007 – 2013 period, locations
for logistic centres are specified. Only few of these locations are the result of advanced
planning and market surveys and in only a few cases such initiatives were implemented
so far; most of the existing facilities are a result of private sector involvement.
There are also plans and declarations for the development of multimodal freight-transport
systems; among others, there are plans to support fleet renewal and development of
logistic centres, by means of tax relief, public support at regional level, and by opening
public-private-partnership schemes.
Public transport
Shifting passenger traffic from private cars to public transport is not popular in Poland.
Poland is a country of car-oriented politicians and radical changes of the political
direction after every election. Therefore, there are no significant measures for shifting
passenger traffic from private cars to public transport set on a national level.
There is also a lack of systematic approach to demand and traffic management. State
statistics are limited to public roads; public transport data is reported only by companies,
not by municipal transport organisers. The few state funded projects (e.g. new urban
expressways in Warsaw and Szcezcin) are indirectly promoting the use of cars in urban
areas.
Metropolitan areas play an important role regarding the shift of passengers from private
cars to public transport. Most of Poland’s biggest cities declare particular transport
policies, with regard to:
29
• Sustainable development, in relation to land use planning, protection of pedestrians
and cyclists;
• Promotion of public transport: in particular rail facilities’ integration with heavy rail,
transfer stations, Park&Ride systems;
• (in some cases) Promotion of non-motorised traffic, first cycling as an everyday
mode of transport (in some cases) and recreational needs, also supporting
environment friendly fuels (e.g. for municipal public transport vehicles);
• (in some cases) NOT to develop road networks in the inner cities, bypassing through
traffic; and
• Development of area traffic control systems and active parking policies in central
areas.
Changes favourable to public transport have been observed recently. Pro-efficiency
changes in companies have been intensified, unprofitable side operations have been given
up, etc. Old buses are being replaced by new ones. Quality criteria and matching meeting
the criteria with remuneration have appeared in transport services provision contracts.
There has also been considerable progress in fare systems and in traffic supervision and
control methods. Some cities started to recognize the opportunities provided by tram
transport, less vulnerable to disturbances caused by growing car traffic.
Major implemented measures for modal split and demand management are:
• land-use planning measures;
• zoning as an overall approach for traffic management (including area traffic control);
• new urban roads and bypasses;
• tramway projects (the last and the biggest investment in Warsaw, funded by EU
source, was an entirely new tram line linking two districts).
Public private partnerships
In recent years Poland has been active in promoting PPP initiatives in transport
infrastructure, e.g. special PPP laws have been designed. The A2 toll motorway is an
example of these initiatives. The recently appointed government however, has showed
less interest in PPP.
More information on public-private partnerships, including recent legislative
developments, can be found in Section 4.3.
2.4 Conclusions: SWOT Analysis of the Transport System
The existing system of transport network, even if considered as adequate from a spatial
coverage point of view, is not sufficient due to: i) the poor quality of the existing
infrastructure (particularly roads); and ii) the lack of motorways/expressways and a high-
speed train network.
The existing transport infrastructure does not provide for an effective quality of service to
industrial, tertiary sector and leisure users. Indeed, the lack of road network of an
adequate standard, currently appears to be a critical barrier to the country’s development,
limiting the potential of the Polish economy to exploit its competitive advantages such as
geographical position, market size and low labour costs. The condition of Poland’s roads
30
hampers the international trade with EU and the other neighbouring countries, and has a
negative impact on foreign direct investments and mobility of the labour force.
In conclusion, the following SWOT analysis can be prepared for the transport sector in
Poland.
31
Strengths Weaknesses
• Relatively high density of the railway network.
• Extensive network of rail and road.
• Good modal balance between rail and road.
• Central location between Germany and the NIS
and between Scandinavia/ Baltic States and
Central Europe.
• Extensive and affordable accessibility from both
Warsaw and numerous regional cities to
Western Europe through an extensive flight
route network operated mainly by low-cost
carriers.
• Low cost of freight operators.
• Comparatively good urban mass transit
infrastructure/provision in major cities.
• Poorly maintained condition of road network.
• High level of accidents.
• Low standards (road – axle load; rail – speeds).
• Limited and low quality public transport
provision in rural areas.
• Lack of high capacity strategic roads.
• Inadequate speeds of railway lines (both
passenger and freight).
• Sea ports facing a comparative disadvantage as
a result of both their geographical position vis-à-
vis the major oceans and land access to the
ports themselves.
• Low quality IWT infrastructure resulting in it
being a highly marginal form of freight transport.
• Inadequate airport infrastructure (particularly in
Warsaw) to cope with projected growth in
passenger numbers.
• A relative lack of private finance (both domestic
and foreign) for transport investments.
• Low institutional capacity of state transport
bodies.
• Unfavourable and unstable legislative and
regulatory framework for the transport sector.
Opportunities Threats
• Availability of new and significant EU funding
from the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund.
• Greater utilisation of PPP and other innovative
financing solutions.
• Further development of international freight
transport, building upon the country’s central
location and wage-competitiveness.
• Further development of a robust air transport
sector, facilitating increased international
accessibility, particularly through “low-cost”
carriers.
• Reducing differences in economic development
between regions – including increased levels of
EU funding for Poland’s poor eastern regions
where accessibility is at its worst.
• Reducing transport related environmental and
health risks, especially by building town
bypasses and limiting traffic congestion.
• High public awareness and political priority
given to overcoming transport-related
weaknesses, leading to the hope that significant
progress can be made.
• Political instability resulting in constantly
changing transport policies.
• Administrative capacity is insufficient to
administer current and future EU funding.
• Environmental and legal conflicts slowing down
investment programme.
• A significant shift in the modal split towards road
transport.
• Further worsening of road safety.
• High externalities from trans-European road
freight transport passing through Poland.
• Global security concerns potentially affecting
the Polish air transport sector through reduced
demand for flights and increased costs of
security at airports.
32
3 Accessibility analysis
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a more quantitative transport needs assessment at a regional level. It
clearly complements Chapter 2 in which the current situation of the transport system is
described where potential deficiencies are addressed. The analysis on the current situation
together with the analysis of transport needs from a cohesion perspective forms a basis
for identifying possible investment priorities.
In this chapter, first a description of the needs assessment methodology is presented.
Especially the determination of the composite Accessibility Problem Index (API), which
forms a central role in the approach is explained. The higher the value of the index, the
higher the need for intervention. This approach has been labelled the “red flag” analysis.
This composite Accessibility Problem Index is a combined measure, which addresses
transport network quality, population density and regional disparity (a more elaborate
explanation is provided in Annex B). As such the accessibility analysis is much more
linked to cohesion policy than a more traditional accessibility analysis. Next, results of
the application for the specific country are illustrated and analysed. This analysis
identifies main areas for intervention in rail and road transport for the current situation
(2006).
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index
To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model has been used to assess
the present situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the national
transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the road and
rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European
perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be
addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals
competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is
directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in
promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives.
To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion
policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required.
Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of
both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the
transport system. As a result they always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the
33
core to the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions
are central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all
regions. Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport
provision.
This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in
the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator
would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of
the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the
competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to
invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest
congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing
gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter
to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union.
To avoid this dilemma, a new composite accessibility indicator was defined which
distinguishes between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator
assumes that people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of
accessibility (measured in traditional terms) as the central regions but that they can
demand to be able to reach relevant destinations with the same travel speed ("as the crow
flies") as the people in the central regions. In addition the indicator recognises the
utilitarian principle of the happiness of the greatest number, i.e. that the transport needs of
densely populated regions should be given more weight than those of regions with only
few inhabitants. And finally, the indicator recognises that economically lagging regions
with severe deficits in accessibility may offer greater potential for stimulating economic
effects by transport investments than regions which enjoy already high accessibility.
These three principles avoid the pitfalls of both an extreme egalitarian view, which
postulates that all regions in Europe enjoy the same level of accessibility and a purely
efficiency-oriented view which postulates that accessibility in the already highly
accessibly central metropolitan areas should be further strengthened because they bring
the largest economic benefits. In other words, the three principles aim at a rational trade-
off between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion. Annex B
gives a more elaborate description of the composite Accessibility Problem Index.
3.3 Transport needs
The composite Accessibility Problem Index takes account of the transport system quality
(travel speed), population density and regional disparity. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 depict the
population density and the regional distribution of income between the different regions
in Poland. In terms of population density, the major urban centres Warsaw, Gdansk,
Poznan, Wroclaw, Katowice and Krakow clearly stand out (Figure 3.1). The capital city
Warsaw is also the economic centre of the country (Figure 3.2). However, it is also
apparent that compared to the old member states Poland is still less affluent.
The new accessibility
indicator recognises
transport network
quality, population
density and regional disparity
34
Figure 3.1 Population density (population/sqkm), Poland, 2006
Figure 3.2 GDP per capita (Euro of 2005), Poland, 2006
35
The results of the analysis of regions with accessibility deficits that might be addressed
by European transport policy are presented in figures 3.3 to 3.6. These figures show the
spatial distribution of the Accessibility Problem Index in Poland first for road and then
for rail from a national and a European perspective for the current situation (2006). The
colour scale of the maps resembles that of a traffic light: green shades indicate average
interregional travel speeds above the national or European average, yellow values
indicate speeds slightly above the national or European average and red shades indicate
speeds significantly lower than the national or European average.
Overall accessibility
If accessibility in Poland is compared with the European average (Figures 3.4 and 3.6), it
becomes apparent that the road and rail accessibility in Poland are substantially below the
European average, as indicated by the yellow and red shades of the maps.
Regional imbalances
If the spatial distribution of road accessibility in Poland is examined (Figures 3.3 and
3.4), the main thing to note is the steep decline in accessibility from the north-west to the
south-east of the country. Whereas average speeds of interregional trips from the western
part of the country are near the European average, the regions near the eastern and south-
eastern borders are severely disadvantaged – which is also due to the poor state of the
roads in Belarus and the Ukraine.
The maps of accessibility problems in the current rail system of Poland (Figures 3.5 and
3.6) show the same decline in accessibility from north-west to south-east. The northern
regions along the Baltic have rail accessibility above the national average and close to the
European average. However, the regions in the south along the Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian
and Belarus borders are very substandard – again this is partly caused by the poor cross-
border connections, even to the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
36
Figure 3.3 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), Poland, 2006
Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European), Poland, 2006
37
Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), Poland, 2006
Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European), Poland, 2006
38
Part B: Past Transport Investment Priorities
39
4 Previous Support Programmes
4.1 National Public Funding for Transport Infrastructure
Table 5.1 provides an overview of the budgetary expenditure on transport infrastructure
over the period 2000 - 2004. The respective projects were all co-financed by Phare, ISPA,
EIB, EBRD and/or the Cohesion Fund. The data presented does not include projects fully
financed by the national budget.
Table 5.1 National funding (budget allocation) by mode of transport, 2000-2004 (mln €)
Road Rail Air Maritime
2000 157.6 36.9 0 44.5
2001 233.8 130.8 0 0
2002 118.2 21.4 0 3.5
2003 61.6 0 0 0
2004 433.4 105.1 0 39.9
Total 2000-2004 1,004.6 294.2 0 87.9
Share 72% 21% 0% 6%
Source: ECORYS Polska, based on project fiches
The budget allocation by modes clearly shows the high level of spending on road
development in the past period and the more limited spending on rail. Maritime transport
received only limited government expenditure.
4.2 EU Funding
Pre-accession Funding
In Poland, pre-accession funding to the transport sector under the Phare programme has
almost exclusively benefited interventions in the area of road transport (EU contribution
of €371.7 m). This is mainly due to the fact that access roads are eligible for funding
under the Phare-supported regional development or business-infrastructure programmes
(whereas projects in the rail transport sector would be (1) too costly to be accommodated
under these programmes; and (2) project preparation of rail transport projects is lengthier
than for road transport). Implementation of ISPA projects is in line with the national
ISPA transport strategy paper (emphasis on road transport). Implementation of ISPA
projects is also in line with the country's national strategy.
40
Despite the effort to balance funding between the road and rail sectors, ISPA and
Cohesion Fund allocations mainly benefit the road sector (EU contribution of 702.3€
mln), followed by rail (EU contribution of 607.8 mln €).
Sectoral Operational Programme Transport (SOPT) 2004 – 2006
The Sectoral Operational Programme Transport (SOPT) 2004 – 2006 provides an
important framework for transport interventions to be partly funded through the Structural
Funds and Cohesion Fund. It was produced by the (then) Ministry of Infrastructure and
was finalised on 6th February 2004. The Integrated Regional Operational Programme
(IROP) is also an important document. It was produced by the then Ministry of Economy,
Labour and Social Policy (MGPPS) in close collaboration with the self governments in all
regions. It was approved on 10th February 2004 following extensive negotiations between
Poland and the European Commission. The IROP also includes field of interventions in
the transport sector.
It is also to stress that the SOPT 2004 – 2006 clearly distinguishes between investments
that it will fund and those that will be funded through the IROP and the Cohesion Fund.
The following allocation of programmes and funding sources is given in Table 5.2 below.
Table 5.2 The allocation of types of transport investments between programmes and EU Funds (2004 – 2006):
Action Programme EU Fund
Modernisation of railway lines
(TEN-T)
Framework Reference for CF Assistance CF
Extension of railway lines to provide better
services for agglomerations
SOPT ERDF
Construction of motorways Framework Reference for CF Assistance
SOPT
CF + ERDF
Construction of expressways Framework Reference for CF Assistance
SOPT
CF + ERDF
Reconstruction of national roads (TEN-T) Framework Reference for CF Assistance
SOPT
CF + ERDF
Reconstruction of regional roads IROP ERDF
Modernisation of streets/roads IROP ERDF
Improving access to seaports from the sea. SOPT ERDF
Improving hinterland access to seaports
and airports
IROP and SOPT ERDF
Source: SOPT 2004 – 2006 (Page 36)
The SOPT 2004-2006 includes indications on transport infrastructure to be realised in the
period 2007-2013:
• Upgrade of entry to Gdansk inner port and the infrastructure enabling access to the
region.
• Upgrade of Swinoujscie – Szczecin seaway (2nd stage), development of port and
infrastructure for Zachodniopomorskie Centrum Logistyczne [logistics centre] in
Szczecin port; infrastructure for container terminal in Szczecin, improvement of road
access to the port;
41
• Upgrade of Fryderyk Chopin airport in Warsaw and construction of Terminal 2 in the
airport, starting of study work and design work on the second Warsaw airport project
(to be financed by the National Airports Company, PPL).
The exact status of most of these project remains unkown, only for the Szeczecin port
projects that have been discussed since 1995 already, it is clear that ERDF finance
combined with a World Bank loan has been recently agreed.
4.3 Other Sources of Financing
This section gives an overview of other European sources of financing for transport
infrastructure12
.
EBRD
The EBRD focused its support in Poland to railway restructuring. It has committed loans
to the railways in 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2004 for a total amount of 294 m€. In 1993
EBRD committed a loan for motorway development (45 m€).
EIB
Compared to the EBRD, EIB has been far more active in Poland, with a total loan
portfolio of 3,600 m€ in the period 1994-2006. The overall distribution of loans is almost
equal to the split of the national funds (table 4.1): road sector 77%, rail sector 16% and
the aviation sector 8%.
The support in the road sector mainly involves co financing of the construction of
motorways (A1, A2, A4). The largest EIB loan was dedicated to the construction of the
A1 motorway in 2005 (500 m€). It should be noted that EIB also finances road
rehabilitation and modernisation of expressways.
In the aviation sector, the support expressed in number of projects is almost fully
dedicated to air fleet purchases and renewals (7 out of the 8 projects). However, measured
in Euros the EIB support is dominated by an airport project in Warsaw in 2002 (73% of
total loans).
Finally, the loans committed in the railway sector involved mainly modernisation and
capacity improvement. The most recent loan is related to rolling stock renewal, by means
of supporting locomotive leasing.
PPP financing
In the early-1990s there was considerable hope within Poland that Public Private
Partnerships (PPP) would be an important means of financing transport investments –
particularly the planned motorway network. The first PPPs were for the construction and
operation of Poland’s first private toll roads - a stretch of the A2 motorway in the vicinity
12 The World Bank is also active in Poland in the transport sector, but has not been included in this analysis.
42
of Poznań and a stretch of the A4 between Katowice and Kraków. A consortium of 18
firms, Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (AWSA), was formed in 1993 to bid for the A2
concession. It eventually won a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) concession that was
signed in June 1997. However, in the years that followed the changing political context
and the perceived high risk of the project deterred international investors from
participation. AWSA renegotiated the terms of their concession agreement, with the
scope of the project being dramatically reduced. Whereas the project was initially based
around through 3 concessions awards for the construction and upgrading of a 360 km
stretch of motorway from Swiecko to Stryków, it was reduced into a concession for a
stretch of 104 km with reduced construction costs and a partial government guarantee of
bonds. Investment from foreign banks was only secured in March 2000 and from the EIB
in May 2000. Construction of the first section began in May 2001; it opened in December
2002. Around the same time a separate PPP was designed for the construction of a 61 km
stretch of the A4 motorway in Southern Poland. The BOT concession agreement was
signed with Stalexport S.A. on 19th September 1997. Construction commenced in the
period thereafter with the first stretch of the motorway opening on 3rd April 2000.
Despite the realisation of the above-mentioned BOT projects, the experiences gained
showed that PPP would not be a panacea for the high need for motorway construction in
Poland. First of all, Polish financial markets were not sufficiently developed to provide
the required loan amounts and foreign banks were unwilling to accept the high perceived
level of risk associated with the projects. In addition, it became clear that many planned
road projects were not suitable for PPP schemes – notably because the projected traffic
levels were not large enough to make the projects sufficiently commercially viable.
Furthermore, it became clear that the legislative system was not favourable towards the
widespread application of PPP financing solutions. The last few years have therefore been
characterised by both a greater level of pragmatism as to the potential opportunities
presented by PPP in the transport sector, as well as determined efforts to make the
legislative framework more favourable towards PPP.
In mid-2003 the Ministry of Economic Affairs decided to develop a special PPP law. The
main objective of the law was to stimulate public sector investments, specifically into
infrastructure, by providing an optimum legal framework for public undertakings with
participation of private entities and removing the obstacles that result in considerable risk
of PPP undertakings for both parties that existed under the previous legal framework. In a
broader context, the law was aimed at eliminating psychological barriers concerning the
role and function of the government in the execution of public tasks with participation of
a private partner. The law was intended to enable the public entities and private partners
to establish a relationship in the form of a PPP contract to carry out public tasks. It was
also designed to prevent such situations where a PPP undertaking becomes a political
instrument or is vulnerable to political pressures.
Consultancy support was provided to the development of the new law through an EBRD-
supported project over the period 2003 – 2004. This culminated in the publication of a
draft law in July 2004 which was subsequently subjected to extensive revision and
amendments. The PPP Law was eventually passed in July 200513
and included:
13 The Public-Private Partnership Law of 28th July 2005 (Dz.U. 2005 nr 169 poz. 1420)
43
• An extensive description of the steps to be followed by each public authority
considering a PPP solution - to assess whether value for money can be assured;
• Public sector comparison analysis and procurement procedures; and
• A detailed list of issues that the concession agreement should cover - to ensure that
key risks are properly allocated and not left open.
Furthermore, the PPP Law stipulates that all PPP projects financed with public funds will
need to be approved by the Minister of Finance, who is also obliged to issue an
ordinance, together with the Minister of Economy and the Chief of the Main Statistical
Office, on how the allocation of risk in a PPP project determines whether the public
spending should be classed as on- or off-balance sheet. Flexibility on this issue seems
crucial to encourage the public sector to use PPP as a tool for redressing the significant
under-investment in Polish infrastructure.
The PPP Law only provided a broad legislative framework and needed to must be
supported by secondary legislation (decrees) issued by the Minister of Economy and the
Minister of Finance. These were scheduled to be issued in January 2006 but such was the
level of debate on PPP in Poland that they were not in the end finalised until mid 2006.
The following three decrees were enacted:
• The Decree of the Minister of Economy of 9th June 2006 on the detailed scope, forms
and principles referring to the preparation of information on PPP agreements;14
• The Decree of the Minister of Economy of 21st June 2006 on risks resulting from
public-private partnerships;15
and
• The Decree of the Minister of Finance of 30th June 2006 on the essential elements for
analysis of projects to be funded through public-private partnerships.16
The Decree of the Minister of Finance of 30th June 2006 does not change the
responsibilities resulting from articles of the July 2005 PPP Law but rather describes in a
less detailed way the similar scope of analysis and their components. Some of the
requirements incorporated into previous draft of the legislation written by the Ministry of
Economy were removed (including analysis of possible variants of the completion of the
designed project, environmental impact report, and models concerning different ways of
completion of the project). According to the Decree, before taking a decision to realise a
project through a PPP solution, it is required that the public entity produces a preliminary
analysis of the project, which separately analyses its financing using conventional public
resources. The result should be a comparative analysis of different ways of completing
the project with respect to financial effects, social advantages and disadvantages as well
as division of risk between public and private partners.
The Decree of 21st June 2006 concerns the division of risk between the private partner
and public entity. It is stated that this should be undertaken by applying principles of
optimal allocation of the given risk, considering the capabilities and skills of managing
14 Dz.U. 2006 nr 125 poz. 867 15 Dz.U. 2006 no 125 item. 868. 16 Dz.U. 2006 no 125 item. 866.
44
risk by all parties. The overall aim should be the achievement of the highest added value
of the analysed PPP project. Types of risk are classified as follows:
• Risk resulting from the construction;
• Risk from the demand;
• Risk resulting from the design of the project;
• Risk connected with the availability of funding upon completion of projects;
• Political and legislative risks.
The Decree from 9th of June 2006 provides the obligation of the public entity to prepare
the information on the scope and subject of the PPP project, the total amount of expenses
on executing of the PPP agreement, remuneration of the private partner, on-going control
of the realisation of the project as well as principles and the arbitration procedure between
parties of the PPP agreement.
In conclusion, the situation with respect to PPP in Poland is now in a state of evolution.
On the one hand, the new PPP Law and secondary legislation provides a better (albeit not
perfect) legal framework for the operation of new PPP schemes. In addition, the
attractiveness of PPP solutions may increase by virtue of the fact that from 2007 onwards
it will be possible to incorporate Structural and Cohesion Funds financing within PPP
schemes.17
On the other hand, the fundamental riskiness of many PPP schemes remains –
with it being unclear whether they can generate sufficient revenue to be financially
viable. Moreover, the attitude of the new Polish Government to direct- and shadow-toll
schemes is formally unclear, but there are signs that PPP is not a top priority.
17 This has not been possible in the 2004 – 2006 funding period.
45
Part C: Future Transport Investment Priorities
46
5 National Transport Strategy
5.1 Introduction
This is the first section of Part C, which aims to determine transport investment priorities
at a strategic level. This chapter deals with the current national transport policy and
resulting investment priorities. In the next chapter these investment priorities are
confronted with an analysis of possible sources of financing, and other factors such as
their contribution to EU policy objectives, the administrative capacity of the country, the
socio-economic impacts in relation to the costs of the projects, and the extent to which the
projects contribute to the needs identified in Part A of this report. Finally the overall
impact of the proposed investment priorities is assessed.
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning
National Transport Policy 2006 - 2025
The National Transport Policy (NTP) 2006 – 2025 is a concise document of 34 pages
which was produced by the (then) Ministry of Infrastructure18
and approved by the
Council of Ministers on 29th June 2005. It is currently the key long-term strategy
document in the transport sector in Poland. The overarching objective of the NTP 2006 –
2025 is:
“… to meet rational expectations of the public caused by increased mobility, which means an increased
demand for transport availability” (NTP 2006 – 2025, Page 3).
Realisation of this objective will be achieved by focusing on the six specific, detailed
objectives presented in the Table overleaf:
18 The Ministry of Infrastructure became the Ministry of Transport and Construction on 31st October 2005. Then in May 2006 the
Ministry was divided into the Ministry of Transport, The Ministry of Construction and the Ministry of Maritime Economy.
47
Table 6.1 The Specific Objectives of the NTP 2006 – 2025
Objective 1: Improvement of transport accessibility and transport quality as a factor of improving
conditions of living and removing economic development barriers
Objective 2: Supporting the competitiveness of Polish economy as the key instrument of economic
development
Objective 3: Improved efficiency of the transport system
Objective 4: Integration of the transport system – in sectoral and territorial aspects
Objective 5: Increased safety, leading to a radical reduction in the number of accidents and their
consequences (the killed, the injured) – in social understanding – to improved personal
security of transport users and protection of transported goods.
Objective 6: Reducing the negative impact of transport on the environment and conditions of living.
Source: NTP 2006 – 2025. Emboldened text in original.
The intention of the document’s authors was for the NTP 2006 – 2025 to be presented to
Parliament with the aim that it would get a formal status in law as the basis for long-term
transport sector planning. However, it is currently unclear if and when this will happen.
The Ministry of Transport and Building acknowledges that it is currently too short to
offer a clear framework for strategic transport planning and needs to be developed further
to cover issues such as the overall regulatory framework for the transport sector.
Transport Development Strategy 2007 – 2013
The Transport Development Strategy (TDS) 2007 – 2013 provides a key indication of
Poland’s priorities for the period 2007-2013. It was published in draft form by the
Ministry of Infrastructure in December 2004 and subjected to expert, civil society and
donor (including the European Commission, World Bank and EIB) consultation in early
2005. The consultation exercise was extensive – the largest to date in the transport sector
in Poland – with over fifty different bodies commenting on the draft version. In addition,
two large stakeholder meetings were organised by the Ministry – with each attended by
between 70 and 100 people (including academics and NGOs). Another meeting was
convened by the Ministry of Infrastructure to discuss the transnational elements of the
strategy. Representatives from Slovakia, Lithuania, Germany, the EIB and the European
Commission (DG REGIO and DG TREN) attended this meeting.
The Strategy’s “mission” is defined as follows:
“The realisation of the first, fundamental stage of the works, leading, by using the funds from the
European Union and the national resources, to the creation by the year 2020 of a modern transport
system, integrated with respect to branches and territory, safe and environmentally friendly. The system
would allow to:
Maintain the high economic growth rate, increase the competitiveness of enterprises and regions,
increase the employment rate as well as social, economic and territorial cohesion of the country;
Achieve transport service standards, including travel duration and comfort standards characteristic for
highly developed countries.”
48
The draft TDS goes on to list four overarching goals for transport development over the
period 2007 – 2013:
• Goal 1 – A Modern Transport Network
• Goal 2 – A Modern Transport Market
• Goal 3 – Territorial and Modal Integration of Transport
• Goal 4 – Road Safety
Each of these overarching goals has a set of related specific goals which gives a more
detailed overview of transport priorities over the period until 2013. These are presented in
Annex C.
On the basis of the draft TDS 2007-2013 the government of Poland has established a
priority listing of projects for the period 2007-2013. The priority listing includes:
• Motorways and high speed roads:
• Construction of the entire A1 motorway (part of the trans-European corridor
Gdańsk-Vienna)
• Completion of the construction of the A2 motorway (part of the trans-European
corridor Berlin-Moscow)
• Completion of the construction of the A4/A18 motorway (part of the trans-
European corridor Dresden-Kiev) between the western national border and
Tarnów.
• All high capacity roads which are to be constructed between 2007 and 2013 shall
be constructed as two carriage roads. Roads with the highest anticipated increase
in traffic intensity by 2020 shall be constructed first. The initial list of high speed
roads includes:
• S2: section going through Warsaw on the A2 motorway
• S3: Szczecin – A4 motorway
• S5: Świecie-Poznań – Wrocław
• S7: Gdańsk-Warsaw and Radom-Kraków
• S8: Wrocław-Warsaw and Wysków-Białystok
• S10: Płońsk-Toruń • S17: Warsaw-Lublin
• Railway lines, in order of significance:
• E20 Berlin-Moscow: completion and modernisation of the entire E20
• E65 Gdynia-Vienna: works shall be conducted on the full length of the line
starting form Gdynia and ending on the southern national border, main part will
be adapted to speeds of 200 km/hour.
• E75 “Rail Baltica”: works shall be conducted between Warsaw and Białystok,
section will be adapted to speeds of 200 km/hour
• E59: continuation of reconstruction between Szczecin and Poznań • E30: reconstruction on sections with the highest traffic intensity
• Investments on power infrastructure, communication, informatics and other rail
systems will be realised simultaneously.
49
Despite the extensive consultations, the TDS 2007 – 2013 was never finalised and the
strategy remained in draft form throughout 2005. Work on its finalisation has continued
at a slow pace. It was originally expected to be approved by the Council of Ministers in
March 2006 but this has now been put back until October 2006. Once finalised, it will
constitute the key medium-term strategic framework document for transport sector
planning.
5.3 National Strategic Reference Framework
The most current version of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF, also
known in Poland as the National Coherence Strategy) for the programming period 2007-
2013 was adopted by the Council of Ministers on the 1st August 2006 and will be
subjected to negotiations with the European Commission in October 2006. The first draft
of the NSRF was issued in September 2005 and was itself based on earlier work on a
National Development Plan (NDP) for 2007 – 2013. The NSRF has been subjected to
numerous changes in the intervening period. It is also worth noting that the descriptive
analysis of the transport sector within the NSRF is largely the same as that contained
within the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment.
The NSRF constitutes a basis for programming of interventions of the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund.
The strategic goal of the NSRF is a creation of the conditions for the growth of
competitiveness of the Polish economy based on knowledge and entrepreneurship
assuring an increase in employment and in the level of social, economic and territorial
cohesion of Poland – both within the European Union and inside the country. The
horizontal objectives of the NSRF are:
1. Improvement of the quality of functioning of public institutions and the
expansion of mechanisms of partnerships;
2. Improvement of the quality of human capital and increased social cohesion;
3. Development and modernization of the technical and social infrastructure of
fundamental importance for increasing of the competitiveness of Poland and its
regions;
4. Increasing of the competitiveness and innovation of enterprises, including in
particular the manufacturing sector of the high added value and services sector,
5. Increasing of the competitiveness of Polish regions and counteracting their social,
economic and spatial marginalization;
6. Bridging developmental opportunities (through equality of opportunity) and
supporting structural changes in rural areas.
A number of specific transport-related priorities are included under the third of the above-
listed horizontal objectives. These are presented in the Box below.
50
Box 6.1 – Transport Priorities for the Realisation of the Horizontal NSRF Objective “Development and modernization of the technical and social infrastructure of fundamental importance for increasing of the competitiveness of Poland and its regions”:
• Connection of the main economic centres in Poland by a network of motorways and expressways and
modern railway networks;
• Security of connection of all land neighbours of Poland by networks of motorways and expressways and
inclusion of the country biggest urban centres of Eastern Poland in the transport system;
• Improvement of accessibility of railway transport in the international scope and improvement of
connections between the biggest economic centres and agglomerations;
• Increase in share of public transport in service of inhabitants of the biggest agglomerations; and
• Adjustment of transport needs to an increasing demand.
5.4 Operational Programmes 2007-2013
The NSRF 2007-2013 will be implemented through 5 national and 16 regional
Operational Programmes (OPs). The most current versions of documents are available on
the websites of the Ministry of Regional Development in draft form19
. The final scopes of
the priorities and actions within the programmes will be subjected to the civil society
consultations and negotiations with the European Commission which are scheduled to
take place in September-October 2006.
There are the following OPs:
• OP Development of Eastern Poland;
• OP Innovative Economy;
• OP Infrastructure and the Environment;
• OP Human Resources;
• OP Technical Assistance; and
• 16 Regional Operational Programmes.
During the programming of the OPs for the period 2007 – 2013 concerns were raised over
the demarcation of the type of transport projects that can be funded through different
programmes over the period 2007 – 2013. This has however now been formally clarified.
The OP for Infrastructure and the Environment will be used to fund projects of “national
importance” and the OP for the Development of Eastern Poland and the 16 ROPs will be
used for projects of “regional importance”.
The remainder of this sub-section provides information on the transport-related elements
of the relevant OPs.
OP Infrastructure and Environment
The main objective of the OP Infrastructure and Environment (OP IE) is to “improve the
investment attractiveness of Poland and its regions through development of technical
infrastructure as well as protection and improvement of environment, health and
preservation of cultural identity and development of territorial cohesion”.
19 Website of the Ministry of Regional Development: http://www.mrr.gov.pl/ProgramyOperacyjne+2007-2013/.
51
The OP IE has 14 priorities. Four of these are relevant to the transport sector and are
presented in the Table below:
Table 6.2 Transport priorities within the OP Infrastructure and Environment 2007-2013
Priority Objective Funding
Source
Total Allocation
(public + private)
Priority 6 – Trans-European
Transport Networks (TEN-T)
Improvement of the communication accessibility
of Poland and interregional connections through
development of the road and network and airports
Cohesion
Fund
€ 8.874 billion
Priority 7 - Environmentally-
Friendly Transport
Increase in the share of ecological forms of
transport in the overall transport of passengers
and freight
Cohesion
Fund
€7.215 billion
Priority 8 - Transport safety
and national transport
networks
Improvement of safety and accessibility in road
transport in Poland outside the TEN-T network
ERDF €1.069 billion
Priority 9 - Road
infrastructure in Eastern
Poland –
Improvement of communication connections of
the major cities in the regions of eastern Poland
with the rest of the country through development
of road network in these Voivodships
Cohesion
Fund
€1.145 billion
Source: Ministry of Regional Development.
OP Development of Eastern Poland
The Operational Programme Development of Eastern Poland (OP DEP) was accepted by
the Council of Ministers on 25th July 2006. Its main objective is to accelerate the socio-
economic development of Poland’s five poorest regions (Lubelskie, Podkarpackie,
Podlaskie, Świętokrzyskie and Warmińsko–Mazurskie).
The OP DEP has one main transport priority (Priority 3) and a second (Priority 2) from
which it will also be possible to finance certain transport investments:
Table 6.3 Transport priorities within the OP Development of Eastern Poland 2007-2013
Priority Objective Funding
Source
Total Allocation
(public+private)
Priority 2 –
Regional Growth
Centres
Development of the metropolitan function of regional cities
(in terms of transport this covers: urban mass transit & other
infrastructure)
ERDF €803.8 mln
Priority 3 -
Transport &
Cross Border
Infrastructure
Improvement of the availability & quality of communications
connections among the regions of Eastern Poland (covering
construction & modernization of regional roads, bypasses for
national roads & Powiat (district) roads leading to border
crossings
ERDF €717.3 mln
Source: Ministry of Regional Development.
52
16 Regional Operational Programmes
The 16 Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) are currently being subjected to an ex-
ante evaluation and are available in draft form on the website of the Ministry of Regional
Development.
They contain a diverse range of overall objectives and transport priorities. Around half of
the ROPs include just one transport priority but in a number of cases some transport-
related priorities also cover other issues (such as energy in the case of Lubuskie and
Podkarpackie). Several ROPs cover transport needs in more than one priority
(Małopolskie, Mazowieckie, Opolskie, Podkarpackie, Pomorskie, Wielkopolskie,
Zachodniopomorskie).
Annex D provides an overview of the transport-related priorities of each of the 16 draft
ROPs and Annex E presents a detailed summary of the allocated financial resources. It
should however be noted that these could potentially be subject to change on the basis of
the ex-ante evaluations that are currently being undertaken.
53
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments
(2007-2013)
6.1 Introduction
This chapter intends to identify main factors that influence the setting of transport
investment priorities for the next programming period.
Community Strategic Guidelines
The context for identifying strategic investment priorities is set by the Community
Strategic guidelines. In accordance with the draft Council Regulation (article 23), the
Council establishes Community Strategic Guidelines for cohesion policy to “give effect
to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and
sustainable development”20
.
These Strategic Guidelines form the basis for identifying investment priorities, which are
then be elaborated in National Strategic Reference Frameworks at the Member State
level, which are subsequently further detailed in Operational Programmes (OPs) for
thematic areas. A Commission proposal on these Strategic Guidelines was published in
July 200521
. In parallel, Member States have already started preparations for their
National Strategic Reference Frameworks and OPs.
Additional factors influencing investment priorities
As indicated the Strategic Guidelines form the context in which investment priorities for
Community financing should be identified. In addition to these strategic guidelines a
number of other factor shape the eventual establishment of transport investment priorities.
These other factors include:
• Cost-effectiveness of projects;
• Availability of other sources of funding;
• Appropriateness of transport policy
• Administrative capacity to adequately absorb and manage funds.
In the next section the Strategic Guidelines and the other factors are elaborated in more
detail.
20 COM(2004)492 21 COM(2005)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013.
54
6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines
The (draft) Community Strategic Guidelines set the scene for any future transport
investment financed as part of the Commission’s cohesion policy. According to the
communication of the Commission (COM(2005)299) the guidelines with respect to the
expansion and improvement of transport infrastructures for the period 2007-2013
determine clear guidelines for action (see text box 6.1)
Box 6.1 Community Strategic Guidelines: Guidelines for Action
The Community Strategic Guidelines distinguish the following guidelines for action:
• Member States should give priority to the 30 projects of European interest, located in Member States and regions eligible under the Convergence objective22. Other TEN projects should be supported where this is a strong case in terms of their contribution to growth and competitiveness. Within this group of projects, cross-border links and those overseen by the specially designated European co-ordinators in the Member States merit special attention. Member States should make use of the co-ordinators as a means of shortening the time that elapses between designation of the planning of the network and the physical construction
• Complementary investment in secondary connections will also be important in the context of an integrated regional transport and communications strategy covering urban and rural areas, in order to ensure that the regions benefit from the opportunities created by the major networks.
• Support for rail infrastructure should seek to ensure greater access. Track fees should facilitate access for independent operators. They should also enhance the creation of an EU-wide interoperable network. Compliance and applications of the interoperability and the fitting of ERTMS on board and on track should be part of all projects financed.
• Promoting environmentally sustainable transport networks. This includes public transport facilities (including park-and-ride infrastructures), mobility plans, ring roads, increasing safety at road junctions, soft traffic (cycle lanes, pedestrian tracks). It also includes actions providing for accessibility to common public transport services for certain target groups (the elderly, disabled persons) and providing distribution networks for alternative vehicle fuels.
• In order to guarantee the optimum efficiency of transport infrastructures for promoting regional development, attention should be paid to improving the connectivity of landlocked territories to the Trans-European network (TEN-T) (…). In this respect, the development of secondary links, with a focus on inter-modality and sustainable transport, should be promoted. In particular, harbours and airports should be connected to their hinterland.
• More attention should be paid to developing the “motorways of the sea” and to short-sea shipping as a viable alternative to long-distance road and rail transport.
In addition the Guidelines give specific instructions with respect to the territorial
dimension of Cohesion policy in stressing that Member States should pay particular
attention to prevent uneven regional development and improve territorial integration and
cooperation between and within regions.
22 Decision n°. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 29 April 2004.
55
6.3 Additional Factors for the Prioritisation of Transport Investments
As indicated in the introduction a number of other factors determine the eventual
prioritisation of transport investment priorities under the Commission’s cohesion policy
instruments. These will be subsequently elaborated.
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness or value for money stands at the core of any sound investment
programme. It is also fully embedded in the procedures and structure of the cohesion
policy of the Commission in which cost-benefit assessments of proposed projects are
standard procedure. Also EIB applies CBA as standard assessment methodology before
granting new loans.
The cost-effectiveness criterion is especially important if budget resources are limited. In
this case cost-benefit analyses can be used to phase foreseen transport investment in time
or to seek alternatives with a similar functionality that offer a higher value for money.
Availability of other sources of financing
A can be observed from the previous investment programmes other sources of finance
should not be overlooked with respect to future transport investments Apart from public
financing by the country itself important European potential sources are:
The Commission recently reached an agreement with the EP on future TEN-T financing.
Total budget available is 7 bn€ for the coming programming period. Financing can be up
to 20%. It should be noted however that this financing is only a fraction of total cohesion
financing (e.g. Cohesion Fund financing for transport approximates 45 m€), while TEN-T
funds are valid for all EU members. It is expected that TEN-T funds will be focused on
cross-border TEN-T projects.
EIB financing is another source of financing available for transport investment. EIB has
been very active in Poland with a total loan portfolio of 3,600 m€ in the period 1994-
2006. The overall distribution of loans is: road sector 77%, rail sector 16% and the
aviation sector 8%.
In addition to EIB, the EBRD can become more active in Poland. Until now EBRD
involvement has been limited to three projects related to railway restructuring. In its
country strategy (approved end of 2004) the EBRD continues to support railways
restructuring and modernisation. It will mobilise its existing experience in Poland and
abroad to further the scope for financing projects through PPPs, mainly in the municipal
sector and perhaps in the transport sector.
PPPs are explicitly mentioned in the Community Strategic Guidelines as a possible
appropriate method of financing investment when there is significant scope for involving
the private sector. Apart from the financial leverage positive impacts are expected on
implementation and management of projects.
TEN-T budget
EIB
EBRD
PPPs
56
Experience with private involvement in transport infrastructure in the form of PPPs has
been limited until now. However, based on the experience in other countries logical
sector for a more intense private sector involvement are: ports, airports and logistics
centres. Also motorways sometimes figure as typical PPP models. In Poland several BOT
projects for motorways have been carried out in recent years (A2, A4). The experiences
showed that Polish financial markets were not sufficiently developed to provide the
required loan amounts and foreign banks were unwilling to accept the high perceived
level of risk associated with the projects. In addition, it became clear that many planned
road projects were not suitable for PPP schemes – notably because the projected usage
levels in terms of vehicle throughput were not large enough to make the projects
sufficiently commercially viable.
Both EBRD and EIB can also get involved if PPP constructions are considered through
direct equity participations.
In summary, other financing sources are expected to relevant for the following areas:
Table 6.1 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding
Source Destination
TEN-T TEN projects, especially cross border sections
EIB Motorways and to a lesser extent railways
EBRD Railways and possibly state roads rehabilitation
PPP & private capital Income generating transport investments: ports,
airports, toll roads, logistic centres
Appropriateness of the transport policy
Whilst key aspects of EU transport policy (e.g. user and polluter pays principle, public
service obligations) are incorporated into official policy, real barriers exist to their
adoption in practice. There is significant opposition within the country to the implications
on pricing of full-cost recovery policies.
With respect to road pricing, a National Road Fund (KFD) was established on 1 January
2004 with the aim of strengthening the implementation of the National Programme of
Roads and Motorway Construction. The KFD’s focus on funding new infrastructure,
rather than the maintenance of the existing network, makes it rather unusual as a road
fund, since its revenues should generate sufficient funds for maintenance of the road
network.
In the rail sector the National Railway Fund (KFK) came into being following the
enactment of an act on 16 December 2005. It serves two purposes – the financing of rail
infrastructure investments and covering the costs of various discounts on rail tickets
established by law. It draws its revenue from fuel taxes. Given that the majority of
passenger and freight rail traffic operates on electrified lines (i.e. not using diesel
locomotives), the KFK can therefore in one sense be seen as constituting a cross-subsidy
from the road to rail sector because its revenue comes mainly from fuel consumed by
motorists. Also in this sector there is a challenge to generate sufficient funds for
maintenance of the network.
57
In the rail sector the separation of infrastructure management and operations has not fully
materialised. There is a growing need for replacement and rehabilitation of rolling stock,
given the rather old locomotives and wagons.
With respect to public service obligations (PSO), there is a legal requirement to introduce
reduced (or free) tickets for certain passenger groups (e.g. students, soldiers, and the
elderly). The cost of these concessions is partially refunded by the state budget to rail and
inter-urban bus operators. However, municipal transport is also subject to the same PSO
and here the associated costs are borne fully by the public transport operators which in
most cases are owned by the municipalities.
The goal on road safety is in line with EU goals, but safety levels need to be substantially
improved, in particular in the field of enforcement.
Administrative capacity
The institutional capacity within key agencies to programme and/or implement transport-
sector programmes is widely acknowledged as a significant problem in Poland.
Moreover, the scale of the programming and implementation task has increased
dramatically with much greater levels of funding being provided in the Structural and
Cohesion Fund-dominated post-accession environment than in the earlier Phare- and
ISPA- focussed one. Institutional capacity to absorb assistance therefore has to be an
integral part of any discussion on transport strategy in Poland.
Moreover, in Poland the development of staff capacity for the implementation of EU-
funded interventions has suffered from institutional instability, for example, frequent
changes in the organisation of the ministry following a change in government. As well as
frequent changes to the structure and composition of ministries and transport bodies (see
for example footnote 18).
Another major problem is high staff-turnover at more junior levels within public
institutions. Salary levels and career development opportunities within the public sector
are unfavourable when compared to the private sector. The situation is compounded in
the transport sector by the fact that the kind of skills and competencies required
(engineers, economists, transport planners etc.) are often highly marketable in the private
sector. Graduates often treat employment within the public sector simply as an
opportunity to gain a couple of years of vocational experience before transferring to better
paid employment within the private sector. This has resulted in a situation where many
departments within key transport-related bodies (e.g. the Ministry of Transport or
GDDKiA) are understaffed, have an inadequate staff complement or both. The staff that
remain are then often faced with stressful workloads – a factor that only adds to the
relative unattractiveness of working within the public sector.
There is a growing acknowledgement on the part of both the public sector bodies
themselves and external commentators that administrative capacity weaknesses could
constitute a major barrier to Poland successfully absorbing EU assistance and
implementing its transport investment programme over the coming years. Much greater
attention is therefore being focussed on concrete measures to enhance overall absorption
58
capacity with such activities now taking a more prominent position alongside discussions
on the priorities themselves.
Legal constraints
In Poland, the legal provisions on land ownership and expropriation, as well as
construction permits, are reportedly a major barrier to the implementation of new road
projects. A number of issues have combined to cause this problem. First of all, land
ownership is extremely fragmented (particularly in the south of Poland). Secondly, the
ownership of many land parcels is unclear. Absentee landlords are extremely common
and the process of locating them, often abroad, is very time consuming. Thirdly, Polish
legislation for enforcing compulsory purchases can take a long time to be implemented.
The Polish Public Procurement Law (PPL) has governed tendering on all large transport
sector projects since Poland joined the EU on 1st May 2004. Previously, PRAG was used
on all transport projects funded by the EU (ISPA or Phare). The PPL has been identified
as a further cause of delay with tendering related to transport investment projects. The
GDDKiA maintains that the average length of time to conclude a tender process has risen.
Moreover, the provisions in the PPL for unsuccessful tenderers to block tender exercises
mean that there is an increased risk that tender procedures can fail altogether.
Problems with the PPL are exacerbated by the fact that tender procedures for transport
investments are often governed by FIDIC. Experiences with FIDIC in Poland are
comparatively limited. Moreover, for it to be effectively utilised it requires capacity to
prepare high quality tender documentation. This capacity is not always in place and is
obviously undermined by the high level of staff turnover in key agencies.
The implications of the above mentioned problems are extremely negative in light of the
need to commit and disburse EU funds within set timescales (the “n+2 rule”). The PPL is
currently being revised and it is hoped that the amended version will offer a more
favourable platform for procurement within the transport sector.
Based on the above stated arguments a risk assessment has been prepared with respect to
the administrative capacity in Poland. This assessment has been summarized in table 7.2.
Moderate to high levels indicate that additional attention should be paid to this aspect in
the implementation of the programme.
Table 6.2 Risk assessment of administrative capacity
Sector Risk level Explanation
Overall Moderate -High Institutional capacity is weak, the development of staff capacity for
implementation of EU-funded interventions has suffered from institutional
instability. There is limited experience with CF and ERDF.
Roads Moderate - High Apart from limited institutional capacity, the legal provisions on land ownership
and expropriation as well as construction permits are reportedly a major
barrier to the implementation of new road projects
Rail High Similar to roads, however based on the pervious fund allocations, experience
in the rail sector is more less compared to road.
Ports Moderate Depending on specific port and experience with large scale investments
Urban
transport
Moderate Depending on the city and its experience with large scale investments
59
7 Assessment of Impacts
7.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses different scenarios with respect to their impacts on three different
(EU) policy objectives:
• Economic competitiveness
• Territorial cohesion
• Environmental sustainability
In addition the impacts are assessed on the Accessibility Problem Index (see Chapter 3).
First the methodological approach is described, including the SASI model that has been
used to assess the impacts. Next the scenarios are described, followed by a presentation of
the impacts.
7.2 Methodology
The SASI model
The impacts are assessed with the support of the SASI model. The SASI model is a
recursive-dynamic simulation model of socio-economic development of 1,330 regions in
Europe. The model was developed to assess socio-economic and spatial impacts of
transport infrastructure investment and transport system improvements. Is has been
applied and validated in several large EU projects including the IASON and ESPON
projects.
The SASI model differs from other forecasting models of regional development by
modelling not only production (the demand side of labour markets) but also population
(the supply side of labour markets). Regional production by industry is forecast by
regional production functions containing production factors capital, labour, regional
endowment and accessibility. Regional population is forecast by a demographic model
including fertility, mortality and migration.
The SASI model is specifically relevant for projects that serve a function at a European
level (e.g. the TEN projects). Such projects cannot be adequately evaluated using
traditional cost-benefit analysis at a national scale, since they are less able to capture the
international effect and the indirect effects occurring in non-transport sectors23
.
23 See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended
European Union.
60
Figure 7.1 Main structure of the SASI model
SASI Model
The reference network
To assess the impacts of new transport investments a reference scenario has been
prepared. This mainly implies an adjustment of the transport network in the SASI
model24
. The dynamic network database of SASI is based on highly detailed pan-
European transport networks with respect to:
• Roads (including short-sea shipping)
• Rail (including ferries)
• Air (including regional airports).
Network calculations are based on travel times or generalised costs including border
waiting times and (political, economic cultural and language) barriers.
The reference network has been updated based on the most recent information from the
countries on implementation schedules and alignment with respect to TEN and national
transport projects (also information on toll is included). The reference network includes
all projects that are already under construction and will be operational until 2007.
In addition the reference scenario assumes the further development of the European
integration with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. Further European
integration results in reductions in waiting times and lower barriers between countries.
24 Which relies on the trans-European transport network database developed by IRPUD (2003) and now maintained and
further developed by RRG (2005)
61
7.3 Scenarios
Impacts have been assessed for different scenarios to be able to compare the outcomes
and draw conclusions on the different impacts. Although the study aims at identifying
strategic areas for investment priorities these areas need to be “translated” into projects to
enable the SASI model to assess impacts. As a result assumptions have been made on
projects within the scenarios. These projects are not listed separately as this would
distract the discussion from strategic priorities to projects. Where possible, these projects
are based on existing planned projects and related cost estimates25
. Where no existing
data existed, estimates are based on existing unit parameters in EU wide infrastructure
needs assessments26
. In all scenarios, after 2016 no further transport projects are
implemented. However, it is assumed that European integration proceeds as in the
Reference Scenario.
In addition to the Reference scenario, two major scenarios are distinguished:
• The Maximum scenario, which comprises a listing of possible projects27
which have
been identified in the respective countries;
• The Balanced scenario, which applies a budget restriction (with in parallel an
assessment of additional financing opportunities). Projects are prioritised on the basis
of their benefit-cost ratio and their contribution to specific objectives and needs
(sustainability, regional disparity, and contribution to accessibility28
).
On the basis of the maximum scenario, two sub-sets are determined: the Maximum Road
scenario and the Maximum Rail scenario which illustrates the differential impact of rail
versus road projects.
The Maximum scenario
The maximum scenario is based on an extensive listing of possible investment projects
that have been identified by the national partners. Where relevant these projects lists have
been extended with projects that have been identified on the basis of existing network
analyses and studies29
, projects identified on the basis of interviews that have been carried
out in the countries, or projects that can be additionally identified on the basis of the
needs assessment in Part A of this report (including the “red flag” analysis).
This results in a scenario of all TEN priority projects and additional national projects that
are planned to be constructed (or start with construction) in the period 2007-2013 and
which are operational by 2016. An important notion with respect to the maximum
scenario is that no budget restriction is applied.
25 This can be national studies or information, information on TEN priority projects 2005 (EU 2005), or recent studies on the
Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006). 26 E.g. TINA, TEN-Invest, TEN-STAC 27 The impact assessment in SASI has only been done on a selected set of road and rail projects. This is done because these
sub-sectors in general will receive the majority of funding and an assessment of their impacts can be done without having
to go into too much project detail. It is assessed that this approach gives sufficient feedback on the potential impacts. 28 Are projects solving “missing links” in the network. 29 For example the recent study carried out by VTT on the Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006).
62
Within the Maximum scenario two specific sub-sector scenarios are distinguished:
• The Maximum Road Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed road
projects including cross-border transport corridors.
• The Maximum Rail Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed rail
projects including cross-border transport corridors.
The Balanced Scenario
The Balanced Scenario starts from the Maximum Scenario. First, an assessment is made
of the available EU funding in comparison to the total budget requirements of the
projects. If a budget restriction applies projects are selected and prioritised on the basis of
a number of criteria:
• Cost -benefit ratio. Are projects in this field expected to deliver value for money
(socio-economic rate of return30
)?
• Accessibility. Are they contributing to a clear improvement in accessibility both on a
European and national scale (missing links in networks, main transport corridors,
secondary connections to backbone network)?
• Sustainability. Do interventions facilitate modal shift to more environmentally
friendly transport modes?
• Territorial cohesion. Is there a contribution to improving the accessibility of more
backward regions?
• Safety. Do measures contribute to improved transport safety.
The assessment in this respect draws strongly on the findings in part A of the report
(SWOT-analysis of the transport system and “red flag” analysis).
For Poland three variants of the Balanced Scenario were defined differing by the
reductions in road or rail projects from the Maximum Scenario (see Table 7.1):
Table 7.1 Variants of the Balanced Scenario, Poland
Scenario Project
Balanced
1
Balanced
2
Balanced
3
S19: Kuznica - Bialystok - Lublin - Rzeszow - Barwinek
Yes No No Road
S3: Zielina Gora - Legnica Yes No No
High-speed rail Wroclaw - Kalisz No No Yes
E65: Grodzisk Mazow - Zebrzydowice/Zwerdon No Yes Yes
Rail
E75: Warsaw - Kaunas (Rail Baltica) Yes Yes No
The Balanced Scenario 1 retains all road projects and skips two rail projects from the
Maximum Scenario. The other two scenarios skip all road projects and retain two rail
projects: the rail corridor between Warsaw and Bratislava and the Rail Baltica (Balanced
Scenario 2) and the high-speed line between Wroclaw and Kalisz and the Rail Baltica
(Balanced Scenario 3).
30 Based on TEN-STAC
63
Finally, an assessment is made to which extent other financing sources could play a role.
In this respect especially the potential of an involvement of the European Investment
Bank and public-private partnerships is included (see also Chapter 6):
• Other sources of finance. Are projects able or likely to attract other sources of
finance. In those cases application for EU financing might not be necessary.
In addition, the possible impact of limitations in the administrative capacity and changes
in the pricing policy (if large distortions exist in this respect) are taken into account.
Table 7.2 gives an overview of the criteria applied for the sub-sectors road and rail.
Table 7.2 Assessment of priority areas
Sub sector
Co
st-e
ffectiv
en
ess
Accessib
ility
Su
sta
inab
ility
Territo
rial
Co
hesio
n
Safe
ty
Oth
er s
ou
rces o
f
finan
ce
Railways: completion/modernisation and works
- E20, E65, E75 (Rail Baltica), E59, E30
0
+
+
0
+
0
Roads: completion/modernisation and works
- Motorways: A1, A2, A4
- High capacity roads S2, S3, S5, S7, S8, S10,
S17, S19
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
0
+
0
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
Railways
The following railway lines, for which investments are needed, have been identified:
• E20 Berlin-Moscow: completion and modernisation of the entire E20. This is part of
pan-European corridor II.
• E65 Gdynia-Vienna: works shall be conducted on the full length of the line starting
form Gdynia and ending on the southern national border, main part will be adapted to
speeds of 200 km/u. This is part of pan-European Corridor VI.
• E75 (Rail Baltica): works shall be conducted between Warsaw and Białystok , section
will be adapted to speeds of 200 km/u. This is part of pan-European Corridor I.
• E59: continuation of reconstruction between Szczecin and Poznań • E30: reconstruction on sections with the highest traffic intensity. This is part of pan-
European corridor III.
Investments on power infrastructure, communication, informatics and other rail systems
shall be realised simultaneously.
Roads
In the road sector the identified projects relate to the development of the pan-European
corridors for the motorway network: construction and completion of the A2 (Warsaw-
Belarus border) on pan-European Corridor II and the A4 Tarnow-Rzeszow-Jaroslaw-
Korczowa (Corridor III).
64
Secondly the following expressways and bypasses are listed:
• S2 bypass A2 Warsaw
• S3 Szczecin connection to the A4
• S5 Swiecie-Poznan-Wroclaw
• S7 Gdansk-Warsaw and Radom-Krakow
• S8 Wroclaw-Piotrkow Trybunalski-Warsaw-Bialystok
• S10 Plonsk-Torun
• S17 Warsaw-Lublin
• S19 Kuznica (border Belarus)-Bialystok-Lublin-Rzeszow-Barwinek (border
Slovakia)
Table 7.3 gives on overview of the assessment which areas for the road and rail projects
can be (potentially) financed by other sources.
Table 7.3 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding
Sub sector CF/ERDF EIB EBRD PPP
Railways: completion/modernisation and works
- E20, E65, E75 (Rail Baltica), E59, E30
√
Roads: completion/modernisation and works
- Motorways: A1, A2, A4
- High capacity roads S2, S3, S5, S7, S8, S10, S17,
S19
√
√
?
Location of projects
Figures 7.2 and 7.3 show the location of the expected projects under the Maximum (Road
and Rail) and Balanced Scenarios that have been included in the impact analysis.
65
Figure 7.2 Road network in the Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios, Poland
NB. This map does not show one particular Balanced scenario, but a combination of all three.
TEN/Tina road projects - Gdansk - Katowice - Katowice - Brno/Zilina - Warsaw - Belarus border - Tarnow - Rzeszow - Jaroslaw - Korczowa
Other road projects - Warsaw A2 bypass - Szczecin - Gorzow - Zielina Gora - Legnica - Swiecie - Poznan - Wroclaw - Gdansk - Warsaw - Radom - Krakow - Wroclaw - Piotrkow Trybunalski - Warsaw - Bialystok - Plonsk -Torun - Warsaw - Lublin - Kuznica (Belarus border) - Bialystok - Lublin - Rzeszow - Barwinek (Slovak border)
66
Figure 7.3 Rail network in the Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios, Poland
NB. This map does not show one particular Balanced scenario, but a combination of all three.
TEN/TINA rail projects - Wroclaw - Kalisz - Katowice - Brno - Breclav - Katowice - Zilina - Nove Mesto - Warsaw - Kaunas (Rail Baltica) Other rail projects - (Berlin - ) German border - Belarus border (- Moscow) - Lowicz - Skierniewice - Lukow - Opole - Katowice - Krakow - Grodzisk Mazow - Zebrzydowice/Zwerdon
67
7.4 Impact assessment
The impacts of the scenario are measured as differences between the scenario and the
reference scenario. These impacts are evaluated with respect to the strategic objectives:
• Economic competitiveness
• Territorial cohesion, and
• Environmental sustainability
The following objectives have been identified to describe the impact on the different
policy objectives:
Table 7.4 Strategic objectives and related indicators
Objective Indicator Level
Average speed of interregional road trips (kph)
National, regional average
Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph)
National, regional average
Economic competitiveness
GDP per capita (Euro) National, regional average
Primacy rate population (%) National
Primacy rate GDP (%) National
Gini coefficient of accessibility capita (0-100)
National
Territorial cohesion
Gini coefficient31 of GDP per capita (0-100)
National
Environmental sustainability Share of interregional rail trips (%) National, regional average
It should be realised that the spatial impacts are long term effects, as:
• Location decision of firms result in changes in economic activity and employment
only after some time;
• Secondary effects of economic activity (i.e. attraction of other firms) take even
longer.
This is accounted for in the SASI model by time delays of one to five years. In order to
take due account of the long-term spatial impact of transport infrastructure investments in
the period 2007-2013, the target year for the model simulations is set at 2031.
31 A Gini coefficient is a measure which represent the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of income between NUTS 3
regions (i.e. equal regional GDP/capita)
68
Overall Impacts
Table 7.5 presents the impacts of the proposed priority transport investments on the above
indicators. For each indicator the table shows the value of the indicator in 2006 and the
indicators values of the five scenarios in 2031. The numbers in italics are the differences
between the indicator values of the policy scenarios compared with those of the
Reference Scenario in 2031 in percent.
Table 7.5 indicates that the overall economic impacts of the scenarios on Poland are quite
significant. In absolute terms, the transport infrastructure improvements of the policy
scenarios increase the average income in Poland by up to 130 Euro per capita per year.
Two thirds of this effect is due to the large volume of road investments. The rail
improvements contribute only one third of the overall impact in the Balanced Scenarios
and only slightly more in the Maximum Scenario. The differences in economic impacts
between the three variants of the Balanced Scenario are small as the benefits of the
projects considered cancel each other out.
The larger volume of road investments in Poland is also reflected in the larger
improvements in interregional travel speed by road than by rail. There is almost no
difference in the impacts on average road speed between the three Balanced Scenarios;
however, Balanced Scenarios 2 and 3, which retain two of the three rail projects, result in
higher average road speeds than Balanced Scenario 1, which retains only one.
The impacts on the cohesion indicators, which reflect the impact of the transport policy
scenarios on the spatial structure of the country, are negligible. Although the primacy of
Warsaw in terms of both population and economy increases in all scenarios, no
significant differences between them in the two primacy rates can be detected, not even
between the policy scenarios and the Reference Scenario. This suggests other factors than
accessibility are more important for the process of spatial polarisation. The Gini
coefficient shows a slight convergence in all scenarios.
The environmental effects in terms of increased rail share are significant if only rail
projects are implemented, as in the Maximum Rail Scenario. However, if the planned
road projects are implemented as in the Maximum Scenario and the Balanced Scenario 1,
this effect is more than overcompensated by the growth in road travel. Even in the rail-
oriented Balanced Scenarios 2 and 3 there is little or no growth in rail use.
69
Table 7.5 Strategic objectives and related indicators, Poland, 2031
Scenario
Reference Maximum
Road
Maximum
Rail
Maximum Balanced
1
Balanced
2
Balanced
3
Objective
Indicator
2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031
Average speed of inter-
regional road trips (kph)
37.7 38.8 42.6
+9.7%
38.8
0.0%
42.6
+9.8%
42.6
+9.8%
42.5
+9.4%
42.5
+9.4%
Average speed of inter-
regional rail trips (kph)
26.2 26.3
26.3
0.0%
28.4
+7.7%
28.4
+7.7%
27.5
+4.3%
28.1
+6.9%
28.1
+6.6%
Economic
competitiveness
GDP per capita (Euro)
5,158 14,003
14,086
+0.6%
14,055
+0.4%
14,136
+0.9%
14,121
+0.8%
14,131
+0.9%
14,122
+0.8%
Primacy rate (%)
population
4.2 4.5 4.5
0.0%
4.5
0.0%
4.5
0.0%
4.5
0.0%
4.5
0.0%
4.5
0.0%
Primacy rate (%) GDP
13.1 13.3 13.3
+0.0%
13.3
+0.0%
13.3
+0.0%
13.3
+0.0%
13.3
+0.0%
13.3
+0.0%
Gini coefficient of
accessibility (0-100)
5.78 5.58 5.42
-3.00%
5.62
+0.63%
5.46
-2.29%
5.42
-2.96%
5.49
-1.72%
5.55
-0.68%
Territorial
cohesion
Gini coefficient of GDP
per capita (0-100)
21.82 21.55 21.54
-0.06%
21.54
-0.08%
21.52
-0.14%
21.53
-0.09%
21.53
-0.09%
21.53
-0.09%
Environmental
sustainability
Share of interregional rail
trips (%)
30.0 28.8 25.1
-13.1%
33.3
+15.6%
29.3
+1.5%
27.5
-4.5%
28.9
+0.2%
28.9
+0.0%
70
Regional impacts
Figure 7.5 shows gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of the NUTS-3 regions in
Poland in the Reference Scenario in the year 2031. It can be seen that according to the
model forecast, the gap in per-capita income between the old and new member states is
still large, despite the rapid economic growth of Poland (see Table 7.5). Compared with
the current distribution of GDP per capita (see Figure 3.3), the major city regions
continue to be dominant. There seems to develop a west-to-east decline in economic
activity similar to the decline in accessibility noted in Figures 3.4 to 3.7.
Figures 7.6 to 7.9 show the spatial distribution of the indicators GDP per capita in the
NUTS-3 regions of Poland in the policy scenarios in the target year 2031 in comparison
to the Reference Scenario in Figure 7.5. The impact maps show percent differences in
regional indicator values. The more intense the colour green, the higher the impact.
It can be seen that the transport infrastructure investments work against the west-to-east
decline in GDP per capita: in relative terms the poorer regions in the east benefit more
than those in the west from the transport investments. This is in line with the
concentration of road and rail projects in these regions (see Figures 7.2 and 7.3). There is
little difference between the four scenarios, except perhaps that the regions in the north-
east benefit from the Rail Baltica in Balanced Scenarios 1 and 3 and the Kalisz region
from the fast rail connection to Wroclaw in Balanced Scenario 3.
Figure 7.5 GDP per capita (in 1,000 Euro 2005) in the Reference Scenario, Poland, 2031
71
Figure 7.6 Impact on GDP per capita in the Maximum Scenario, Poland, 2031
Figure 7.7 Impact on GDP per capita in the Balanced Scenario 1, Poland, 2031
72
Figure 7.8 Impact on GDP per capita in the Maximum Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
Figure 7.9 Impact on GDP per capita in the Balanced Scenario 3, Poland, 2031
73
Figure 7.10 shows the average share of interregional rail trips originating in the NUTS-3
regions of Poland (excluding air) in the Reference Scenario in the year 2031. The spatial
distribution of rail usage closely resembles that of average rail speed as expressed by the
Accessibility Problem Index Rail in Figures 3.5 and 3.6, with higher rail use along the
Baltic coast and in the north-eastern regions.
Figures 7.11 to 71.4 show the combined effects of the road and rail projects in the policy
scenarios on the share of interregional rail trips. Here, too the reversed traffic light colour
scale is used; so green indicates a higher share of rail trips than in the Reference Scenario,
and red indicates a lower share of rail trips. The distribution of impacts clearly follows
the distribution road and rail projects (See Figures 7.2 and 7.3): where road improvements
dominate, as in the Gdansk-Katowice-Brno corridor, rail use declines. Where there are
mainly rail improvements, as in the north-eastern regions through the Warsaw-Kaunas
segment of the Rail Baltica, or along the Czech and Slovak borders through the links to
Vienna and Bratislava, rail use increases. In the industrial area around Katowice both
effects overlap with a net gain of road travel. The environmental impacts of the
Maximum and the three Balanced Scenarios are very similar, they differ only where rail
projects are implemented or skipped. In the scenarios in which the Polish section of the
Rail Baltica is implemented (Maximum Scenario and Balanced Scenarios 1 and 2, rail use
increases in the north-eastern regions. Also the high-speed rail line between Wroclaw and
Kalisz in the Maximum Scenario and Balanced Scenario 3 attracts new rail passengers.
The motorway corridor between Gdansk and Katowice, which is implemented in all
scenarios, on the other hand, attracts passenger from rail to car.
Figure 7.10 Sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in the Reference Scenario, Poland, 2031
74
Figure 7.11 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in the Maximum Scenario, Poland, 2031
Figure 7.12 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in the Balanced Scenario 1, Poland, 2031
75
Figure 7.13 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in the Maximum Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
Figure 7.14 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in the Balanced Scenario 3, Poland, 2031
76
Finally the impacts if the policy scenarios on the composite Accessibility Problem Index
(see Chapter 3) are shown. It is examined in how far the policy scenarios contribute to
solving the accessibility problems identified in the red-flag analysis. As was noted in
Chapter 3, road accessibility in Poland is far below the European average (Figure 3.5),
whereas there are great disparities in rail accessibility between the regions in Poland
(Figure 3.7).
Figures 7.15 and 7.16 show the Accessibility problem Index Road and Rail from a
European perspective in the year 2031 in the Reference Scenario. It should be
remembered that in the Reference Scenario no new road/rail projects are started after
2006. A comparison with the maps of the present situation in Figures 3.4 and 3.6 shows
that despite of this accessibility by both road and rail has improved in most regions, due
to the ongoing European integration leading to shorter border waiting times and reduced
trade barriers.
Figure 7.15 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Road. Now more regions in Poland
are shaded green, i.e. their accessibility is above the European average. However, a ring-
shaped zone along the Slovak, Ukrainian and Belarus borders is still marked as problem
region. Figure 7.16 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Rail. It can be seen that
without rail improvements large parts of Poland remain very poorly served.
Figures 7.17 to 7.22 show the impacts of the three Balanced Scenarios on the
Accessibility Problem Index in Poland seen from a European perspective. Compared to
the Reference Scenario, road accessibility has further improved in most regions, so that
most regions in Poland are now above or close to the European average, though the north-
west to south-east decline in accessibility remains (Figures 7.17, 7.19 and 7.21). The
quality of the rail system of Poland remains uneven despite the rail improvements, with
severely poorly served regions in the east and south-east (Figures 7.18, 7.20 and 7.22).
The unequal attention paid to rail in the three balanced Scenarios is obvious; Balanced
Scenario 2, which retains the implementation of the Polish section of the Rail Baltica and
the improvement of the rail connection between Warsaw and Bratislava via Katowice
clearly stands out, although even in this scenario the south-eastern regions along the
Romanian border remain poorly served.
77
Figure 7.15 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in the Reference Scenario, Poland, 2031(2031
Figure 7.16 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in the Reference Scenario, Poland, 2031
78
Figure 7.17 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in the Balanced Scenario 1, Poland, 2031
Figure 7.18 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in the Balanced Scenario 1, Poland, 2031
79
Figure 7.19 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in the Balanced Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
Figure 7.20 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in the Balanced Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
80
Figure 7.21 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in the Balanced Scenario 3, Poland, 2031
Figure 7.22 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in the Balanced Scenario 3, Poland, 2031
81
Table 7.5 summarises the effects of the four scenarios on the Accessibility Problem
Index: index values above one indicate accessibility problems, whereas index values
below one indicate above average performance.
Table 7.5 Accessibility Problem Index, Poland, 2031
Scenario
Refer-
ence
Maxi-
mum
Road
Maxi-
mum
Rail
Maxi-
mum
Bal-
anced
1
Bal-
anced
2
Bal-
anced
3
Mode Level
2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031
Road National 1.000 0.913
0.830
-9.1%
0.912
-0.1%
0.830
-9.1%
0.830
-9.1%
0.832
-8.9%
0.832
-8.9%
European 1.261 1.151
1.047
-9.8%
1.150
-0.1%
1.046
-9.1%
1.046
-9.2%
1.048
-8.9%
1.049
-8.9%
Rail National 1.000 0.938
0.935
-0.3%
0.841
-10.3%
0.839
-10.6%
0.867
-7.6%
0.847
-9.7%
0.853
-9.1%
European 1.311 1.230
1.226
-0.3%
1.104
-10.2%
1.101
-10.5%
1.138
-7.5%
1.111
-9.7%
1.119
-9.0%
The table reflects the results of the evaluation. There are significant improvements in both
road and rail accessibility between 2006 and 2031 already in the Reference Scenario
through the effects of European integration the form of reduced waiting times and other
barriers. There are significant further improvements to the road network in Poland if the
envisaged road projects are implemented as in the Maximum Road and Maximum
Scenarios. The improvements in rail accessibility are even more significant. The
differences in road accessibility between the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios are
small; those in rail accessibility depend on the scenario: the two rail-oriented Balanced
Scenarios 2 and 3 achieve almost the same improvements in rail accessibility as the
Maximum Scenario, whereas the road-oriented Balanced Scenario 1 is less effective in
improving rail accessibility.
82
7.5 European effects
The effects of transport infrastructure improvements are not confined to the country in
which the construction work actually occurs but reach across borders into neighbouring
countries. The SASI model forecasts these effects.
To demonstrate this on the following four pages maps and three-dimensional images of
the spatial distribution of the impacts of the transport infrastructure investments in Poland
are shown (Figures 7.23 to 7.26). Because it seems to have the most far-reaching cross-
border impacts, the Balanced Scenario 2 is used as example.
The four figures show the difference between the Balanced Scenario and the Reference
Scenario in 2031 for four of the evaluation criteria of Table 7.5: average speed of
interregional road trips (Figure 7.23), average speed of interregional rail trips (Figure
7.24), GDP per capita (Figure 7.25) and share of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.26). It
can be seen that although the main impacts occur in Poland itself, significant effects
spread beyond national borders.
The speed impacts of the planned road projects (Figure 7.23) spread mostly to the south
into the Czech Republic and as far as Austria through the motorway axis Gdansk-
Katowice-Brno.
The speed impacts of the rail improvements in Figure 7.24 drawn to the same vertical
scale are more concentrated on the major rail nodes along the rail corridor between
Bratislava in the south to Warsaw and further to Kaunas in Lithuania as part of the future
Rail Baltica.
The economic impacts in GDP per capita spread in both directions, but mainly to the
north into the Baltic states and, though only marginally, across almost all of Europe. The
impacts in Lithuania and Latvia are even larger than those in Poland itself in relative
terms because of the lower GDP per capita in these countries. These effects point to the
important gateway function of Poland for the Baltic states. This implies that some
transport projects in Poland are not only important for Poland itself but even more
important for the Baltic states, and this should be considered when assessing projects.
The environmental impacts in terms of share of rail trips reflect the spatial distribution of
road and rail projects: the share of rail use increases where the impacts on rail speed are
large and decrease where road speed improvements are dominant. In the Balanced
Scenario 2 rail use increases mainly in the north-eastern regions and in Lithuania along
the implemented sections of the Rail Baltica and in the south towards the Czech and
Slovak borders where the international connection to Bratislava is improved. Along the
north-south motorway corridor from Gdansk to Katowice rail use decreases, and this
negative effect spreads out into the Czech Republic and southern Germany. As it could be
seen from Table 7.5, the overall net effect for Poland in the Balanced Scenario 2 is zero.
83
Figure 7.23 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts in the Balanced Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
84
Figure 7.24 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts in the Balanced Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
85
Figure 7.25 GDP per capita: European impacts in the Balanced Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
86
Figure 7.26 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts in the Balanced Scenario 2, Poland, 2031
87
8 Conclusions on Investment Priorities
8.1 Introduction
Based on the previous analysis the main areas for transport investments that would merit
EU funding in the period 2007-2013 have been identified. It should be emphasized that
this is based on an analysis that has been carried out at strategic level. Although the areas
identified are expected to result in high potential projects they should still be subjected to
the regular cost-benefit analysis at a project level before being finally selected.
8.2 Transport Investment Priorities 2007-2013
The identified priority areas are described per sub-sector. These sub sectors are assessed
on a number of criteria:
Table 9.1 Assessment of priority areas
Sub sector
Co
st-
effe
ctiv
en
ess
Accessib
ility
Su
sta
inab
ility
Territo
rial
Co
hesio
n
Safe
ty
Oth
er s
ou
rces
of fin
an
ce
Railways: completion/modernisation and works
- E20, E65, E75 (Rail Baltica), E59, E30
- Rolling stock renewal
0
+
+
0
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
+
Roads: completion/modernisation and works
- Motorways: A1, A2, A4
- High capacity roads S2, S3, S5, S7, S8, S10,
S17, S19
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
0
+
0
Inland waterways
-Increasing standards of water courses of the
Odra River and of the lower Vistula River
0
0
+
0
0
0
Ports:
- Upgrade of Gdansk inner port & infrastructure
- Upgrade of Swinoujscie – Szczecin seaway
+ + + 0 + 0
Urban transport:
- Integration public transport modes
0 + + 0 + 0
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
88
Railways
The market-opening within the rail-sector is still in its initial form (there is a transition
period stemming from the EU-Treaty) and the process of adjustment does not seem to be
advanced. Therefore, accompanying institutional measures are needed in parallel to any
investment in rail infrastructure.
One of those accompanying measures is the creation of a long term strategy for
restructuring of the national railway with opening for privatisation, and implementation
of that new strategy (in particular privatisation) for the PKP Group. Other measures
(already planned) include:
• Improvements of the legal framework to promote equal access for all operators:
legislation opens opportunities for privatisation of rail operations (infrastructure
remains controlled by the state)
• Incentives for private capital to enter the rail market in Poland
• Modernisation of infrastructure and vehicles (especially lines located within Pan-
European transport corridors and covered by AGC/AGTC)
The average rail speeds in Poland are clearly below the European average, priority is
given to the (partly) already ongoing projects along the pan-European TEN corridors:
E65 (corridor VI), E75 “Rail Baltica” (corridor I), E59 and E30 (corridor III). Another
investment priority is the renewal of the old rolling stock, which could also be co-
financed by EIB loans.
Roads
In the road sector the recommended priorities are related to the development of the
national backbone motorway/expressway-network. The motorway network includes the
construction and completion of the A2 (Warsaw-Belarus border) on pan-European
corridor II and the A4 Tarnow-Rzeszow-Jaroslaw-Korczowa (corridor III).
It should be noted that the underlying feeder roads to the motorway network are at least
as important as the motorways network itself. For instance one could think of the
following expressways and bypasses: S3 Szczecin connection to the A4; S7 Gdansk-
Warsaw and Radom-Krakow, etc
The last, but certainly not least, priority in the road sector is to increase traffic safety
through the design of safe roads and upgrading of deteriorated regional roads.
Inland Waterways
The overall strategic objective of the maritime sector is to stop the decline of sea transport
and then to improve service quality and competitiveness. To improve the situation in
inland waterways, the following could be contemplated:
• Increasing the standards of water courses of the Odra River and of the lower Vistula
River; selection of sections, range and schedule of practices is being analyzed
• Supporting restoration of fleet for cargo transport
• Promoting and supporting local initiatives aimed at increasing inland water
navigation to provide supplies to agglomerations.
89
Ports
The main seaports in Poland do need modernisation as well as improvement of access to
them both from the sea and the land (road and railway access). Furthermore attention
should be given to modernisation and development of ferry terminals, which will enable
development of ferry and ro-ro transport in the region of Eastern Baltic. However, the
financing of port infrastructure could also come from private capital.
Urban Public transport
The share of public transport in total travels is decreasing in Poland and congestion levels
are growing. This is partly due to the fact that local public transport was hindered as a
result of the new legislation adopted in the period of 2003 – 2004 because no public
service obligation, binding in the EU, was introduced. Due to the low level of integration,
city transport systems do not contribute to popularisation of inter-modal travelling
(travelling by various means of transportation). Decentralisation and low profitability of
local transport has also resulted in disintegration of public transport in agglomerations.
Based on above it is clear that, within the urban public transport system, priority should
be given to:
• Introducing or improving the system of Public Service Obligations for non-profitable
routes and/or specific traveller groups
• Increase the level of integration between the various public transport modes
(especially in Warsaw, Upper Silesia and Gdansk).
90
Annex A: TEN-T priorities
Table A.1. TEN priority projects and major Swiss projects
No. TEN project Completion
1 Railway axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo
- Halle/Leipzig-Nurnberg (2015)
- Nurnberg-Munich (2006)
- Munich-Kufstein (2015)
- Kufstein-Innsbruck (2009/2012)
- Brenner tunnel (2015)
- Verona-Naples (2007)
- Milan-Bologna (2008)
- Rail/road bridge over the Strait of Messina-Palermo (2015)
2015
2 High-speed railway axis Paris-Brussels/Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London
- Channel tunnel-London (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Liege-Cologne (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Rotterdam-Amsterdam (2007)
2007
3 High-speed railway axis of south-west Europe
- Lisbon/Porto-Madrid (2015), including:
- Lisbon-Porto (2013)
- Lisbon-Madrid (2010)
- Aveiro-Salamanca (2015)
- Madrid-Barcelona-Figueras-Perpignan (2009)
- Perpignan-Montpellier (2009)
- Montpellier-Nimes (2015)
- Madrid-Vitoria-Irún/Hendaye (2010)
- Irún/Hendaye-Dax (2015)
- Dax-Bordeaux (2020)
- Bordeaux-Tours (2015)
2015
91
No. TEN project Completion
4 High-speed railway axis east
- Paris-Baudrecourt (2007)
- Metz-Luxembourg (2007)
- Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007)
2007
5 Betuwe line 2006
6 Railway axis Lyon-Trieste-Divača/Koper-Divača-Ljubljana-Budapest-Ukrainian border
- Lyon-St Jean de Maurienne (2015)
- Mont-Cenis tunnel (2018)
- Bussoleno-Turin (2011)
- Turin-Venice (2011)
- Venice-Ronchi Sud-Trieste-Divača (2015)
- Koper-Divača-Ljubljana (2012)
- Ljubljana-Budapest (2015)
2018
7 Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athens-Sofia-Budapest
- Via Egnatia (2006)
- Pathe (2008)
- Sofia-Kulata-Greek/Bulgarian border (2010)
- Nadlac-Sibiu motorway (branch to Bucharest and Constanza) (2007)
2010
8 Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe
- Railway La Coruňa-Lisbon-Sines (2009)
- Railway Lisbon-Valladolid (2015)
- Railway Lisbon-Faro (2006)
- Lisbon-Valladolid motorway (2010)
- La Coruña-Lisbon motorway (2005)
- Seville-Lisbon motorway (completed 2001)
- New Lisbon airport (2015)
2015
9 Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer completed 2001
10 Malpensa Airport completed 2001
11 Öresund fixed link completed 2001
92
No. TEN project Completion
12 Nordic triangle railway/road axis
- Road and railway projects in Sweden (2015)
- Helsinki-Turku motorway (2009)
- Railway Kerava-Lahti (2006)
- Helsinki-Vaalimaa motorway (2015)
- Railway Helsinki-Vainikkala (Russian border) (2015)
2015
13 UK/Ireland/Benelux road axis 2013
14 West coast main line 2008
15 Galileo (not included in reference scenario, only mentioned here for consistency) 2010
16 Freight railway axis Sines/Algeciras-Madrid-Paris
- New high-capacity rail axis across the Pyrenees (2020)
- Railway Sines-Badajoz (2010)
- Railway line Algeciras-Bobadilla (2010)
2020
17 Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava
- Baudrecourt-Strasbourg-Stuttgart (2015)
- Stuttgart-Ulm (2012)
- Munich-Salzburg (2015)
- Salzburg-Vienna (2012)
- Vienna-Bratislava (2012)
2015
18 Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis
- Rhine-Meuse (2019)
- Lanaken lock (2011)
- Vilshofen-Straubing (2013)
- Wien-Bratislava (2015)
- Palkovicovo-Mohács (2014)
- Bottlenecks in Romania and Bulgaria (2011)
2019
19 High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula
- Madrid-Andalusia (2020)
- North-east (2020)
- Madrid-Levante and Mediterranean (2020)
- North/North-west corridor, including Vigo-Porto (2020)
- Extremadura (2020)
2020
93
No. TEN project Completion
20 Fehmarn Belt railway axis
- Fehmarn Belt fixed rail/road link (2015)
- Railway for access in Denmark from Öresund (2015)
- Railway for access in Germany from Hamburg (2014
- Railway Hannover-Hamburg/Bremen (2015)
2015
21 Motorways of the sea
- motorway of the Baltic Sea (2010)
- motorway of the sea of western Europe (2010)
- motorway of the sea of south-east Europe (2010)
- motorway of the sea of south-west Europe (2010)
2010
22 Railway axis Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nürnberg/Dresden
- Railway Greek/Bulgarian border-Kulata-Sofia-Vidin/Calafat (2015)
- Railway Curtici-Brasov (towards Bucharest and Constanta) (2013)
- Railway Budapest-Vienna (2010)
- Railway Břeclav-Prague-Nürnberg (2016)
- Railway axis Prague-Linz (2017)
2017
23 Railway axis Gdansk-Warsaw-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna
- Railway Gdansk-Warsaw-Katowice (2013)
- Railway Katowice-Břeclav (2010)
- Railway Katowice-Zilina-Nove Mesto n.V. (2015)
2015
24 Railway axis Lyons/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp
- Lyon-Mulhouse-Mülheim (2018)
- Genoa-Milan/Novara-Swiss border (2013)
- Basel-Karlsruhe (2015)
- Frankfurt-Mannheim (2015)
- Duisburg-Emmerich (2015)
- 'Iron Rhine' Rheidt-Antwerp (2010)
2018
25 Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna
- Gdansk-Katowice motorway (2011)
- Katowice-Brno/Zilina motorway (2010)
- Brno-Vienna motorway (2013)
2013
94
No. TEN project Completion
26 Railway/road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe
- Ireland road/rail modernisation (2010)
- Road/railway axis Hull-Liverpool (2020)
- Railway Felixstowe-Nuneaton (2014)
- Railway Crewe-Holyhead (2012)
2020
27 Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki
- Warsaw-Kaunas (2010)
- Kaunas-Riga (2014)
- Riga-Tallinn (2018)
2018
28 Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway axis
- Brussels-Luxembourg border (2012)
- Luxembourg- French border (2013)
2013
29 Railway axis of the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor
- Kozani-Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012)
- Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014)
2014
30 Inland waterway Seine-Scheldt
- Navigability improvements Deulemont-Gent (2016)
- Compiègne-Cambrai (2016)
2016
CH1 Gotthard axis
- Zimmerberg tunnel (2011)
- Gotthard tunnel (2015)
- Ceneri tunnel (2015)
2015
CH2 Lötschberg tunnel 2015
Source: EC (2005) Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005;
Spiekermann & Wegener (Swiss projects)
95
Figure A.1. The TEN priority projects
96
Annex B: Accessibility “red flag” analysis
To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model was used to assess the
present and future situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the
national transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the
road and rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European
perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be
addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals
competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is
directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in
promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives.
Figure B.1 Main structure of the SASI model
SASI Model
To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion
policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required.
Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of
both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the
transport system and so always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the core to
97
the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions are
central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all regions.
Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport provision.
This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in
the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator
would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of
the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the
competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to
invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest
congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing
gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter
to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union.
To avoid this dilemma, a new accessibility indicator was defined which distinguishes
between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator assumes that
people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of accessibility
(measured in traditional terms) as the central regions but that they can demand to be able
to reach relevant destinations with the same travel speed ("as the crow flies") as the
people in the central regions. In addition the indicator recognises the utilitarian principle
of the happiness of the greatest number, i.e. that the transport needs of densely populated
regions should be given more weight than those of regions with only few inhabitants. And
finally, the indicator recognises that economically lagging regions with severe deficits in
accessibility may offer greater potential for stimulating economic effects by transport
investments than regions which enjoy already high accessibility.
These three principles avoid the pitfalls of both an extreme egalitarian view, which
postulates that all regions in Europe enjoy the same level of accessibility and a purely
efficiency-oriented view which postulates that accessibility in the already highly
accessibly central metropolitan areas should be further strengthened because they bring
the largest economic benefits. In other words, the three principles aim at a rational trade-
off between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion.
The Accessibility Problem Index
The indicator to be developed should have a number of properties to make it easy to
understand and communicate to policy makers and stakeholders:
- It should be a "problem indicator", i.e. high values should indicate large deficiencies in
regional accessibility, whereas low values of the indicator indicate above-average levels
of accessibility.
- It should be standardised in order to be comparable between regions and countries, i.e.
should not reflect the size or affluence of regions or countries.
- It should be independent of the arbitrary or historically subdivision of the territory into
regions, i.e. its magnitude should not change if a region is subdivided into two or more
regions or if two or more regions are consolidated to one region.
- It should be scalable, i.e. it should be possible to vary the impact of the weighting by
population and inverse GDP to reflect different political priorities.
98
- It should allow to measure the development of accessibility over time.
Based on these requirements, an indicator called Accessibility Problem Index was
developed. The calculation of the Accessibility Problem Indicator proceeds in three steps:
Average regional airline speed.
The first step in the development of the Accessibility Problem Index is the calculation of
average regional airline speed. Average airline speed vrm of all trips frsm from a region r to
all other regions s in Europe by mode m in year t is defined as
[ ]
[ ]∑
∑
−
−
=
s
rsmrsms
rs
s
rsms
rmtctftP
dtftP
tv60/)()(exp)(
)(exp)(
)(β
β (1)
where Ps(t) is regional population in year t, crsm(t) is travel time in minutes between
regions r and s by mode m in year t, β is the impedance parameter and drs is airline
distance in km between the central cities in regions r and s calculated from their
geographical coordinates xr, yr and xs, ys by
( ) ( )22
rsrsrsyyxxd −+−= (2)
Standardisation
Next average regional airline speed, regional population and regional GDP are
standardised as fractions of the average of all regions in the country (national perspective)
or the average of all regions in Europe (European perspective). To neutralise the effect of
region size, population is replaced by population density and GDP is replaced by GDP
per capita. The benchmark for the standardisation of average regional airline speed is
always the average of the base year t0 = 2006 to show changes in accessibility:
)()(
)()(
)(00
0
tPtv
tPtv
tvr
r
rm
r
rrm
rm
∑
∑=′ (3)
∑
∑=′
r
rr
r
rr
rtPA
AtP
tp)(
)(
)( (4)
∑
∑=′
r
rr
r
rr
rtGtP
tPtG
tg)()(
)()(
)( (5)
where Ar is the area of region r and Gr(t) is the GDP of region r. The v'rm(t), p'r(t) and
g'r(t) then are the relative airline speed, relative population density and relative GDP per
capita of region r in year t, respectively. Values below one indicate below-average airline
99
speed, population density and GDP per capita and values above one indicate above-aver-
age airline speed, population density and GDP per capita of the region.
Index
With these relative indicators, the Accessibility Problem Index qrm(t) of region r by mode
m in year t can be formulated:
[ ] [ ] [ ]γα −−
′′′= )()()()(1
tgtptvtqrrrmrm
(6)
where α and γ are weights indicating the relative importance of population density and
GDP per capita, respectively. Note that average regional airline speed and GDP per capita
have negative weights, i.e. the Accessibility Problem Index expresses deficits in average
regional airline speed relative to the national or European average weighted by population
and economic weakness. The index has the following properties:
- The higher the index the more severe is the deficiency in accessibility.
- The influence of weights of population density and GDP per capita can be changed by
changing α and β: values below one imply less influence, zero no weighting.
- Regions with average airline speed, population density and GDP per capita have an
index value of one.
- Index values are independent of region size and are therefore comparable between
regions and countries.
- The index shows improvements in airline speed over time (and not only relative shifts
between regions).
Sensitivity tests with different values of α and γ showed that α = γ = 0.05 gave the most
plausible results and a reasonable level of responsiveness of the Accessibility Problem
Index to changes of accessibility due to European integration and European transport
projects over time.
The application of the Accessibility Problem Index for the evaluation of accessibility
deficits in the country policy briefs use these values of α and γ throughout. The regions
analysed were the NUTS-3 regions or equivalent regions in the 25 countries of the
European Union plus the accession countries Bulgaria and Romania. The overseas
regions of France and the island regions of the Azores and Madeira of Portugal and the
Canary Islands of Spain were excluded from the analysis.
The spatial distribution of the resulting values of the Accessibility Problem Index are
presented in maps using a colour scale resembling that of a traffic light: green shades
indicate average regional travel speeds above the national or European average, yellow
values indicate speeds slightly above the national or European average and red shades
indicate speeds significantly lower than the national or European average. Regions
shaded in red are the targets of the "red-flag" analysis.
For each country first for road and then for rail the national and the European perspective
are presented for the current situation (2006) and for 2016. The situation in 2016 is based
100
on a base scenario of the SASI model without the national projects, i.e. only with the
TEN priority road and rail projects and selected transport projects in Switzerland. The
assumed opening times of the individual projects are those of the 2004 TEN guidelines
(European Union, 2004) which in a few cases differ from the dates notified by the
individual countries (European Commission, 2005).
References:
European Union (2004): Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Decision No 1692/EC on Community guidelines
for the development of the trans-European transport network. Official Journal of the
European Union L 201 (Corrigendum to L 167), 1-55.
European Commission (2005): Trans-European Transport Networks. TEN-T Priority
Axes and Projects 2005. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
101
Annex C: The Four Goals of the Transport
Development Strategy 2007 – 2013
Goal 1 – A Modern Transport Network
Mode Specific Goal
Road • Constructing 85% of the target motorway network.
• Constructing 40% of the target two carriageway high-speed network.
• Adapting roads to the increased load standard for lorries according to the time
schedule specified in the Accession Treaty.
• Improving the state of national roads in order to achieve the following rates by 2013:
i) Good condition 80%, ii) Satisfactory condition 15%, iii) Bad condition 5%
• Taking road traffic outside towns and cities by means of construction of 90 bypasses.
• Maintaining the present pace of national road reconstruction in district cities.
• Modernising roads in order to adapt them to standards related to technical conditions
and road safety requirements (60% of the main road network – national and regional
– adapted by 2013).
Rail • Completing the modernisation of 40% to 50% of the trans-European rail transport
network, including:
• Adapting at least three rail line sections totalling to at least 700 km in length to
speeds of 200 km/h for passenger trains.
• Improving the technical condition of the existing rail infrastructure, so as to achieve
80% lines in good condition and 20% in satisfactory condition by 2013.
• Eliminating bottlenecks limiting the speed on railway lines with high transport volume.
Aviation • Supporting selected airport infrastructure investments.
• Improving road and rail access to airports.
• Conducting preparatory and project works with regard to the construction of a central
airport in Poland.
Sea ports • Completing works on the provision of an efficient road and rail access to sea ports.
• Continuing sea port infrastructure improvement works and the improvement of sea
port access from the sea.
Inland waterways • Supporting the development of inland transport routes
Goal 2 – A Modern Transport Market
Mode Specific Goal
Rail • Accelerating restructuring and privatisation of companies comprising the PKP Group.
• Decreasing the length of railway lines in service from 19.4 thousand km to 16.5
thousand km.
102
• Lowering the PLK functioning costs.
• Lowering fees for the access to the railway infrastructure.
• Modernising the rolling stock.
• Increasing railway interoperability.
Aviation • Completing the process of ownership changes in air transport.
• Clarifying the legal status of military airports used by civil law companies and the PPL
• Implementing the airport network and airport equipment development programme.
• Stimulating air transport market development with regulatory tools.
• Achieving highest safety standards in air transport.
• Decreasing the burden of air transport on the environment.
• Developing the navigational infrastructure.
• Developing a model for air infrastructure financing based on the PPP system.
Maritime transport • Supporting the renewal of the maritime fleet.
• Development of motorways of the sea and short sea shipping.
• Increasing reloads of cargo containers and general cargo.
• Improving the quality of seaport services.
• Supporting small seaports as regional business centres.
• Increasing the level of sea safety and sea environment protection.
Inland waterways • Increasing the inland waterway transport participation in total freight transport in
tonnes, from 0.6% to 1% in 2013.
• Supporting the renewal of the inland waterway fleet.
• Determining long- and short-term for inland waterway development in Poland.
• Changing legal regulations aiming at supporting inland waterway transport
development.
• Reviving passenger transport and tourism on selected water trails.
Intelligent
transport systems
• Creating a national architecture of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) ensuring
compatibility of particular component systems.
• Implementing pilot ITS projects.
• Supporting road traffic management projects in and outside cities.
• Supporting railway traffic management projects.
• Co-financing the purchase of IT systems for intermodal transport (freight tracking,
logistics centres support).
• Creating an organisational unit within the Ministry of Infrastructure responsible for
issues related to modern technologies in transport.
Goal 3 – Territorial Integration Transport
Mode Specific Goal
Urban Transport • Creating integrated urban transport development plans.
• Creating infrastructure for fast urban rail.
• Developing tram-way transport.
• Promoting “clean” bus transport.
• Creating integrated junctions.
• Increasing the attractiveness of urban transport by improving its standard and safety.
• Increasing urban transport accessibility for persons with disabilities.
• Supporting the construction of bicycle paths.
• Preparing a complex regulation of public transport issues (a new legal act).
103
• Creating an organisational unit within the Ministry of Infrastructure responsible for
urban transport issues.
Intermodal
transport
• Increasing the participation of intermodal transport in the overall railway freight
transport from 0.9% to 1.8% in 2013.
• Supporting the construction and modernisation of widely accessible freight container
terminals located on railway lines, in seaports and river ports.
• Supporting the construction and modernisation of widely accessible logistics centres
and helping to integrate existing centres.
• Co-financing of purchase and lease of rolling stock for intermodal transport.
• Providing one-time, initial aid for launching new services in intermodal transport.
• Strengthening the organisational unit within the Ministry of Infrastructure responsible
for intermodal transport issues.
Goal 4 – Improve Road Safety
Mode Specific Goal
Road • Until 2013 the number of fatalities in road accidents shall decrease by 50% compared
to 2003, i.e. to less than 2820 fatalities. Preventive and control action shall cause
(until 2013):
o A 50% decrease in speed limit violations;
o The achievement of 95% (front seat) and 80% (backseat) rates of drivers and
passengers wearing seatbelts while travelling by car;
o A 50% decrease in the number of drunk drivers.
• There will be a road safety audit conducted for all new road investments and
modernisations.
• Road managers shall enhance actions related to the reconstruction of hazardous
locations (eliminating black points).
• Traffic calming on transit roads passing through cities and small towns (80% of the
total length of transit roads).
• Decreasing dangerous behaviour of young drivers, in order to decrease the number
of fatal accidents caused by them less than 10% of the total number of fatal
accidents.
104
Annex D: Transport Priorities Contained within the 16 Regional Operational
Programmes (2007 – 2013)
Region Transport Priority (ies) Specific Objectives within the Priority
Dolnośląskie
Priority IV - Development
of the Transport
Infrastructure in
Dolnośląskie
• Expansion of the transport network to create connections with the nearest regions within and outside Poland as well as internal
connections
• Development and improvement of public transport and decreasing its negative effects on the environment
• Elimination of barriers for disabled people
• At least 30 per cent of the available funding will be targeted at rural areas.
Kujawsko-
pomorskie
Priority I - Improvement of
technical infrastructure of
the region
• Improvement of the technical infrastructure of the region especially transport infrastructure (to reach appropriate parameters of
functioning of networks, improvement of transport safety, improvement of transit capacities, improvement of space cohesion of
the region, improvement of accessibility of potential investments areas)
Lubelskie Priority III - Transport and
communication
• Improvement of investment conditions
• Increasing of the territorial cohesion of the voivodship
• Improvement of the attractiveness of the region as place for settlement
Lubuskie
Priority I - Development of
infrastructure
strengthening the
competitiveness of the
region/ Measure 1.1.
• Improvement of the infrastructure in the region
• Improvement in the competitive position of the economy of the region
105
Region Transport Priority (ies) Specific Objectives within the Priority
Improvement of regional
transport infrastructure
Łódzkie Priority - VI Regional
transport infrastructure
• Improvement of safety and the accessibility of the regional road network linking central centres with the rest of the region
• Linking the regional transport network with the network of national roads, trans-european transport network (TEN-T) and
airports
• Improvement of road traffic safety in the region
• Improvement of the competitiveness and the quality of public transport in the cities
• Increasing the level of exploitation of the rail transport for passenger and cargo transportation
• Increasing the importance of air transport
Małopolskie
Priority III – Infrastructure
for regional development
Measures:
3.1. Development of road
infrastructure.
3.2. Increasing the role of
public transport in the
services for the region
Priority IV - Kraków
Metropolitan Area,
Measure 4.3.
Development of integrated
metropolitan transport
• Objective of the priority III - Development of socio-economic growth-friendly infrastructure
Mazowieckie
Priority III - Regional
transport system
Priority V - Strengthening
of the role of cities in the
development of the region
• Objectives of Priority III:
• Improvement of the standards and the quality of the regional road network
• Improvement of accessibility and quality of regional public transport services
• Development of regional air transport
106
Region Transport Priority (ies) Specific Objectives within the Priority
• Objectives of Priority V:
• Improvement of the public transport systems in the cities
Priority III - Transport
Infrastructure
• Improvement of the road network in Opolskie
• Improvement of road transport safety
• Improvement of the communication accessibility of the region through creating safe links between the motorway A-4, cross
borders and airports with the rest of the region
• Improvement of the mobility of inhabitants of the region through development of the public transport system
Opolskie
Priority VI - Revitalisation • Creating new socio-economic urban functions and revitalization of urban, post military, post industrial areas aiming at
improvement of the economic and investment attractiveness as well as creating good conditions for increased employment
Podkarpackie
Priority I - Technical and IT
infrastructure
Measure: Communication
and transport infrastructure
• Improvement of the communication accessibility and the quality of transport infrastructure
• Improvement of the natural environment, modernization of the energy infrastructure and use of the renewable sources of
energy
• Creation of the information society
Priority IV - Metropolitan
Areas
• Improvement of the cohesion, functionality and communication accessibility of the Metropolitan Area as well as transport
infrastructure including urban transport
Podlaskie
Priority V - Development of
Transport Infrastructure
• Increasing the communication accessibility of the Podlaskie voivodeship through modernization of the transport infrastructure
important for regional development
107
Region Transport Priority (ies) Specific Objectives within the Priority
Pomorskie
Priority IV - Urban and
metropolitan functions
Measures:
4.1 Development and
integration of public
transport systems
4.2. Increasing of
atrractiveness of the Urban
space
Priority V - Regional
transport system
• Development of integrated, efficient, environmentally-friendly public transport systems in the major cities
• Support for the transformation of depressed urban areas as well as in urban development zones
• Improvement of the transport links between the major economic growth centres and the areas with the biggest density in
region
• Improvement of the competitiveness of the regional transport junctions and areas of their direct impact
• Improvement of transport safety
Śląskie Priority VII - Transport
• Development of an effective integrated transport system
• Restoration of the road network of the region
• Increasing of the level of usage of public transport in the region
Świętokrzyskie
Priority II - Improvement of
the quality of
communication system of
the region
• Improvement of the transport connections of the region with national and European transport corridors
• Improvement of communication links between the capital of the region and poviat city centres with the rest of the region
• Improvement of road safety
Warmińsko-
mazurskie
Priority V - Regional and
local transport
infrastructure
• Improvement of the external accessibility and internal transport cohesion of the region
Wielkopolskie
Priority II - Infrastructure of
fundamental significance
for development
Priority I - Economic
potential of the region
• Increasing of the transport, IT and energy infrastructure quality
• Elimination of interregional transport differences
• Development of connections between regional infrastructure with the external transport systems
• Preparation of investment areas
• Creation of an environmentally-friendly economy
108
Region Transport Priority (ies) Specific Objectives within the Priority
Area of support - Transport
Zachodniopomo
rskie
Priority II - Development of
infrastructure
strengthening
competitiveness and
cohesion of the region
Priority VI - Development
of major cities and urban
spaces
• Improvement of the transport accessibility
• Strengthening of the development potential of the major city centres
• Increasing of the mobility in the region
• Increasing of accessibility of the technical infrastructure on the rural areas
• Increasing of the investment attractiveness of the region.
• Improvement of effective, environmentally-friendly public transport
• Support for the cooperation of metropolitan area with their regional surroundings
109
Annex E: Indicative Financial Allocations for Transport-Investments in the Draft
16 Regional Operational Programmes (2007 – 2013) (Mln €)
EU support EU support National public support Region Year Total Public
resources
(EU+national)
Public
resources
EU within
NSRF
ERDF ESF CF EAGGF EFF Total National
budget
Self-
governments
budget
Other Private EIB
Loans
1=2+13 2=3+7+8+9 3=4+5+6 4 5 6 7 8 9=10+11+12 10 11 12 13 14
Dolnośląśkie
Priority IV Transport
2007-
2013
216.9 216.9 184.3 184.3 32.5
2007 31.2 31.2 26.5 26.5 4.7
2008 31.4 31.4 26.7 26.7 4.7
2009 31.4 31.4 26.7 26.7 4.7
2010 30.6 30.6 26.0 26.0 4.6
2011 30.6 30.6 26.0 26.0 4.6
2012 30.8 30.8 26.2 26.2 4.6
2013 30.8 30.8 26.2 26.2 4.6
Kujawsko-pomorskie
110
Priority I Improvement of technical infrastructure
2007-
2013
328.5 328.5 279.3 279.3 49.3 47.3 2.0 0.0
2007 47.4 47.4 40.3 40.3 7.1 6.8 0.3 0.0
2008 47.6 47.6 40.5 40.5 7.1 6.9 0.3 0.0
2009 47.7 47.7 40.6 40.6 7.2 6.9 0.3 0.0
2010 46.2 46.2 39.2 39.2 6.9 6.6 0.3 0.0
2011 46.4 46.4 39.4 39.4 7.0 6.7 0.3 0.0
2012 46.5 46.5 39.5 39.5 7.0 6.7 0.3 0.0
2013 46.7 46.7 39.7 39.7 7.0 6.7 0.3 0.0
Lubelskie
Priority III Transport
2007-
2013
333.9 329.8 283.8 283.8 46.0 45.0 1.0 4.1
Lubuskie
Priority I; Measure 1.1 Improvement of regional transport infrastructure
2007-
2013
87.07 75.71 64.36 11.36 9.65 1.70 11.36
Łódzkie
Priority VI Regional Transport Infrastructure
2007-
2013
Data not
available
yet
Małopolskie
Priority III Infrastructure for the regional development
2007-
2013
382.66 363.53 309.00 54.53 19.13
111
Priority IV Metropolitan Kraków
2007-
2013
145.10 130.59 111.00 19.59 14.51
Mazowieckie
Priority III Regional transport system
2007-
2013
366.46
Priority V Strengthening of the role of cities in the development of region
2007-
2013
134.07
Opolskie
Priority III Transport infrastructure
2007-
2013
99.5
2007 14.37
2008 14.42
2009 14.46
2010 13.98
2011 14.04
2012 14.09
2013 14.15
Priority VI Revitalization
2007-
2013
34.61
2007 4.99
2008 5.01
2009 5.02
112
2010 4.86
2011 4.88
2012 4.90
2013 4.92
Podkarpackie – data not available yet
Podlaskie
Priority V Development of the transport infrastructure
2007-
2013
120.3 120.3 108.3 108.3 12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pomorskie
Priority V Regional Transport System
2007-
2013
237.4 178.1 53.4 5.9
Priority IV Urban and metropolitan functions
2007-
2013
165.4 115.8 37.2 12.4
Śląskie
Priority Transport
2007-
2013
337.83 337.83 270.26 67.57 54.05 13.51
2007 43.58 43.58 34.86 8.72 6.97 1.74
2008 45.61 45.61 36.49 9.12 7.03 1.82
2009 47.63 47.63 38.11 9.53 7.62 1.91
2010 47.63 47.63 38.11 9.53 7.62 1.91
2011 49.32 49.32 39.46 9.86 7.89 1.97
2012 51.01 51.01 40.81 10.20 8.16 2.04
2013 53.04 53.04 42.43 10.61 8.49 2.12
113
Świętokrzyskie
Priority II Improvement of the quality of communication system of the region
2007-
2013
243.6 243.6 207.1 207.1 36.5 36.5
2007 30.7 30.7 26.1 26.1 4.6 4.6
2008 32.2 32.2 27.3 27.3 4.8 4.8
2009 33.4 33.4 28.4 28.4 5.0 5.0
2010 34.8 34.8 29.6 29.6 5.2 5.2
2011 36.1 36.1 30.6 30.6 5.4 5.4
2012 37.5 37.5 31.9 31.9 5.6 5.6
2013 39.0 39.0 33.1 33.1 5.8 5.8
Warmińsko-Mazurskie
Priority V – Basic regional and local transport infrastructure
2007-
2013
390.53 390.53 331.95 58.58
2007 56.39 56.39 47.93 8.46
2008 56.59 56.59 48.10 8.49
2009 56.74 56.74 48.23 8.51
2010 54.87 54.87 46.64 8.23
2011 55.10 55.10 46.84 8.27
2012 55.30 55.30 47.00 8.29
2013 55.53 55.53 47.20 8.33
Wielkopolskie
Priority I – Economic potential of the region / Measure – Transport
Rail Routes
2007-
2013
1.1
114
Regional/ local roads
2007-
2013
7.4
Priority II – Infrastructure of fundamental significance for development/ Measure - Transport
2007-
2013
338.3
Zachodniopomorskie
Priority II – Development of the transport and energy infrastructure
2007-
2013
303.0 275.1 254.2 254.2 20.9 17.8 3.1 28.0
2007 38.2 34.7 32.0 32.0 2.6 2.4 0.4 3.5
2008 40.0 36.3 33.6 33.6 2.8 2.6 0.4 3.7
2009 41.5 37.7 34.8 34.8 2.9 2.6 0.4 3.8
2010 43.3 39.3 36.3 36.3 3.0 2.7 0.4 4.0
2011 44.8 40.7 37.6 37.6 3.1 2.8 0.5 4.1
2012 46.7 42.4 39.1 39.1 3.2 3.0 0.5 4.3
2013 48.5 44.0 40.7 40.7 3.3 3.1 0.5 4.5
Priority VI – Development of the metropolitan functions and urban area
2007-
2013
95.2 89.2 84.7 84.7 4.5 3.8 0.7 6.0
2007 12.0 11.2 10.7 10.7 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.8
2008 12.6 11.8 11.2 11.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.8
2009 13.0 12.2 11.6 11.6 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.8
2010 13.6 12.8 12.1 12.1 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.9
2011 14.1 13.2 12.5 12.5 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.9
2012 14.7 13.7 13.0 13.0 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.9
2013 15.2 14.3 13.6 13.6 0.7 0.9 0.1 1.0
115
OP Development of Eastern Poland*
Priority III - Transport
2007-
2013
717.3 717.3 609.6 107.7 27.0 49.7 31.0
2007 103.3 103.3 88.0 15.6 3.9 7.2 4.5
2008 103.9 103.9 88.3 15.6 3.9 7.2 4.5
2009 104.2 104.2 88.6 15.6 3.9 7.2 4.5
2010 100.8 100.8 85.6 15.1 3.8 7.0 4.4
2011 101.2 101.2 86.0 15.2 3.8 7.0 4.4
2012 101.6 101.6 86.3 15.3 3.8 7.0 4.4
2013 102.0 102.0 86.7 15.3 3.8 7.1 4.4
Source: Draft versions of the 16 Regional Operational Programmes (accessed on 28/06/2006).