working paper series - grincoh · working paper series this paper was funded under the f p7 project...

Working Paper Series

This paper was funded under the FP7 project “Growth– Innovation – Competitiveness: Fostering Cohesion

in Central and Eastern Europe (GRINCOH)” under the Programme SSH.2011.2.2-1: Addressing

cohesion challenges in Central and Eastern Europe; Area 8.2.2 Regional, territorial and social cohesion.

Project Nr. 290657

Serie 6

Spaces, Territories and Regions

*Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences (IGSO PAS)

Paper No. 6.04

2013

www.grincoh.eu

Tomasz Komornicki*

Assessment of infrastructure construction, its

role in regional development

1

Tomasz Komornicki, [email protected] Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences (IGSO PAS)

www.igipz.pan.pl

Please cite as:

Komornicki T., (2013). ’Assessment of infrastructure construction, its role in regional development’, GRINCOH Working Paper Series, Paper No. 6.04

Assessment of infrastructure construction, its role in regional development1

Content

1.Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2

2.Data sources and methodology .............................................................................................. 2

3. Results of the previous research studies ............................................................................... 6

4.Transport investment in CEE countries ................................................................................... 9

5. The scale and the effects of investments into main transport corridors ............................ 18

6. The investments and the economic growth ........................................................................ 30

7.Position of the metropolises ................................................................................................. 43

8. Changes in potential accessibility ........................................................................................ 50

9.Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 55

Literature .................................................................................................................................. 60

Annexes: ................................................................................................................................... 63

1 cartographic and GIS support Sławomir Goliszek

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.igipz.pan.pl/

2

1.Introduction

The objective of the current study is to assess the importance of transport infrastructure extension, seen in a macro-scale, for regional development in the new EU member states. In the thematic sense, the new infrastructure, built up with extensive support of EU funds under cohesion policy, is the primary subject of analysis. For that reason, the paper focuses, in the first place, on the assessment of impact from the considerable linear investments (roads and railways) on the development of regions classified as NUTS3 units. Additionally, development of air transport infrastructure is taken into consideration, as well. Special attention is paid to transport relations between most important metropolises of the area considered, functioning as development poles, generating diffusion of economic growth throughout a wider area.

In this context, it can be assumed that the overarching objectives of carrying out large transport investment projects are as follows:

providing support for development of main metropolises, including their position in structure network, and development of their interaction range (labour market), including elimination of bottlenecks on the routes between metropolises;

improvement in accessibility of peripheral areas, as a necessary precondition (though not a sufficient one) for activation of economic development, as well as for enhancing better linkages for these areas with metropolitan centres.

For the aforementioned reasons, an assessment was made of large transport investment projects that were carried out in Central-Eastern European countries (CEEC) over the most recent period of 10-12 years. The CEE countries are the recent EU accession countries (those being EU members since 2004 and 2007), apart from Cyprus and Malta, which are located at a geographical distance from the primary area of research. The results thus obtained are set against a backdrop of economic development indexes (changes in GDP over the period under study).

2.Data sources and methodology

In collaboration with GRINCOCH project partners, the search query processing was conducted to acquire data about large transport investments in the countries under study. Thus, we were able to gather data from nine countries, aside from Romania (the data prepared in Latvia, Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Bulgaria, are provided as annexes to the present report). Materials associated with the development of transport network in Romania were acquired from the generally available Internet sources. At the onset of the study it was assumed that analysis would deal with all the linear investment projects (road and railways) that meet at least one of the two requirements:

the length exceeding 20 km,

the projects exceeding €30 million in investments.

The general data on the value of structural assistance were not summed for the entire macroregion. They are only presented for particular countries. This resulted from the fact of sending the data from the Partners in different months of 2013 (the list of projects, implemented within the perspective of 2007-2013 has not been – and still is not – finally closed), and was also linked with the variations in the exchange rates.

3

Additionally, the search query focused on all investment projects, also those carried out on the basis of non-EU financial sources (in order to assess total combined changes and complementarity of investments measures). For each of investment project the following data were successfully obtained:

the course of routes (described by initial and final nodes),

length in km,

source of financing (including, especially, the EU contribution),

cost (EU contribution),

character of investment project (brief description, in case of roads − with particular reference to following categories: modernization, construction of two-lane expressways, construction of motorways; in case of railways: extent of modernization),

the year of completing a given investment project.

The extent of data gathered was different for particular countries. However, it allowed for conducting a methodologically uniform general analysis.

At the same time, statistical data were collected, primarily those pertaining to GDP and its changes in the period under study on the level of NUTS3 (Eurostat), and changes in accessibility (based on the findings obtained simultaneously from ESPON TRACC project).

Deliberately, a selection of most important metropolitan centers was made involving the CEEC area under investigation, with inclusion of the close surroundings of the centres. In total, 50 cities were selected, whose mutual transport interrelations became the subject of comprehensive analysis. The selection was based on the following criteria:

a) Megas according to ESPON 1.1.1.: Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius, Warsaw, Gdansk, Poznan, Szczecin, Wroclaw, Lodz, Katowice, Krakow, Prague, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Bucharest, Sofia, Timișoara [18].

b) Cities that are supplementary to the network, selected due to their location (e.g. within the border zone and/or functioning as transport nodes): Tartu, Klaipėda, Białystok, Lublin, Brno, Ostrava, Košice, Debrecen, Szeged, Cluj-Napoca, Constanța, Varna [12].

c) Cities in the neighbouring countries belonging to the EU: Helsinki, Stockholm, Malmö, Copenhagen, Berlin, Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, Venice, Thessalonica [11].

d) Cities in the neighbouring countries outside the EU (by membership at the beginning of 2013): Zagreb, Belgrade, Skopje, Istanbul, Kishinev, Lviv, Kiev, Minsk, Sankt Petersburg [9].

In addition to the thus defined network of cities, separately, road and railway corridors were selected linking these cities into one system. Two simultaneous databases were established, each of these containing ca. 80 line sections (see Figs. 1 and 2). Each line section was at the start characterized by its length, size of EU financial input in investment projects in the period under study, and also by the travel-time savings in road and rail transport travel. Travel-time savings were estimated on the basis of data stemming from Poland. To that end, a model of traffic speed, designed at the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization

4

PAS, was utilized indirectly (with the assumption that travel times are analogous to these generated by the model in Poland). Measures of changes in travel time were used such as total and equivalent to 100 km of route. On this basis, for each city under investigation within the CEE countries (30 urban centers), simple indicators were calculated of the level and of improvement in accessibility to neighbouring metropolises (those located within the EU and, separately, considering also those metropolises located beyond the EU borders).

In addition, the volume of investments in rail and road transport was estimated on the NUTS3 level, which allowed for comparing them with the changes in GDP per capita. Investments were presented both in total and per 100 km of route. In this way, a cautious assessment of effectiveness of linear transport investments was made.

Figure 1. Base Network – roads

Source: own elaboration

Additionally, at the NUTS3 level the position of particular regions was subject to analysis in terms of potential multimodal accessibility (employing the data obtained from ESPON

5

project). The analysis was out of necessity limited to comparison of spatial distributions, since the research material that was quantified was not fully comparable with regard to time ranges that were utilized (changes in borders of NUTS units, changes in methodology of indicator calculation). It was decided to use a measure illustrating the level of accessibility in relation to the average for ESPON space.

Figure 2. Base Network – rail lines


Separately, the investigations concentrated on indicators (associated with GDP and accessibility aspects) for the selected 30 metropolitan centers. This made it possible to compare these indicators with the previously calculated ones of the level of transport accessibility to neighbouring metropolises. To this end, simple analyses of correlation and regression were employed. Such an analysis, though, did not allow for grasping the interdependences between economic development and investments into transport.

In addition, the study made use of the available literature of the subject, along with strategic documents drawn up in the particular countries of the region in question. Also, one should highlight the important role, as a source of information, of findings obtained from the ESPON projects, including, in particular, ESPON 1.2.1., ESPON TRACC, ESPON FOCI and ESPON SeGI.

6

3. Results of the previous research studies

Issues associated with impacts of transport investments on socio-economic development of the adjacent areas are widely analyzed in scientific literature. The role of infrastructure as a factor behind economic growth is often questioned. At the same time, studies corroborating the respective proposition are frequently conducted in countries characterized by a dense road and / or rail network. Numerous other studies point out that development of infrastructure is not a sufficient condition for economic development, but undoubtedly it is a necessary precondition for activating the growth processes. When perceived from a macroeconomic global perspective, the impact of infrastructure development on economy is of undisputed importance. Recent studies have proved the classical conjecture that regional differences as to the economic levels are associated with mutual relations between economy of scale and cost of transport (Krugman & Venables 1995). The problem becomes more complex when lesser spatial structures, as well as particular modes of transport, are subject to analysis. This applies in a particular manner to the highly developed countries that are characterized by a well established transport network, where the developmental role of new investments is often put to question (Vickerman, 1995, Psenka 2008). This does not mean, however, that transport has ceased to be there an essential developmental factor. It proves only that impact of transport on development is of complex nature (is an indirect factor) and that it cannot be analysed by means of simple models (Button 2004). A critique is leveled at the validity of further development of road infrastructure, based on limited effectiveness of such developments and considerable external costs generated by road transport. The research studies corroborating this critique, however, are conducted primarily in urban areas (cf. Szarata 2012).

One finds in the literature of the subject simultaneous studies that confirm and negate the existence of interdependence between the investments into transport infrastructure and the economic development. The conclusions from the individual analyses depend upon the case studies that were made use of, the quality of data, as well as the geographical scale of the study. The estimates of Kemerling & Stephan (2008) confirm for three out of four investigated European countries (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) that regional investment in road infrastructure has contributed to regional production. The few investigations, concerning the problem, which were carried out in the context of the Central-Eastern Europe, include the report by Cieślik and Rokicki (2013), which refers to the setting of the Polish provinces and metropolitan areas. These authors demonstrated that there exists a statistical interrelation between the development of the metropolises (their economic potential) and the state of road infrastructure of the higher level (national highways only). At the same time, such an interrelation does not exist for the lower level roads. These results confirm the correctness of concentrating the investment effort on the most important transport corridors, whose extension appears to be the most effective from the point of view of cohesion at the European level. The conclusions of Crescenzi & Rodriguez-Pose (2008) go in the opposite direction. Following the earlier studies of Vickerman (1995), these authors see the resolution of the problems of the peripheral areas more in the development of their internal infrastructure than in their linkage with the main growth poles. The very same authors state, though, ultimately, that good infrastructure endowment is a precondition for economic development. In their opinion, regions with adequate initial motorway networks tend to perform better than regions lacking this type of basic infrastructure. At the same time, further extension of infrastructure – in regions already well

7

endowed from this point of view – does not have an influence that would add to economic development. In the later studies, Crescenzi & Rodriguez-Pose (2012), these authors question the effectiveness of the transport-related investment projects, supported by the European Union, indicating, instead, that development of regions decisively depends upon the investments in the R&D sector and upon migrations. The investigations, on which they founded such conclusion, though, were conducted in only eleven countries from among the “old member countries”, where the road networks (the analysis being concentrated on the length of the motorways) are already well developed (and thus, conform to the earlier conclusions of these authors, further investments cease to be effective there). Crescenzi & Rodriguez-Pose (2012) emphasise also the important fact that the negative results, obtained by them from the econometric model, might be the effect of the politically conditioned choice of projects for implementation by the decision makers. This is the confirmation for the proposition that the assessment of the analyses, questioning the role of transport infrastructure, must also account for the indicators applied. Beyond doubt, it is more reliable to relate development to changes in potential accessibility than to the sheer length of the linear infrastructure (like that of motorways) in the region. The indicator of accessibility eliminates to a certain degree the problem associated with the varying effectiveness levels of the location decisions, which are politically conditioned.

As proved by other studies, the impact of infrastructural investment projects can be different in different geographical macro-regions. This concerns, in particular, the macro-regions of East-Central Europe, including the ten countries under study. This thesis is further corroborated by the results of the IASON project (Wegener et al. 2005). It was also confirmed to a significant extent during the study of possible improvements to the transport accessibility index in Europe, carried out within the 5th EU Cohesion Report. The EU Territorial Agenda 2020 highlights the same problem, just like its base document, the Territorial and State Perspective (Damsgaard at al. 2011). The 5th Cohesion Report of the European Commission (2010) provides theoretical estimates of further improvement in transport accessibility. In the west European countries these values vary between 10 and 20%, whereas in the new accession countries they exceed 100%. At the same time, the scale of the road network underdevelopment to date, combined with an ever growing transit traffic (especially heavy goods traffic over the direction from Russia through Baltic states to Germany and Czechia), cause that external costs (environmental and associated with traffic safety) are rather on decline due to completion of new investment projects along the routes of motorways and two-lane expressways.

In relative terms, in the very new EU member states, there have been fewer research studies on the direct impact of new developments in road infrastructure on economic growth. This follows to some degree from the objective fact that we deal, thus far, with a relatively short period of large-scale transport investments. From among the previous studies, concerning these issues, one can mention the studies by Potrykowski (1983), who analyzed mutual correlations between density of road network and level of economic development within the area of Poland. This phenomenon was analyzed also by Rosik & Szuster (2008), who asserted that the earlier extension of the motorway network (prior to 2006) only contributed to improvement in accessibility of these regions that already enjoyed good accessibility, and that the subsequent investments led to an increased spatial polarization. A study carried out by Domańska (2006) was devoted solely to a particular investment project, where effects of construction of new sections along the route of A4 motorway were investigated. Further

8

development of research studies related to the above-mentioned issues took place after the enlargement of EU, linked with a significant intensification of investment activity in transport network. Effects of road investments became the subject of research within the ESPON projects (e.g. such projects as 1.2.1., 1.1.3., TRACC and SeGI; www.espon.eu), and in the course of time these issues were taken up by EU Cohesion Reports. At the same time, there occurred changes in the indicators that were utilized. Measures of spatial accessibility were more broadly used, first the ones dealing with the time aspect (Komornicki et al. 2008), and then the ones based on the potential accessibility indicator (Komornicki et al. 2010, Więckowski et al. 2012, Stępniak & Rosik 2013). The impact of road investments on development was analyzed comprehensively in several formal evaluation studies, including two large projects on the national scale (Komornicki et al. 2010, and Komornicki, Rosik et al. 2013). Their conclusions pointed, in particular, at a significant regional differentiation of investment effects. On a local scale, this observation was supported by the analysis of Urlicki (2012), dealing with the effects of the northern section of A1 Polish motorway on accessibility and mobility.

Figure 3. Correlation between GDP and Reimbursed EU Funds in 2011

Source: Hapenciuc et al. 2013

A separate problem is constituted by the general interdependence between the allocation of the European funds and the level of economic development of the new accession countries. Conform to the various economic reports (e.g. Hapenciuc et al. 2013), the very fact of directing the funds to Central-Eastern Europe does not guarantee the economic success of this area (see Fig. 3). Given the very high position of the transport-related projects in the entire value of structural funds (already in the years 1983-1987 as much as 43% of expenditures into infrastructure spent in the countries of the Community originated from the European Regional Development Fund; during the same period 47% of founds from the ERDF spent in Spain were devoted exactly to transport; Banister et al. 2000) it should be admitted that such statements refer, as well, to the effectiveness of the infrastructural investments. The factors that condition the effective absorption are: the macroeconomic situation, the administrative capacity and the co-financing capacity.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the literature of the subject imply a very careful interpretation of the materials at hand, related to the effects of the current allocation of

http://www.espon.eu/

9

founds from the European Union into the transport infrastructure of the CEE countries. The care must be taken in view of:

short time period of study;

various states of development of infrastructure in particular countries;

various economic situations of the CEE countries and their different absorption capacities (the institutional factor, as well as the possibilities of co-financing the projects);

varying effectiveness of investment projects, undertaken on different geographical scales;

inconsistent input data;

shortcomings of some of the base indicators.

Taking into account the above aspects, it appears that the attempts at formulating the initial conclusions concerning the effectiveness of investments into transport infrastructure (in the sense of general development) must be related to the spatial analysis of geographical distribution of the respective projects. Studies based on econometric models are in these conditions less useful in view of high vulnerability to imprecision of input data (depending upon the quality of these data and the assumptions adopted it is possible to obtain quite contradictory results).

4.Transport investment in CEE countries

4.1. Poland

Against the background of other countries of Central-Eastern Europe, Poland experienced an exceptionally long break in the implementation of large transport projects. This break started at around the year 1980 and lasted, in fact, until the accession to the European Union. During the period of these 25 years just a few new routes were built. Likewise, no new vision of developing the road and railway system was elaborated, and even in the European documents the plans for the ultimate shape of the system, originating from the times of the planned economy, were being repeated. Under such circumstances, appearance of the support from the European Union for new large undertakings (beginning with the pre-accession programme ISPA), brought about a fast – even though at times chaotic – intensification of the investment projects. In two successive financing periods of the EU (2004-2006 and 2007-2013) only a part of the initial endeavours was realised. Just prior to the second of these periods, attention started to be paid to the need of clear definition of the objectives of individual projects (Komornicki 2007). This fact found its reflection in the central strategic documents in the course of work on the new Concept for the Spatial Development of the Country 2030. Despite the reservations mentioned, the network of fast traffic routes started to take shape in Poland (meaning both motorways and expressways), the pattern of this network beginning to take on – especially in western Poland – the features corresponding to cohesion (Fig. 4). Less spectacular was the development of the railway network (this being largely due to the institutional barriers within the railway companies). During the pre-accession period and in the financing term 2004-2006 the large investments into transport were realised centrally in the framework of the Operational Program Transport. In the perspective of 2007-2013 the biggest undertakings took place in

10

the framework of the Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment. At the same time, other transport-related projects were carried out with the help of the Regional Operational Programmes (in 16 provinces) and of the Operational Program of Development of Eastern Poland.

Figure 4. . Large-scale road construction projects in Poland in the years 2004-2015

a. Motorway/expressway co-founded by EU (2004-2013) b. Motorway/expressway founded from other sources (2004-2013) c. Motorway/expressway (dual/single carriageway) in operation before 2004 d. Motorway/expressway planed for construction during the next financial perspectives

Source: elaborated by S. Goliszek on the basis of Komornicki, Rosik et al. 2013.

Poland was, among all the countries considered, the biggest beneficiary of the structural funds, both in total terms, and in transport. The joint value of the transport-related projects in the two financing periods exceeded 28 billion € (as of the end of 2013, including the started, but not terminated projects). A vast majority of these funds went into road projects. Thus, in the framework of the two financial perspectives the funds from the European Union served to implement several segments of the parallel road route linking the boundary with Germany and the one with Ukraine, passing close to Wroclaw and Cracow. Likewise, the central fragment of the motorway Berlin-Warsaw and a number of fragments of the route Gdansk-Katowice-Czech border (Vienna) were also realised. Besides, realisation of several

11

expressways was started (including the one between Lodz and Wroclaw). Conform to the results from the evaluation studies, making use of the potential accessibility methodology, carried out in 2013, the road-related investments, supported by the founds from the European Union, were most advantageous for Central Poland, for the region of Szczecin, and also for the South-Eastern Poland (see Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Relative change of the domestic potential accessibility of the municipalities in Poland in the years 2004-2013 due to realisation of the investment projects with a share of EU founds.

a. Potential accessibility (change In %) b. Investment co-founded by EU: motorways, expressways Source: Komornicki, Rosik et al. 2013

In railway infrastructure the biggest of the projects lasted very long and were continued over the successive financial perspectives. These projects include the modernisation (up to the speed of 160 km/h) of the line Warsaw-Gdansk, modernisation of the line Warsaw-Lodz, of the parallel line from the German border through Wroclaw and Cracow to Rzeszow, and, in addition, in particular – the line from the capital city towards the Belarusian border. There were no larger scale projects of construction of new lines. The joint value of the EU support in railway transport exceeded at the end of 2013 the sum of 5 billion €. A specific feature of the use made of the funds from the European Union in Poland meant for the transport sector was that a significant share went into the agglomeration-related projects (like, e.g. the subway in Warsaw – more than 700 million €, streetcar lines in Poznan, in-city road routes, etc.), into the haven-related projects (in Gdansk, Gdynia, Szczecin and Świnoujście), into the extension of almost all airports, functioning in Poland (including those in Gdansk, Wroclaw and Cracow), as well as into construction and putting into service of two new airports for regular flights (in Modlin and Lublin). Joint value of the air transport projects exceeded half a billion Euro.

Summing up, we should emphasise that the financial scale of investment projects in Poland was the biggest among the countries here considered. At the same time, these investment projects were – especially in the first financing period – quite dispersed. Despite the initial modal balance as regards transport, ultimately the founds actually disbursed into road transport were much higher. The very bad starting position and the huge needs of

12

investment means caused that both the road and the railway systems could not be closed with the end of the financing period 2007-2013. Hence, the objectives were not achieved to the extent that it was possible to attain in Hungary, Czechia and Slovenia. Yet, the degree of advancement of the essential investment projects is distinctly higher than in Romania or Bulgaria.

4.2. Czechia

Total value of the transport-related investment projects implemented in Czechia in the years 2002-2013 exceeded 4.5 billion € (Table 1, Annex 1), of which more than 2/3 were spent on road construction. Concerning railway projects only modernisations were carried out, the biggest founds being concentrated on the lines from Prague towards the German border (Munich) and the Austrian border (Linz) – in both cases primarily during the financing period 2007-2013 – and on the eastern segment of the line Prague-Ostrava. Likewise, short border-adjacent segments were modernised of the lines from Ostrava to Bratislava and to Katowice (during the period of 2004-2006). As regards the road infrastructure, the highest concentration of founds in the financing period of 2007-2013 occurred along the new motorway routes Prague-Linz, Prague-Dresden, and Brno-Ostrava-Katowice, as well as the expressway from Karlove Vary to the German border. Besides, the circular expressway around Prague was being constructed, along with short fragments of other expressways. All of the large road investment projects had the character of new developments.

Side by side with the road and railway projects, the founds from the EU were used in the Czech Republic – to a quite limited extent – to support inland navigation and transport in agglomerations. European Union funds were not made use of for air transport. Summing up, investments into transport in Czechia, supported from the EU funds, should be seen as concentrated on:

a) improvement of accessibility concerning the line Prague-Ostrava;

b) strengthening of linkages with the neighbouring countries, especially with Germany and Austria, and, in the second order, with Poland and Slovakia;

c) development of the Prague road node (construction of the circular expressway).

Table 1. European Funds allocated for transport infrastructure investments in Czechia 2002-2013

Mode of transport Investment funding (mil euro)

2004-2006 (including ISPA) 2007-2013

Road Transport 298, 5 2 864,4

Rail Transport 300, 4 1 592,5

Inland waterways - 98,4

Metropolitan - 41,8

Other - 4,5

Total 598,8 4 601,5

Source: Anex 1

4.3.Slovakia

Investments into transport on the territory of Slovakia, which were supported with the EU funds, exceeded in total, during the two financing perspectives, 1.5 billion € (Table 2, Annex 2). These outlays were balanced in modal terms. In both financial perspectives the

13

domination of the road projects over the railway projects was only slight. Other kinds of transport were not supported. The biggest investments into road construction concentrated on the routes, linking Bratislava with eastern Slovakia: the motorway D1, following the northern corridor (main outlays in the years 2004-2006), and the expressway R1, constituting an element of the southern route (mainly the 2007-2013 financing period). On the top of this, the motorway junction Bratislava-Vienna was implemented (whose construction had been started yet in the framework of the pre-accession program ISPA). The most expensive were the segments of the motorway D1 in the vicinity of Povazska Bistrica (10 km) and Poprad (26 km). There were also road construction projects, realised in parallel from the national sources, the biggest of these being the expressway R1 from Nitra to Banska Bistrica.

Table 2. European Funds allocated for transport infrastructure investments in Slovakia 2002-2013 Mode of transport Investment funding (mil euro)

2004-2006 (including ISPA) 2007-2013

Road Transport 276,7 574,01

Rail Transport 253,1 454,26

Total 529,8 1028,27

Source: Anex 2

Regarding the railway projects almost all founds were concentrated on the line Bratislava-Kosice, whose western part was consistently being modernised during both financing periods to attain the speed standard of 160 km/h. Besides, as concerns the main routes, modernisation was also carried out of the line from Zilina to the border with Poland in Zwardon. Altogether, investment projects, supported by founds from the European Union in Slovakia must be seen as concentrated on the routes of the most important road and railway corridors, and, at the same time – balanced in modal terms. Investments were also concentrated more in the western part of the country, with their eastward extension in the subsequent financing period.

4.4.Hungary

During the period here under study the transport infrastructure of Hungary got supported jointly by the founds from the European Union worth approximately 7.5 billion € (Table 3, Annex 3). The scope of the support extended was limited in the framework of the first financing period, with the majority of the large projects being undertaken after the year 2007. Close to half of all the founds was meant for road transport. The remaining part was split evenly between railway projects and transport in agglomerations (primarily concerning the extension of the subway system in Budapest and the streetcar lines in Szeged and Debrecen). There was also a quite limited support for the reconstruction of the passenger terminal at the Budapest airport.

Table 3. European Funds allocated for transport infrastructure investments in Hungary 2002-2013 Mode of transport Investment funding (mil euro)

ISPA, CF ~2000-2013 2004-2006 2007-2013

Road Transport 357,7 228,1 2 954,6

Rail Transport 361,1 10,4 1 720,1

Inland waterways - 33,0 2,4

Air transport 15,5 - -

Metropolitan - 7,0 1 697,7

Other 3,5 - 172,7

Total 737,7 278,4 6 547,5

Source: Anex 3

14

All of the railway projects had the character of modernisation. The scope of respective work was the biggest on the lines from Budapest to Debrecen and to Timisoara in Romania, and from Budapest to Ljubljana. Likewise, the line from Budapest to Vienna was modernised. Concerning road transport, EU funds constituted only a limited fraction of the broad programme of motorway construction, which was, in parallel, financed from the national funds and in the framework of public-private partnership (PPP). The support from the EU served in the financing period 2007-2013 mainly in construction of the border segments of motorways on the Romanian direction (Szeged-Timisoara, and also Budapest-Cluj) and on the Ukrainian direction (Debrecen-Lviv), as well as in construction of segments of the circular motorway around Budapest. Besides, modernisation of some of the main national roads was supported by the founds from the EU. The degree of support for inland navigation and air transport was marginal.

Summing up, the use of the funds from the European Union in Hungary should be considered balanced in modal terms and complementary with respect to other large investment projects, implemented with national founds or in the framework of the PPP. The support from the EU in transport concentrated on:

a) modernisation of the railway network;

b) construction of the transboundary segments of the road network;

c) improvement of the broadly conceived transport situation of Budapest (circular motorway, subway, suburban railways, streetcars, airport).

4.5.Romania

In the case of Romania, given the later accession to the European Union, until the year 2007 the main source of support for the large transport projects was the ISPA program. In the framework of this program both the railway lines were modernised (like the one between Bucharest and Constanta) and the main roads. Construction of a fragment of the motorway Bucharest-Constanta was also supported from these funds. The overall support for the transport sector in the framework of ISPA amounted to approximately 800 million €. After the year 2008 the investment projects were realised in the framework of the Sectoral Operational Program Transport, for which total support amounts to approximately 4.6 billion € (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy). The key project became the motorway Bucharest-Timisoara-Hungarian boundary (with support worth more than 1 billion €). Besides, main national roads were modernised in the southern part of the country.

In railway transport efforts were concentrated on the modernisation of the line Brasov-Hungarian boundary. Relatively important means were also envisaged for construction of the intelligent transport system ERTS, purchase of rolling stock, and for modernisation of railway stations. Further, an important project was the modernisation of the navigation route along the Danube river. Altogether, it should be stated that the support extended by the European Union for the development of the transport network in Romania was directed towards the improvement of the connections between Bucharest and the Hungarian boundary, and between Bucharest and the Black Sea port in Constanta.

4.6.Bulgaria

The total value of support from the EU for the transport sector in Bulgaria since the year 2004 exceeded 5.5 billion € (see Annex 4), of which an important part falls on the pre-

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy

15

accession period (the ISPA fund). The biggest portion of the founds was directed to road transport, less than half of this to railway transport. Around 1 billion € were planned for investments in the metropolitan areas (subway construction in Sofia), and 250 million € for modernisation of the Danube waterway. In the first financing period (2004-2006) support was also extended for the modernisation of the airport of Sofia.

From among the railway projects the one having obtained the highest financing was modernisation of the lines Sofia-Istanbul and Sofia-Vidin (Romanian border). Besides, smaller amounts were spent on the reconstruction of the route Sofia-Burgas. Regarding road transport, concentration of founds took place on the new motorways: Sofia-Thessaloniki and the extension of the motorway from Sofia towards Istanbul and Burgas. A large project, linking both modes of transport, was constituted by the construction of the road-and-railway bridge on Danube in Vidin (Romanian border). On the top of this, modernisation of a number of main national roads was carried out, including those from Sofia towards the boundaries with Macedonia, Serbia and Romania. The circular road around Sofia was being modernised, as well.

Altogether, it ought to be concluded that the priorities in the development of linear infrastructure were associated with the main international (transit) routes, and with the connections between Sofia and the Black Sea coast. The metropolitan area of Sofia was also an important beneficiary of the support from the EU (the circular road, the subway line, and the exit roads). The investment projects were relatively balanced in terms of transport modes.

4.7.Slovenia

Against the background of other countries of the region, the scope of transport-related investment projects, supported with the founds from the EU, was relatively limited (below 1 billion € in both financing periods, see Table 4, Annex 5). The expenditures concentrated on railway transport (the biggest item) and on road transport. In addition, construction of a new terminal for the airport in Ljubljana was also supported. From among the railway projects the most important was the modernisation of the lines towards the Hungarian border (electrification and reconstruction, allowing for the speed of 160 km/h). Besides, smaller amounts were disbursed to support the modernisation of some other segments, including the one in the vicinity of the seaport of Koper.

Table 4. European Funds allocated for transport infrastructure investments in Slovenia 2002-2013 Mode of transport Investment funding (mil euro)

2004-2006 (including ISPA) 2007-2013



Sea transport 0 7,1

Air transport 0 28,7

Metropolitan 0 7,0

Total 99,9 836,0

Source: Anex 5

Regarding road transport, the founds from the European Union were used to support the continuation of construction of the motorways from Ljubljana and Maribor towards the Croatian border and Zagreb, and from Maribor in the direction of the Hungarian border. Some founds were also devoted to the modernisation works along the already existing motorways (for, in particular, construction of the acoustic screening).

16

All in all, transport-related investment projects in Slovenia concentrated on the continuation of the earlier undertakings (having been realised in the pre-accession period) aiming at development of adequate connections with the infrastructures of Hungary and Croatia. The previously developed motorway system allowed also for the more pronounced concentration of founds on railway infrastructure.

4.8.Lithuania

Over the entire period here analysed the support from the European Union for the transport-related investment projects in Lithuania amounted to more than 1.5 billion € (see Table 5, Annex 6). This amount was proportionally spent in the two financing periods. It was consumed in all the modes of transport, with roughly 50% falling on the road infrastructure. The biggest railway project was the successive modernisation of the lines Vilnius-Klaipeda (segment Sauliai-Klaipeda), and Vilnius-Kaliningrad (Russian Federation) through Kaunas. In the vicinity of Kaunas a fragment of the line from the border with Poland (Rail Baltica) was also reconstructed.

Table 5. European Funds allocated for transport infrastructure investments in Lithuania 2002-2013 Mode of transport Investment funding (mil euro)

2004-2006 (including ISPA) 2007-2013



Inland waterways 2,2 6,3

Sea transport 0 49,8

Air transport 8,7 45,0

Metropolitan 28,8 188,2

Other 1,8 35,2

Total 145,5 1393,0

Source: Anex 6

In the framework of the supported road projects almost exclusively the modernisation of the already existing routes has been carried out, including two motorways: Vilnius-Klaipeda and Vilnius-Panevezys. A number of national road reconstructions were also supported, like, e.g., along the line Kaunas-Riga (Via Baltica), or Vilnius-Belarusian border. Of the new undertakings – fragments of the circular road around Vilnius were realised. As regards the projects related to other transport modes, the seaport in Klaipeda and the passenger air terminals in Vilnius and in Kaunas were modernised.

Altogether, European funds spent for the transport sector have been devoted in Lithuania primarily to the broadly conceived modernisation projects in several transport branches simultaneously. The priority remained with the main domestic corridors (Vilnius-Kaunas-Klaipeda) and some of the junction routes to the neighbouring countries. There was no significant concentration of efforts on the priority transport routes of the European Union (Via Baltica and Rail Baltica).

4.9. Latvia

The total value of the EU support for the development of transport in Latvia during the two financing periods exceeded 1.6 billion € (see Annex 7). This amount was allocated to various branches of transport. The biggest founds were spent on road transport, but significant founds went also into railway and air transport projects. The main railway project was modernisation of the line from Riga to the Russian border, on which the second track was laid in some places (Fig. 6). Besides, a new line was constructed from Riga to the sea terminal

17

on Krievu island. In road transport, support dominated for the modernisation of the main roads (which attain the expressway standard on definite fragments only) from Riga towards the boundaries with Russia and Lithuania. At the same time, significant new investment projects were undertaken regarding the road node of Riga (express exits with a new bridge over Daugava river).

Figure 6. Priority rail transport corridors in Latvia in 2004-2013 (thick green lines)

Source: Regulation of the cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia Nr. 120 (14th February 2006) “On the Cohesion policy

framework documents”. Available at: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=128535

From among the investment projects in other modes of transport one should mention construction of the cargo seaport on the island of Krievu, modernisation of the seaports of Liepaja and Ventspils, as well as modernisation of the airport in Riga. Summing up, the support from the EU for the transport-related investment projects concentrated strongly in the area of the capital city, encompassing various modes of transport (express exit ways, new cargo seaport with a new railway line, modernisation of the airport). On the top of this, railway and road infrastructure was being improved on the directions towards the neighbouring countries (Russia and Lithuania, to a lesser extent Estonia).

4.10. Estonia

Investments into transport in Estonia were supported by the EU in the framework of the operational program „Development of economic environment” (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy). Altogether around 530 million € were earmarked for the projects of both national and regional significance. The primary railway project was modernisation of the line from Tallinn to Tartu. Besides, modernisation work has been done on short segments of the rail infrastructure to the West of the capital city. Regarding road infrastructure the most important undertakings were associated with modernisation of the main roads from Tallinn to Tartu and farther on towards the border with Russia, and from the Latvian border through Tartu towards the Finnish Bay coast. Support was not extended to either road or railway line on the priority direction of the European Union of the Via Baltica and Rail Baltica routes. Additionally, in the financing period of 2004-2006 the airport in Tallinn was also modernised.

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=128535

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy

18

The use of the EU funds in Estonia in the transport sector was marked by a pronounced concentration on the strengthening of connections of the two main centres of the country – Tallinn and Tartu. Orientation at transit traffic was in this case of lower significance.

5. The scale and the effects of investments into main transport corridors

5.1. Development of the road infrastructure

On the eve of accession to the European Union the network of fast traffic roads (motorways and expressways) was very unevenly developed in the countries of Central-Eastern Europe. It was definitely most extensively developed in Slovenia, this country being followed by Czechia and Hungary. The three countries had started the construction of motorways yet before the year 1989 and – in distinction from the remaining countries considered – they continued the construction during the pre-accession transformation period, as well. Owing to this fact, the road networks of the three countries got connected with the networks of the western European countries (the routes Ljubljana-Vienna, Ljubljana-Venice, Budapest-Vienna, as well as Prague-Nuremberg). There was also the connection between Prague and Bratislava, which originated yet from the period of existence of Czechoslovakia. The Czech and Hungarian networks appeared in a classical manner, by extension of the radial segments going out from the capital centres. Considering the surface area of the country, the road infrastructure of Lithuania was also relatively well developed. The most important national centres, Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda, were connected. In Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, only the beginnings of the respective fast traffic networks functioned, while in Latvia and Estonia there were, practically, no such networks at all. In Poland, a large proportion of the existing fast traffic roads was constituted by the remnants of the German projects from before the World War II and the period of war. The common feature for the countries here listed was also the idle period, in terms of investments, during the 1990s. The state from before the year 1989 remained “frozen” until the first European pre-accession funds (ISPA) appeared. A plan of constructing the motorways in the concessionary system (so-called BOT) was set in motion in Poland, but it was later on limited, and abandoned to the advantage of road construction with the use of the European funds. Yet, despite this, two lines of the concessionary motorways had been completed – already after the year 2004 – one of them connecting the city of Poznan with the German boundary and Berlin.

The above characterised differentiation of the initial state determined the strategy of using the Union funds in the successive financing periods. Countries like Hungary, Czechia and Slovenia aimed at termination of construction of their respective base networks, which often meant investing in the segments, linking their proper networks with those of the neighbouring countries. They also tried to eliminate the bottlenecks in their road systems. In this sense, the objectives of their road development policies were conform to the aims of the European transport policies (written down, for instance, in the White Paper 2001 and in the documents, which were the basis for the development of the TEN-T network). The situation of the other countries was quite different. Delays in realisation of investments were so important there, that these countries tended to make maximum use of the European funds for the realisation of the basic segments, linking main urban centres or accommodating mass transit. In view of the bigger spatial scale of some countries (especially Poland and Romania) this implied, as well, a dispersion of the investment outlays. This dispersion was also magnified by the fact that the respective undertakings were made – as a rule – with the use of the means from the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF. Besides, not all of

19

the investment projects were well prepared (environmental decisions, local conflicts related to the route course), which caused that – especially in the first period after accession (financing period of 2004-2006) – realisation was taken up on the fragments, where the preparatory process had been already terminated. In the case of Romania and Bulgaria, the projects could be started only in the consecutive financing period (earlier on the means from the ISPA program were made use of), and so, the analogous problems were delayed with respect to, for instance, Poland.

The biggest spatial extent of the road investments, supported with the founds from the European Union occurred in Poland, followed in this sense by Bulgaria and Czechia. The respective projects in Poland were significantly dispersed. They were unconnected with the capital of the country, but, at the same time, resulted in the creation of the second transboundary connection with the German motorway network, and the second connection with the Czech network (continued on the other side of the border). It turned also possible to bring a motorway up to the border with Ukraine. In the Czech Republic the works were more spatially concentrated in the area of Prague and Ostrava. The connections were also realised on the Austrian direction (Linz) and on the German one (Dresden). In Bulgaria, work was continued on the earlier started projects on the East-West direction, as well as on the route towards Greece. Situation similar to that in Czechia was observed in Slovenia, where investments were concentrated on the extension of the already existing routes and their linkage with the counterparts on the Hungarian and Croatian sides. In Slovakia, construction was continued of the main motorway, constituting the transport axis of the country, while in Romania realisation was started of the main connection between Bucharest and the Hungarian border. The scale of investments in the Baltic countries was limited. Thus, in Lithuania, first of all the existing routes, which had not been sufficiently fulfilling the criteria of the motorways, were modernised. In Latvia and Estonia (and to a lesser extent also in Bulgaria) main roads were modernised, although they were not brought up to the standard of the fast traffic routes. An interesting example is provided by Hungary, where – contrary to other countries considered – in parallel with the investments financed from the EU funds, projects were continued financed from the national means and in the framework of the PPP.

When assessing the geographical distribution of the EU co-financed investments (Fig. 7) one should state that:

they were concentrated to a higher degree in the western part of the CEE countries (Slovenia, Czechia, western Poland and western Slovakia);

their distribution was conditioned by the previous state of advancement of the road infrastructure;

the investments considered caused that the base road networks of Czechia, Slovenia and Hungary are nearing closure;

owing to these investments, the degree of integration of the fast traffic road network of the CEE countries with those of the old member countries improved (new connections appeared between Poland and Germany, and between Czechia and Germany, construction of the Czech-Austrian and Bulgarian-Greek connections is well advanced);

there has been also an improvement in the network integration between some of the CEE countries (first of all between Poland and Czechia, Hungary and Slovenia, as well

20

as Hungary and Romania), and with Croatia, having become EU member in 2013 (from Slovenia);

investments in question did not contribute significantly to the improvement of the cohesion of the fast traffic road network across the Baltic countries (Via Baltica), nor between Bulgaria and Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, Slovakia and Poland;

linkages across the outer boundary of the European Union improved in only few places, first of all in the direction of Ukraine (from Poland and Hungary), and, to a lesser degree – Turkey (from Bulgaria) and Belarus (modernisation of the plain roads in Lithuania);

the map of the region still shows significant areas deprived not only of the EU-supported road investment projects, but also, in general, of the fast traffic roads (first of all northern Romania, north-western Poland, as well as Latvia and Estonia).

The effectiveness of the investment projects undertaken can be assessed by comparing the shortening of the travel times between the most important metropolises of the region (and the metropolises of the surroundings). The changes, expressed in absolute terms, depend, naturally, also upon the geographic distances (Fig. 8). That is why the comparison has been additionally expressed in relative terms, with time-wise advantage calculated per 100 km of the route developed (Fig. 9). From among the analysed domestic connections the biggest advantages were observed in Poland, first of all for the travels between Wroclaw and Lodz, and Wroclaw and Szczecin, these being followed by Poznan and Szczecin, Lodz and Gdansk, as well as Warsaw and Bialystok. In other countries significant changes were registered in Romania (Bucharest-Timisoara and Budapest-Cluj), and in Estonia (Tallinn-Tartu). Regarding the connections with the metropolises in the old member countries of the EU the biggest advantage was observed for the travel between Wroclaw and Dresden and between Sofia and Thessaloniki. Concerning the routes between the CEE countries one should mention first of all shortening of the travel time between Katowice and Ostrava, Kosice and Debrecen, Budapest and Ljubljana, as well as between Timisoara on the one hand and Budapest and Szeged on the other. Of the directions, which cross the outer boundary of the Union, highly significant improvement took place first of all on the line Cracow-Lviv. Taking into account also the absolute shortening of travel time (Fig. 8) it is interesting to consider, as well, the connections between the Hungarian cities and Zagreb, and between Prague and Salzburg.

For the correct interpretation of the results obtained it is also important to assess what segment of the entire route between the metropolises was the object of the investment project, whether this was quite a new undertaking or just a modernisation of the already existing infrastructure (Fig. 10). As one compares the two spatial images (Figs. 9 and 10), one easily concludes that the most effective time-wise were the projects concerning relatively short distances, encompassing, at the same time, the entire, or almost entire, connection between the neighbouring centres (like, e.g., Katowice-Ostrava). Simultaneously, certain spatial regularities can also be observed. Thus, in Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia first of all new segments of motorways and expressways were constructed, while in Bulgaria, in the Baltic states, and partly also in Romania, modernisation of the existing roads played the dominating role. The scope of the investment projects supported by the EU, relative to the length of the whole road routes, was high in Poland, in Hungary and in Baltic states, while being distinctly lower in Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, as well as in Bulgaria and Romania.

21

Figure 7. Road investment


22

Figure 8 Change In travel time (roads)


23

Figure 9. Change In travel time (roads) per 100 km


24

Figure 10. Part of the road infrastructure section covered by the investment


25

Altogether, considering the support from the European funds for the development of the fast traffic road network in the CEE countries, one might indicate that from the point of view of internal cohesion of the primary centres in the individual countries this support was most effective in Poland, Czechia and Bulgaria. At the same time, in the setting of the external relations within the Union the advantages were observed in all the countries analysed except for the Baltic states. Owing to the internal as well as Hungarian investment projects, the marginally located Romania became a doubtless beneficiary in these terms. Quite visible advantages are also visible regarding the Polish-German connections. Investments into the road infrastructure, made during the period 2004-2013, were also beneficial for Croatia, preparing for the EU membership. Of the countries not belonging to the Community, but taking advantage from the developments here analysed, concerning the CEE countries, one should mention Ukraine and Turkey.

5.2. Development of the rail infrastructure

The spatial scale of the investment projects, related to railways, supported from the funds of the European Union, was smaller than in the case of the road projects. At the same time, many of the rail projects were very costly. It is definitely hard to compare the scope of the necessary investments. One deals, as a rule, with modernisation works, mainly aiming at adaptation to higher train speeds. New lines were virtually not built (the sole exceptions, in practical terms, being the Latvian projects: connection to the new seaport and construction of second tracks). In the majority of countries modernisation encompassed one or several longer railway routes, most frequently along the directions of the TEN-T corridors (see Fig. 11). A large proportion of the modernised lines served the domestic connections in the particular CEE countries. This was the case of all the projects in Lithuania, Estonia and Slovakia, and of the majority of the Polish ones, as well. Regarding the connections to the old member countries of the EU a significant role was played by the reconstructions of the routes from Poland and Czechia to Germany, and from Hungary towards Austria. On the other hand, connections between the countries considered were improved owing to the projects involving Hungary and Slovenia, Hungary and Romania, as well as the Bulgarian investments on the Romanian direction. A number of lines, leading towards the outside of the territory of the European Union were also refurbished – the ones towards Russia (in Latvia), to Belarus (in Poland), and to Turkey (in Bulgaria). The longest railway routes (corridors), whose important parts were subject to modernisation were: the corridor crossing southern Poland (from the border with Germany through Cracow to the border with Ukraine), and the route from Vienna through Budapest towards Bucharest. There were also long lines inside Bulgaria (from Sofia to the Black Sea coast and towards the Turkish border) and inside Poland (from Warsaw to Gdansk).

Significant absolute reductions in travel times (Fig. 12) were achieved in the Baltic states and in Bulgaria, as well as in connections with Slovenia. Yet, in terms of reductions per 100 km of the railway line the image obtained is different (Fig. 13). In these terms, namely, the most effective turn out to be three Polish projects (Warsaw-Lodz, Warsaw-Gdansk, and Cracow-Katowice), along with the Estonian line Tallinn-Tartu. In all these latter cases the estimated reduction of travel time per 100 km of the line exceeded 25 minutes. Considering the connections between the metropolises inside particular countries, significant travel time reductions were also observed for the lines Sofia-Varna, Bucharest-Timisoara, Budapest-Debrecen, Wroclaw-Katowice, Wroclaw-Poznan, and Vilnius-Klaipeda. In absolute terms travel time from Varna to Timisoara also underwent a significant reduction. Then, regarding

26

the connections with the metropolises of the old member states there was a distinct reduction of travel time between Wroclaw and Dresden, Budapest and Vienna, as well as Ljubljana and Vienna. Concerning the internal connections within the CEE region, the situation got improved for the pairs Klaipeda-Riga, Cracow-Ostrava, Wroclaw-Ostrava, Cracow-Bratislava, Budapest-Bratislava, and Ljubljana-Budapest. Of the connections reaching outside the Union the primary beneficiaries were those towards Ukraine (Cracow-Lviv) and towards Turkey (Sofia-Istanbul). Considering the absolute time reductions (Fig. 12) a significant improvement took place, again, between Sofia and Istanbul, and also between Riga and Sankt Petersburg. Similarly as in the case of the road infrastructure, the biggest effects were observed there, where the railway routes were subject to modernisation over their entirety, or a major part of the length.

Summing up the analysis of the spatial distribution of the railway projects, supported by the European Union and of their effectiveness in the sense of shortening travel times between the metropolises, one should note the following:

the projects undertaken had virtually exclusively the character of modernisations, and none of the CEE countries decided to finance from the EU founds a new important railway line (including the high speed lines);

the scale of the modernisations undertaken was highly differentiated, like was the initial technical state of the individual modernised routes, this having had an influence on the ultimate effect of improvement of accessibility over definite directions;

railway projects featured higher degree of concentration – on a couple of routes in each country – which ought to be assessed positively;

railway projects were undertaken by all the CEE countries and their geographical pattern was relatively proportional;

domestic investment projects dominated, but many of them, at the same time, contributed to a significant shortening of travel times between the metropolises in the neighbouring countries;

an improvement was noted in the mutual railway accessibility of the metropolises of the Vysehrad Group countries (meaning here southern Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary), and also of Slovenia; at the same time, the railway systems of the Baltic states and of Bulgaria and Romania remained isolated from the rest of the countries of the region, and thus also from the entire European Union.

27

Figure 11. Rail investement


28

Figure 12. Change in travel time (rails)


29

Figure 13. Change In travel time (rails) per 100 km


30

5.3. Development of the air transport infrastructure

Accession of the CEE countries to the European Union meant a very pronounced intensification of traffic in the airports. This was, first of all, associated with the deregulation of the respective market and the appearance of the low-cost airlines. Consequently, in both the successive financing periods emphasis was placed on the development of airport infrastructure (both in terms of modernisation of the runways and of the passenger terminals). The sole new airports having appeared with the support from the European Union funds in the CEE countries were Polish airports of Lublin and Modlin (in both cases a part of the previously existing airfield infrastructure was used, serving different purposes before). Besides, numerous projects were carried out of modernisation and of construction of the new terminals. This concerned almost all of the airports in Poland, the facilities located in the Baltic states (capital city airports and the one in Kaunas), as well as Ljubljana, Budapest and Sofia.

The influence of the investments into air transport was conditioned by the network of connections that were implemented for the particular facilities. In larger airports (Warsaw, Budapest, Sofia) the outlays increased the throughput of the runways and the terminals, allowing for the development of the new connections and for improvement of service quality. In the facilities of regional character (mainly in Poland), investments were primarily meant for the low-cost carriers, catering to the traffic towards the job emigration countries (United Kingdom, Norway), and to the traditional airlines, transporting passengers to the changeover hubs in Western Europe. A part of this kind of projects did not contribute to a significant intensification of traffic, and economic profitability of these projects and of respective facilities remains problematic.

6. The investments and the economic growth

Costs of the individual projects were highly differentiated. This applies in a particular manner to the extension of the road network. The decisive factors were, in this case:

technical scope of the project (new or modernised routes),

location with respect to the core areas (higher investment costs within and in the vicinity of the metropolises),

segment length (the shorter spans of routes were relatively more expensive),

location with respect to the elements of the geographical environment (especially regarding the mountain ranges, raising the investment costs)’

time period of realisation: costs were higher immediately after the EU extension and lower later on, during the economic crisis.

The costs of undertakings in railway transport were more even. Maps 14A and 14B show the relative costs of the road investments (red colour) and railway investments (blue colour) per length of the respective projects (i.e. per 1 km). The costs considered were solely those qualified as the contribution of the European Union funds. The background shows the changes in the GDP at the level of NUTS3 units in the period 2003-2010, in % (Fig. 14A) and in the period 2004-2010 with respect to the average growth for each of the countries (Fig. 14B).

31

From among the road projects, relatively most expensive seem to be the Hungarian undertakings, along with some of the Slovak, Czech and Bulgarian ones (in each case concerning rather short segments). Against this background the contribution of the European Union to the undertakings in Poland would turn out – despite quite a significant overall scale – relatively cheaper. This might be associated with the fact that high intensity of investment making took place in the second part of the financing period of 2007-2013, when prices went already somewhat down. On the top of this, it should be remembered that the true cost of many of the projects in Poland was higher (in particular – given the changes of the bankrupting construction companies), which, though, did not find a reflection in the scale of support from the EU funds, weighing rather on the national budget (the Road Fund). Relatively less costly were all the investment projects undertaken in the Baltic states (except for those concerning the road nodes of Riga and Tallinn), this being the consequence of the uniquely modernisation character of these projects. Some of the road projects in Bulgaria and Romania had a similar character.

Among the railway projects relatively more costly (from the point of view of the EU) were those realised in Poland, and also – again – in Hungary and in Slovakia, as well as in western Czechia. The modernisation undertakings carried out in the Baltic states and in Bulgaria turned out to be less costly.

In order to attempt an assessment of the dependence between the level of co-financing of the large transport-related investment projects from the founds of the European Union and the economic growth, the joint value of the road and railway project support was disaggregated according to the statistical units NUTS3. The summary results are presented in Figs. 15A (with cartographic reference to the increase of the GDP in the period 2003-2010) and 15B (with reference to the change of the GDP relative to the national averages of the individual CEE countries). The distribution of the scale of support from the EU in road and railway transport is biased by the issue of different scale of the units of reference in individual countries. The consequence consists in the statistical effect in the form of lower spatial concentration in Poland, Slovenia and Bulgaria. This, however, does not change the general image, showing a distinct concentration of the support from the EU in a couple of zones, featuring geographical continuity. These zones are as follows:

western Czechia,

north-eastern part of the Czech Republic (Czech Silesia), together with southern Poland and western Slovakia,

central Poland,

western Hungary together with eastern Slovenia,

eastern Hungary together with western Romania,

southern Bulgaria.

Within the remaining areas the projects in question were more dispersed, and in the Baltic states they were concentrated in the units, containing the capital cities of the respective countries (especially in the neighbourhood of Riga).

32

Figure 14. The cost of 1 km of the road and rail infrastructure versus GDP change a. Real GDP change 2003-2010 (%)

33

b. GDP change (2004-2010) in relation to the national average (=100)


34

Figure 15 . Total investment per NUTS3 region versus GDP change a. Real GDP change 2003-2010 (%)

35

b. GDP change (2004-2010) in relation to the national average (=100)


36

Figure 16. Dependence between the level of EU support in railway and road transport infrastructure and the growth of the GDP value (relative to the national average)


The attempt of identifying a statistical dependence between the level of investment outlays and the changes in the GDP value (related to the respective national averages) did not bring measurable results (see Fig. 16). The attempts of identifying the interdependence with the absolute (not relative) changes in GDP value would even indicate a weak reverse dependence. Lack of unambiguous results is understandable in view of:

significant delay of the potential growth effects with respect to the date of termination of the project, while the study reported considered – out of necessity – the parallel periods, and the availability of data on the GDP values in the regional (NUTS3) setting was additionally limited to the period ending with the year 2010;

the fact that, simultaneously with the processes here considered, the global economic crisis took place, causing a significant influence of the macroeconomic factors on the economic situation of the regions and so making it difficult or even impossible to assess the net effect of the investments into transport infrastructure treated alone;

bilateral character of the potential dependences (like: undertaking of road projects in the areas featuring strong increases of heavy loads traffic intensity, this being the consequence of the regional economic activity).

The results obtained were influenced in a particular manner by the scale of projects in Hungary, where, at the same time, the lowest GDP dynamics among the CEE countries was noted. Under such circumstances it was only possible to compare the cartographic images of the two variables so as to try to perceive the potential co-appearance of the respective features within the particular countries. The interpretation of such perceptions must,

y = 0,0143x + 92,803 R² = 0,0721

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

140,0

160,0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

GD

P g

row

th (

20

04

-20

10

), n

atio

nal

leve

l =1

00

EU support (millions euro)

37

though, be very careful and should be limited to the statement where large scale of investment making took place on the areas with high economic dynamics, and where on the areas with clearly lower economic dynamics indicator values.

The changes in the GDP value in the period 2003-2010 were decidedly the biggest in the metropolitan centres, first of all in the capital regions (in Poland also in a couple of other ones, like Wroclaw or Cracow), and in some regions with strong industrial functions, such as, for instance, the Plock subregion in Poland (the seat of PKN Orlen oil corporation), the Legnica subregion in Poland (copper basin), western Slovakia (concentration of automotive industries). Relatively high growth was also observed in western Romania. All of the areas mentioned accounted for quite a proportion of the investments, supported from the European Union funds. Yet, such investments were also located in other places (on areas with distinctly worse economic indicators). The general pattern remained in this case strongly determined by the differing economic situation of the particular countries as a whole (distinctly lower dynamics in Hungary, Slovenia, and Bulgaria). It can be only stated, therefore, that one can hardly indicate regions, featuring very high growth dynamics, where transport-related projects would not be realised (to a certain extent Bucharest constitutes an exception). This confirms the earlier suppositions that a part of the projects could rather constitute a response to the growing demand from the already existing traffic (especially road traffic), concentrated in the areas, featuring high GDP growth. Thus, at least partly, the support from the EU funds for transport infrastructure would have a reactive, and not proactive, character. Yet, it cannot be excluded that other undertakings, carried out in the less dynamic regions, would not bring the expected economic effects. Their potential appearance would, however, certainly be more delayed in time.

In order to better spatially identify the phenomenon considered, the indicator of effectiveness of investments was calculated, expressed as the investment cost related to the GDP growth in the years 2003-2010. The results are shown in Fig. 17 (only these units were accounted for, where any investment projects were carried out concerning the supra-regional railway or road infrastructure, supported from the founds of the European Union). The image obtained implies low effectiveness of the Hungarian projects, those located in western Czechia, but also those realised in central Poland (the capital region). More effective, it seems, were the investments done in western and southern Poland, and also in Romania and Bulgaria. As mentioned already, such an image is strongly influenced by the macroeconomic processes. Comparison of the value of investments and the changes in the GDP weighted by the national averages indicates (Table 6 and Figs. 18 and 19) that the areas of co-appearance of the strong relative growth rates and the support from the EU for railway and road transport (type “A”) are associated with some of the metropolises and/or their surroundings (first of all Warsaw, Prague, Vilnius, Riga, Lodz, Wroclaw and Cracow). At the same time, other cities of this rank are characterised by the simultaneous relatively high dynamics of GDP growth and lower level of investments (like, e.g., Budapest, Sofia or Poznan; type “C”). When interpreting these results, one should remember that the analysis considered solely the investments into linear connections (railway and road infrastructure), while some metropolises were significant beneficiaries of support in the domain of air transport and intra-metropolitan transport (like, for instance, Budapest and Sofia). This group, side by side with the metropolises mentioned, contains both the regions previously well equipped with infrastructure (like, e.g., the region of Gliwice in Poland), and the areas, whose development is strongly conditioned by other factors (Zilinsky kraj in Slovakia), as well

38

as the areas, where the high values of the indicator are the effect of the “low starting point” (e.g. the Ostroleka-Siedlce region in Poland). In the first of these cases most probably the level has already been attained, beyond which further dependence between the development of the network and economic growth is problematic (conform to the conclusions from the literature, based on the Western European examples).

More attention ought to be paid to these regions, in which economic growth was slower, despite high investments in railway and road transport (type “B”). These regions, as a rule, do not include the metropolises, selected for the analysis (with exception of the Polish Tri-City agglomeration), their centres being located in smaller cities. One finds in this group quite a number of areas cut across by the large linear projects (like, e.g., Polish region of Sieradz, or Czech Ustacky kraj). Such a kind of spatial setting might indirectly confirm the opinion that the beneficiaries of the linear projects are constituted first of all by the large nodes, located in the metropolitan centres (where concentration of various development factors takes place), while the “tunnel effect” may arise on the areas between such nodes. Yet, at this moment, such a conclusion is most probably premature. The potential economic effects in the “transit” regions might be expected to appear with a definite delay. Besides, these potential effects depend strongly on the local transport solutions, such as location of interchanges on the motorways (this being confirmed by the evaluation studies, conducted in Poland; see Komornicki, Rosik et al. 2013). The same group includes also a number of the border-adjacent units, where some of the trans-border projects were carried out, bringing benefits on the European scale, but not having a direct impact on the situation of the region (e.g. the region of Elblag in Poland, through which an expressway was constructed towards the border with the Kaliningrad district of the Russian Federation).

The image obtained might also be interpreted in the context of the assessment of location of the investment projects from the point of view of the cohesion policy (linking the core/dynamic areas with the peripheral/lagging ones by means of infrastructure). Regions, featuring low increments of the GDP, which, at the same time, were not the beneficiaries of significant transport investments, encompass both the units classified in type “D”, and the ones that we do not find in Table 6 (value of railway and road projects was lower than 100 million €; the nominal type “E”). Against this background one should positively assess the Hungarian projects (extending the network towards the outer boundaries), the Slovak ones (improvement of accessibility of the eastern part of the country), those in south-eastern Poland (motorway up to the Ukrainian border), and the Bulgarian ones (connection between Sofia and the north- as well as south-eastern fringes of the country). This kind of orientation of the investment process is not, on the other hand, observed in Romania, where the economically lagging north-eastern part has practically not obtained any support for the development of the supra-regional road and railway infrastructure. Yet, in spite of this, the region in question noted significant increases of the GDP value (partly, of course, as the effect of the “low starting point”).

39

Table 6.. Types of regions defined on the basis of the GDP increase (in relation to the national averages) and the value of investment projects in railway and road transport (only units with >100 million € worth of projects) High increase of the GDP value

(over national average 2004-2010)

Lower increase of the GDP value (below national average 2004-2010)

High level of investment value (>253 million €; median for units with investment value > 100 million €)

TYPE A Pieriga (LV) Wroclawski (PL) Warszawski-zachodni (PL) Warszawski-wschodni (PL) Krakowski (PL) Pest (HU) Hlavní mesto Praha (CZ) Miasto Warszawa (PL) Trnavský kraj (SK) Rzeszowski (PL) Vilniaus apskritis (LT) Sibiu (RO) Ciechanowsko-plocki (PL) Alba (RO) Lódzki (PL) Zlínský kraj (CZ) Tarnowski (PL) Stredoceský kraj (CZ) Calarasi (RO)

TYPE B Põhja-Eesti (EST) Spodnjeposavska (SLO) Podravska (SLO) Moravskoslezský kraj (CZ) Starogardzki (PL) Plovdiv (BG) Ústecký kraj (CZ) Trojmiejski (PL) Olomoucký kraj (CZ) Lääne-Eesti (EST) Elblaski (PL) Trenciansky kraj (SK) Tarnobrzeski (PL) Jihocecký kraj (CZ) Csongrád (HU) Skierniewicki (PL) Burgas (BG) Nitriansky kraj (SK) Plzenský kraj (CZ) Veszprém (HU) Pomurska (SLO) Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok (HU) Arad (RO) Karlovarský kraj (CZ) Banskobystrický kraj (SK) Sieradzki (PL) Békés (HU), Haskovo (BG)

low level of investment value (100-253 million €; median for units with investment value > 100 million €)

TYPE C Sofia (stolitsa) (BG) Zemgale (LV) Gdanski (PL) Timis (RO) Poznanski (PL) Bratislavský kraj (SK) Budapest (HU) Zilinský kraj (SK) Ostrolecko-siedlecki (PL) Prahova (RO) Latgale (LV) Gyor-Moson-Sopron (HU) Gliwicki (PL) Brasov (RO) Piotrkowski (PL) Radomski (PL) Lubelski (PL) Kauno apskritis (LT) Arges (RO)

TYPE D Gorzowski (PL) Kielecki (PL) Jugovzhodna Slovenija (SLO) Bialski (PL) Bielski (PL) Hajdú-Bihar (HU) Jeleniogórski (PL) Presovský kraj (SK) Rybnicki (PL) Caras-Severin (RO) Sofia (BG) Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg (HU) Stara Zagora (BG), Bytomski (PL) Wloclawski (PL), Pulawski (PL) Zala (HU), Przemyski (PL) Hunedoara (RO), Vas (HU) Yambol (BG), Sosnowiecki (PL) Vâlcea (RO), Blagoevgrad (BG), Sliven (BG) Pernik (BG), Kyustendil (BG)


40

Figure 17. Total land transport investment efficiency


41

Figure 18. Types of regions defined on the basis of the GDP increase (in relation to the national averages) and the value of investment projects in railway and road transport (only units with >100 million € worth of projects)


-50

203

456

709

962

1215

50,0 150,0Tran

spo

rt in

vesm

en

t va

lue

(m

ln e

uro

)

GDP growth (2004-2010)

42

Figure 19.. Types of regions defined on the basis of the GDP increase (in relation to the national averages) and the value of investment projects in railway and road transport

Type A – high level of investment value (>253 million €) and high increase of the GDP value Type B – high level of investment value (>253 million €) and low increase of the GDP value Type C – low level of investment value (100-253 million €) and high increase of the GDP value Type D - low level of investment value (100-253 million €) and low increase of the GDP value Type E – very low level of investment value (<100 million €)


43

7.Position of the metropolises

Conclusions, which can be drawn from the attempts of analysing the interdependences between the changes in the GDP value and the transport-related investments, confirm the correctness of the supposition that the potential economic advantages accruing from the extension of the infrastructure concentrate in the metropolises. That is why, conform to the assumptions of the study, presented in the introductory part, analysis was carried out of the scale of investments and the reduction of travel times (separately for railway and road transport; Figs. 20 and 21, respectively) between the cities, selected for consideration, and the centres directly neighbouring upon them. The analysis was carried out independently for cities solely within the European Union and with consideration of the metropolises located outside of the Community (Table 8). Likewise, the change of the position of the metropolises studied in the transport system of Europe was determined with the use of reduction of travel times to the neighbouring metropolises (the respective selection having been described in the introductory part of the report).

Table 7. Shares of the transport connections with neighbouring metropolises, which were supported by investment founds from the EU

Cities

Part of the corridors covered by the investment (%)

Rail investment Road investment

UE only total UE only total

Varna 23,5 17,6 34,7 25,6

Sofia 32,1 26,2 36,4 30,0

Prague 15,5 15,5 14,0 14,0

Brno 1,5 1,5 3,3 3,3

Ostrava 37,8 37,8 12,0 12,0

Tallinn 52,5 41,9 57,0 39,8

Tartu 64,3 64,3 64,0 56,1

Budapest 40,9 37,2 13,0 10,2

Debrecen 21,6 18,0 21,9 21,9

Szeged 7,7 5,1 23,6 22,4

Klaipėda 55,8 55,8 62,3 62,3

Vilnius 27,8 21,9 45,1 38,3

Riga 22,7 18,4 32,0 38,8

Lodz 16,8 16,8 35,0 35,0

Warsaw 41,6 40,3 28,6 25,5

Krakow 38,2 39,0 8,7 16,3

Katowice 31,4 31,4 28,2 28,2

Lublin 0,0 0,0 10,7 9,7

Bialystok 21,0 18,0 21,7 18,6

Poznan 13,7 13,7 21,9 21,9

Szczecin 0,0 0,0 44,9 44,9

Wroclaw 35,0 35,0 34,9 34,9

Gdansk 32,6 32,6 22,7 22,7

Cluj-Napoca 23,7 15,8 12,8 8,6

Constanța 0,0 0,0 50,0 33,3

Bucharest 27,5 19,0 47,0 32,3

Timișoara 38,0 32,6 44,3 38,0

Ljubljana 43,6 36,3 3,5 8,1

Bratislava 39,5 39,5 3,6 3,9

Košice 5,6 4,9 14,4 12,6

Table 7 shows the percentage shares of the infrastructure, linking the given city with the neighbouring centres, which was subject to the investment process (construction of new routes or modernisation). The indicator was calculated separately for railway and road

44

infrastructure, and for the connections uniquely within the EU as well as all the possible ones.

High values of the indicator, showing the coverage with investment projects, for both the railway and road routes, were noted in the isolated centres of the Baltic states (Klaipeda, Tartu, Tallinn, at the level of 50-60%). Of the remaining centres, the values around and beyond 40% in railway transport were observed for Warsaw, Budapest, Ljubljana, Cracow, Timisoara, Bratislava and Ostrava. This confirms, in an indirect manner, that from the point of view of networking relative to the CEE metropolises the biggest scope of investments occurred in the central part of the entire area considered (in the triangle with the vertices in Timisoara, Ljubljana and Warsaw). Accounting for the directions outside of the Union usually lowered the indicator value, or did not have any impact on the results. The sole exception was constituted by Cracow – owing to the investments concerning the railway line to Lviv. Now, regarding the road network (with exception of the here mentioned cities in the Baltic states), a relatively broad scope of projects was observed for Vilnius (45%), Szczecin and Ljubljana. A distinct drop in the value of the indicator when the centres outside of the EU were considered confirmed the significant role of the outer EU boundary as a barrier (especially on its north-eastern segment in Estonia, and on the southern segment in Romania). The sole cities, for which the value of the indicator increased under such circumstances, were Cracow (connection to Lviv) and Riga (to Sankt Petersburg).

In the perspective of changes in travel times, the metropolitan centres, which benefitted the most from the investments into railway infrastructure, were those located in Romania, Bulgaria and Estonia, this being the consequence of large distances between the neighbouring metropolises on the area of eastern Balkans. This category includes also Klaipeda (here the effect is amplified by separation from other countries of the European Union by the Kaliningrad district of the Russian Federation). Except for the cases having purely geographical explanation, the cities, which improved their position in the network setting (average shortening of the travel time to the neighbouring metropolises by at least 30 minutes) were Ljubljana, Budapest, Bratislava, Warsaw, Gdansk and Vilnius. There are only few cities, which come out better when the directions towards the outside of the EU are considered – most of all Cracow and Warsaw, while the biggest loss is registered for the Romanian and Bulgarian cities, as well as for Ljubljana, Riga, Vilnius and Bialystok.

Analogous analysis for the road transport yields somewhat different results. The biggest winners turn out to be the cities in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania: Szczecin, Wroclaw, Sofia, Varna, Timisoara and Bucharest. From among the capital centres – side by side with Bucharest and Sofia – the biggest shortening of the travel times to the neighbouring metropolises is observed for Warsaw. Additional consideration of the cities outside of the European Union does not, as a rule, change the degree of improvement of the situation of the centres analysed. An exception – again – is constituted by Cracow (motorway towards Lviv), and, to a lesser degree, also Vilnius, Szeged and Debrecen. This extended analysis worsens, like before, the position of the cities in Romania and Bulgaria, and of Tallinn.

Application of the yardstick of shortening of the travel time per 100 km of the project shows a sort of measure of investment effectiveness (as perceived from the point of view of the centres analysed, see Table 8). In railway transport this measure was the highest for some cities of the Baltic countries (Tallinn, Tartu, Klaipeda), and, of the remaining centres – for Warsaw, Cracow, Budapest and Ljubljana. In the case of road connections the leaders are Lodz, Szczecin, Wroclaw and Timisoara.

45

Table 8. Shortening of the travel times to the neighbouring metropolises due to investment into transport infrastructure supported with the EU founds

Cities

In minutes In minutes for 100 km of the investment

Rail investment Road investment Rail investment Road investment

UE only total UE only total UE only total UE only total

Varna 34 25 32 23 7 5 6 4

Sofia 49 43 35 27 10 8 7 6

Prague 17 17 13 13 5 5 4 4

Brno 2 2 4 4 1 1 1 1

Ostrava 28 28 6 6 11 11 4 4

Tallinn 31 28 18 13 16 13 8 6

Tartu 39 39 15 14 19 19 8 6

Budapest 38 35 12 9 12 11 4 3

Debrecen 14 12 16 17 7 5 6 6

Szeged 5 4 22 24 2 2 7 7

Klaipėda 64 64 21 21 17 17 7 7

Vilnius 30 22 10 12 8 7 5 4

Riga 22 17 7 10 7 6 4 4

Lodz 7 7 25 25 5 5 11 11

Warsaw 30 33 23 21 13 12 9 8

Krakow 24 27 8 15 12 12 3 5

Katowice 14 14 14 14 9 9 9 9

Lublin 0 0 8 8 0 0 3 3

Bialystok 27 23 15 12 6 5 5 4

Poznan 9 9 16 16 4 4 7 7

Szczecin 0 0 46 46 0 0 14 14

Wroclaw 23 23 30 30 11 11 11 11

Gdansk 31 31 25 25 10 10 7 7

Cluj-Napoca 29 20 19 13 7 5 3 2

Constanța 0 0 16 11 0 0 8 5

Bucharest 43 31 41 27 8 6 9 6

Timișoara 52 45 41 35 11 10 10 9

Ljubljana 57 46 5 6 12 10 1 3

Bratislava 35 36 4 5 11 11 1 1

Košice 5 5 12 10 2 2 4 4

Summing up, considering the implementation of the large road and railway projects, supported by the EU, the following changes took place in the network setting of the CEE metropolises:

Among the capital centres the position of Warsaw got particularly strengthened, it being followed by Ljubljana, Budapest, Bucharest and Sofia. The gains of the Baltic state capitals and of Prague and Bratislava were lesser.

In the group of the metropolitan centres of the second order the positions were strengthened of Tartu, Klaipeda, Lodz, Gdansk, Wroclaw and Szczecin (only road network in the latter case), as well as of Timisoara.

The eastern boundary of the European Union remained a limiting factor for the development of the network connections with the metropolises of the CEE. Only few cities improved their potential on the basis of improvement of their connections across the outer boundary of the Community (these being, first of all, Cracow and Warsaw).

Interpretation of the results outlined must take into account the so-called basis effect. The improvement could not be spectacular – for obvious reasons – in the case of cities, which already before (or in parallel, but with the use of other means) secured for themselves a

46

good position in the European road and railway networks (like, e.g., Prague, Bratislava, and Poznan, and to a certain extent also Budapest).

In the setting of the metropolises it is possible to distinguish several directions, which remained underinvested and constitute a barrier for the development of network connections within the area of the CEE. These are, primarily, the connections between the Baltic states and Europe (Via Baltica), the Bulgarian-Romanian connections, as well as the Polish-Slovak-Hungarian connections (in the eastern borderland parts of the three countries). Table 9. Value of the railway and road investments in the NUTS3 encompassing the metropolises considered

Cities

GDP dynamics Investment value (euro mil.)

2003-2010 2004-2010

rail road total

2003=100 in relation to national average

Varna 197 99 0 25 25

Sofia 269 134 63 157 220

Prague 192 108 33 528 561

Brno 179 102 0 0 0

Ostrava 186 99 133 341 474

Tallinn 165 100 44 473 517

Tartu 167 103 17 60 77

Budapest 144 110 16 199 215

Debrecen 125 96 81 106 187

Szeged 124 94 0 638 638

Klaipėda 174 107 64 11 75

Vilnius 178 106 75 319 394

Riga 177 91 49 0 49

Lodz 178 98 71 0 71

Warsaw 195 108 201 504 705

Krakow 185 97 78 0 78

Katowice 166 93 84 3 87

Lublin 179 101 0 170 170

Białystok 174 98 0 43 43

Poznan 181 93 34 0 34

Szczecin 163 93 0 6 6

Wroclaw 193 107 64 14 78

Gdansk 180 96 268 32 300

Cluj-Napoca 247 103 0 0 0

Constanța 230 96 0 50 50

Bucharest 290 124 0 3 3

Timișoara 271 114 0 136 136

Ljubljana 144 104 0 0 0

Bratislava 247 110 154 68 222

Košice 199 90 0 0 0

Table 9 shows the changes in the GDP value (in general terms and related to the national averages) for the NUTS3 units, encompassing all of the metropolises considered. At the same time, the value of investments, realised there, is shown. The assessment of the respective indicators must be done very carefully, given the different magnitudes of the NUTS units in particular countries. Notwithstanding this reservation, it can be stated that the value of investments into transport infrastructure (only railways and roads supported from the EU founds) was the highest in the vicinity of Warsaw, Szeged, Prague, Tallinn, and Ostrava. The attempt of demonstrating the statistical interdependence between the shortening of the

47

travel times (to the neighbouring centres) and the magnitude of investment outlays did not bring any results (correlation coefficients below 0.1). This outcome is justified by the fact that improvement of accessibility took place quite frequently due to the projects located outside of the NUTS3 unit surrounding the city considered. This situation occurred, for instance, in the case of Szczecin (significant changes in road transport owing to the investments on the directions towards Poznan and Wroclaw, realised in other provinces). On the other hand, there are also cases, in which larger projects have been realised inside the metropolitan areas, and so they did not influence directly the connections with other cities (like, e.g. circular road in Prague and exit roads in Riga).

In a vast majority of the NUTS3 units, encompassing the metropolises studied, a significantly dominating share of the investment value (in the inter-agglomeration surface transport) was meant for road infrastructure. Exceptions from this rule were Gdansk and Bratislava. Relatively balanced inter-modal proportions were also observed for Warsaw.

48

Figure 20. Metropolises – reduction in travel time (roads) to the neighboring centers


49

Figure 21. Metropolises – reduction in travel time (rail) to the neighboring centers


50

8. Changes in potential accessibility

A separate measure, which illustrates well the changes in the transport connections between centres, is provided by the potential accessibility indicator. Studies of this kind of accessibility on the European scale have been conducted for several years already, mainly by the German teams (Spiekermann, Schurmann 2007), and also for purposes of the ESPON (1.2.1., 1.1.3, ESPON, SeGI, FOCCI) projects. Besides, some countries (e.g. Poland and Czechia) carry out this kind of analyses for their territories. The analysis, here reported, made use of two studies, carried out according to a similar methodology in the framework of ESPON 1.2.1 project (state as of 2001) and in the framework of the ESPON TRACC project (state as of 2012). In both cases multimodal potential accessibility was analysed. The spatial reference unit was NUTS3, with the results being presented in the form of the indicator related to the European average (equivalent to the ESPON space). Complete comparability of the two time instants is not possible, for reasons, in particular, associated with the changes in the setting of NUTS units. Besides, the results of the ESPON TRACC project (in the form of the values of the indicator) were not fully known at the time of this writing. For these two reasons it was only possible to compare the cartographic images, originating from the two analyses.

In 2001 (see Fig. 22) almost entire area of the CEE countries was characterised by the relatively low values of the multimodal accessibility. Along some segments of the western boundary of the area considered a jump-like change in the indicator values could be observed, which should be interpreted as a break on the faster infrastructural routes (such a situation was especially visible along the Polish-German and Hungarian-Austrian borders). Higher values (beyond 120% of the average for the ESPON space) were noted mainly in some capital cities, owing to the larger airports, located there (Prague, Warsaw, Budapest), and in Bratislava (the neighbourhood of Vienna). In northern Romania, central Bulgaria, and on a part of territory of the Baltic states, the values of the indicator would fall below 40% of the average for the ESPON space. It is important to note that on the cartographic image the infrastructural routes inside the CEE countries were almost invisible. The image is, therefore, strongly shaped by the very geographical distance from the European Core Area (the so-called Pentagon). The sole significant disturbance to this pattern arises from the presence of the airports. This is understandable insofar as the quality of the surface transport over the entire area considered – with exception of fragments of territories of Czechia and Hungary – was uniformly low.

The spatial pattern of the indicator values for the year 2012 is distinctly different (Fig. 23), this being partly due to the effects of the investment projects, supported with the founds from the European Union. Interpretation of these results, though, ought to account for the contribution of other factors to the change in the spatial distribution of values of the multimodal potential accessibility indicator. These other factors include, in particular:

changes in the distribution of masses (migrations of populations, directed to a higher extent to the large centres in each country);

deregulation, decentralisation and, consequently, development of the air transport market, strengthening the units, equipped with airports (also those of regional character);

improvement of accessibility in other regions of the ESPON space, influencing the value of the average, to which the results relate.

51

Despite these reservations, it is possible to identify certain effects of development of linear infrastructure in the inter-metropolitan setting within the CEE area. The image obtained indicates a distinctly bigger polarisation in terms of the potential accessibility within the CEE area, as well as in particular countries. The boundaries between the old and the new member countries are clearly less visible. In the case of western Czechia, western Slovakia, northern Hungary, as well as north-western Poland, linkage took place with the zones of good accessibility in Germany and Austria. Spatial distributions of the indicator values for the remaining countries are still characterised by the existence of “islands” of better accessibility. Side by side with Warsaw, such islands are also constituted – to the degree higher than before – by Bucharest and Sofia, and also by the capitals of the Baltic states, as well as some Polish centres (especially the region of Cracow and Upper Silesia), and the Romanian ones. A confirmation of the results reported here earlier is constituted by the fact that the NUTS units, including such cities as Timisoara, Klaipeda, Wroclaw and Gdansk, distinguish themselves against the background of the surroundings. Some of the transport corridors, into which significant founds from the European Union were invested, are also well visible. This applies in a particular manner to two parallel corridors in Poland (Warsaw-Berlin and Dresden-Cracow-border with Ukraine, with investments, in both cases, into railway and road infrastructure). Altogether, comparison of the two spatial patterns indicates that an improvement in the relative multimodal accessibility on the European level – which could be brought about, in particular, by the investments supported from the EU funds – took place on the following areas of the CEE countries:

western Lithuania,

northern Poland (region of Gdansk),

southern Poland (the belt from Wroclaw up to the border with Ukraine),

western Czechia,

north-eastern part of the Czech Republic (region of Ostrava),

western Hungary,

western Romania,

western Bulgaria (the capital region).

At the same time, more distinctly than at the beginning of the preceding decade, the least accessible zones could be seen, where in some of the NUTS3 units within the CEE countries the relative level of the multimodal accessibility even decreased. These are:

northern Romania (where there were no EU supported investment projects);

south-western Bulgaria (despite the investment projects undertaken),

north-eastern Poland (despite the investment projects undertaken).

A different measure of accessibility is constituted by the so-called daily accessibility, which corresponds to the possibility of a daily return travel in the metropolitan settings (Komornicki 2010, ESPON FOCI Final Report) using public transportation. A study, carried out in 2009 for the ESPON space in the framework of the project ESPON FOCI, shows clearly that the CEE area is handicapped with this respect (Fig. 24). From the point of view of the subject matter of the present report of special importance appears to be the very low number of

52

pairs of cities accessible within a day using railway transport. This number includes a couple of Polish cities (including the connections to Berlin), Czech cities (including the connection to Dresden), as well as Bratislava and Budapest (connection to Vienna). Besides, daily accessibility exists between Ljubljana and Zagreb. In Romania and Bulgaria, as well as in the Baltic states no pair of metropolises is mutually accessible on the daily basis with the railways (regarding the two first countries the same applies to air transport).

Figure 22. Multimodal potential accessibility in Europe (2001)

Source: ESPON 1.2.1.

53

Figure 23. Multimodal potential accessibility in Europe (2012)

Source: ESPON TRACC

54

Figure 24. Daily accessibility in Europe

Source: ESPON FOCI

55

The changes in the daily accessibility that can be attributed to the intervention of the European Union can hardly be assessed unambiguously. It can be assumed that due to investments made into railways, conditions for such changes have been provided (their actual realisation depending ultimately also upon the organisational factor), leading to securing the surface, public daily accessibility over the connections between:

- Warsaw and Gdansk,

- Prague and Munich,

- Budapest and Ljubljana.

Investments into airports might contribute to the improvement of daily accessibility for the smaller capital centres (the Baltic states, Ljubljana, Sofia). In the cases of the remaining regional airports (especially in Poland) such an improvement can hardly be expected, in view of the structure of airborne traffic that is realised through these airports.

9.Conclusions

9.1. General conclusions

Through the results provided here, the effect has been assessed of the investments into transport infrastructure in the setting of the macroregion (CEE), of the individual countries, and the 30 metropolises considered. This basis served to formulate the conclusions as to the effectiveness of the cohesion policy in the new accession countries, as well as the recommendations for the further transport policy. The general statements, associated with the scale, structure and distribution of the investment projects, should primarily refer to the following observations:

The investment projects, undertaken with the contribution from the EU funds in ten countries considered, increased internal polarisation regarding the broadly conceived transport situation. This increase of polarisation took place both on the scale of the entire CEE macroregion and inside the particular countries (especially the bigger ones, like Poland and Romania). This appears to be an unavoidable consequence of the wide program of investment undertakings.

The projects carried out in railway transport had almost exclusively the character of modernisations. Construction of longer new routes was not undertaken. The existing lines were modernised, as a rule, to accommodate the speeds not exceeding 160 km/h. The CEE countries did not go for constructing the high speed railways. At the same time, the majority of the larger road projects were new developments (construction of motorways and expressways). In air transport extensions dominated (most often new or improved objects within the existing facilities).

A very important influence on the strategy of investing the EU founds was exerted by the initial state of the infrastructure at the time of accession. The countries featuring an advanced level of transport network development concentrated on closing the road systems (Czechia, Hungary), or even moved the emphasis over to the railway investments (Slovenia). These countries, where the scale of delays was more serious, conducted the policy of a more dispersed investing in the spatial sense, and often also in the modal sense (Poland).

56

Investment projects, supported from the EU funds, were concentrated in the western part of the CEE area (Slovenia, Czechia, western Poland, and western Slovakia), and within the particular countries also most frequently in their western parts. In this context the investment process might be perceived in the categories of innovation diffusion (diffusion of the modern transport systems) from Western Europe towards the new member countries. This means, at the same time, that investment projects were to a higher extent the response to the already existing demand (from the cargo and passenger traffic) than they were used as an instrument of regional policy (support for the peripheral areas, which, in the majority of the CEE countries, are concentrated more in their eastern parts).

The investments realised contributed to a better integration of the transport systems of the CEE countries with the old member countries (mainly with Germany and Austria), and to a somewhat lower degree to the mutual integration between the accession countries (first of all regarding the connections of Hungary with its neighbours). Linkages across the outer boundary of the European Union improved only in a couple of locations. The eastern boundary of the Union remained a barrier to the development of the network connections of the metropolises of the CEE countries.

Vast areas remained in the macroregion that are deprived of the significant transport investments. They concentrate in the eastern part of the area, but also in some cases within the borderlands between the particular CEE countries.

Railway projects featured higher degree of concentration on just a couple of selected lines in each country, and their geographical distribution was relatively proportional.

Among the capital centres the position of Warsaw got particularly strengthened, the followers being Ljubljana, Budapest, Bucharest and Sofia. Gains were relatively smaller for the Baltic states capitals, Prague and Bratislava. In the group of the second order metropolitan centres the positions of Tartu, Klaipeda, Lodz, Gdansk, Wroclaw, Szczecin and Timisoara were strengthened.

Demonstration of existence of interdependence between the level of investments into transport and the rate of economic growth in the regions is not, at the present stage, possible in statistical terms. Spatial analysis allows for concluding that the infrastructural factor is superimposed on a number of other conditioning factors, including the macroeconomic ones, but it remains visible, especially in the large centres, constituting the systemic nodes. Between them, and also in the borderlands, the “tunnel effect” may appear. Investments considered are a necessary condition, but certainly not the sufficient one, for the economic development. The elements, facilitating the diffusion of the developmental factors across the infrastructure, include proper design of routes (free of political pressures) and correct location of technical solutions (interchanges, stations).

The overall assessment of the cohesion policy in the transport sector in the particular countries (with indication of the metropolises that benefitted the most from the investment projects carried out) is provided in Table 10.

57

Table 10. Assessment of the investments into transport in the CEE countries Country Characterisations of investing of the EU founds into transport

Modal balance Investment strategy Effects of investments Winner metropolises and regions

Estonia Evened out structure of railway and road projects

Concentration on Tallinn-Tartu line; domination of the modernisation projects over the new developments

Improvement of cohesion of the main national centres; strengthening of the main transport node

Tartu

Latvia Moderate domination of the road projects; relatively big role of investments in various branches of transport (including maritime and air transport)

Concentration of projects in various transport branches in the area of Riga; modernisation of routes towards Russia and Lithuania

Improvement of cohesion with countries outside of EU (Russia); strengthening of the main transport node

Area of the capital; Riga

Lithuania Domination of the road projects; perceptible role of metropolitan and air transport projects

Decisive domination of modernisation projects over new developments; concentration on the main internal corridor Vilnius-Klaipeda

Improvement of cohesion of the main national centres

Vilnius, Klaipeda

Poland Investments into all branches of transport, with simultaneous clear domination of the road projects; relatively big support for airport projects and for metropolitan projects (public transport)

The biggest scale, but at the same time dispersion of investments; attempts of using European funds for all kinds of transport needs; limited (even though perceptible) parallel use of other sources of funding

Railway and road infrastructure still far from the ultimate shapes; despite this an improvement of cohesion of the main national centres, and also improvement of transport cohesion with other EU countries (including CEE); improvement of cohesion with countries outside of EU (Ukraine)

Central and western Poland; including: Warsaw, Lodz, Szczecin, Wroclaw, Gdansk

Czech Republic Domination of road investments

Concentration on the direction Prague-Ostrava, on the transboundary connections to Germany and Austria, and on the development of the transport node in Prague

Improvement of cohesion of the main national centres; improvement of transport cohesion with other EU countries (less so with the CEE); strengthening of the main transport node

Prague, Ostrava; southern and western borderlands

Slovakia Balanced road and railway investments; lack of support for other transport branches

Connecting the capital and western Slovakia with eastern periphery; investments complementary with undertakings financed from other sources

Improvement of cohesion with internal peripheral areas

Central Slovakia, Bratislava

Hungary Domination of road projects, with simultaneous very important support for

Investments complementary with undertakings financed from other

Improvement of transport cohesion with other CEE countries;

Budapest; Szeged, Debrecen; north-eastern and southern borderlands

58

investments in the metropolises (public transport)

sources; modernisation of railway network over long segments; road investments over the transboundary connections (continuation of the earlier started motorway projects); investments in the metropolitan area of Budapest

improvement of cohesion with countries outside of EU (Ukraine); strengthening of the main transport node

Slovenia Domination of railway investments

Continuation of the earlier started projects and their linkage with the systems of Hungary and Croatia

Improvement of transport cohesion with other countries of CEE

Ljubljana; borderlands neighbouring upon Hungary and Croatia

Romania Domination of the road investments

Concentration on the transport corridor from the Black Sea through Bucharest to the Hungarian border; a part of road projects of modernisation character; lack of investments in the north-eastern part of the country

Improvement of transport cohesion with other countries of the EU, including CEE

Timisoara; southern Romania; Bucharest

Bulgaria Domination of the road investments; high role of undertakings in the metropolitan area of Sofia

Concentration of investments on international routes (transit) and in the metropolitan area of Sofia

Improvement of cohesion of the main national centres; improvement of transport cohesion with other countries of the EU; strengthening of the main transport node

Sofia; western Bulgaria; Varna


Relating the results obtained to the considerations presented in the international literature, we should state that the study carried out appears to confirm the propositions formulated by Cieślik and Rokicki (2013), concerning the existence of interdependence between the development of metropolises and the higher level infrastructure, with such an interdependence being much less visible for the entire regions. At the same time, the spatial pattern of the investments and the analysed economic variables (GDP) might also confirm the opinion of Crescenzi and Rodriguez-Pose (2012), namely that the developmental role of the large-scale linear infrastructure is apparent mainly on the earlier stages of development. It is possible to formulate, on this basis, the hypothesis on the dynamic-spatial sequence regarding the dependence between investments into infrastructure and the development of regions and metropolises (Table 11). This hypothesis would require further studies based on longer time series.

59

Table 11. Influence of large linear transport investments on development Stage of development of transport infrastructure

Investments (motorways, expressways, railways modernised to the speed of 160 km/h)

Influence on socio-economic situation of regions

Influence on socio-economic situation of metropolises

Stage I Development of the basic infrastructure between the main centres and/or radial connections from these centres

Conditional acceleration of development (necessary, but not sufficient condition)

Significant acceleration of development

Stage II Closing of the basic network systems

Conditional and limited influence on development

Conditional acceleration of development (necessary, but not sufficient condition)

Stage III. Variant A

Further extension (densification) of the basic network

Lack of influence Conditional and limited influence on development Stage III. Variant

B Investments into local transport solutions

Conditional and limited influence on development


The results confirmed, as well, in an indirect manner, the apprehensions of some authors that problems with demonstration of the statistical dependence between the investments into infrastructure and economic development result partly from the political conditioning of the location decision (Crescenzi and Rodriguez-Pose 2012). Thus, we deal here with a kind of paradox. Decision makers make investment-related decision in the “belief” that they exert direct influence on economic development. Driven by such assumption, they introduce into the respective ranking lists the projects situated in the lagging and peripheral areas. On the same ranking lists also the routes are placed that serve only the purpose of transit through definite regions. A part of these projects is then carried out. Later on, in the evaluation phase, they are subject, along with the entire network, to statistical analysis in order to verify the hypothetical influence exerted on economic development. These analyses produce negative or ambiguous results. It is difficult, from the methodological point of view, to avoid such distortions. This may be facilitated by the use of accessibility indicators (rather than just the density, and even less length of the network), as well as the assessment of the socio-economic impact from the concrete routes on the basis of detailed local studies.

9.2. Recommendations

The analysis performed allows for the formulation of a couple of general recommendations, which potentially might be used in undertaking investment projects for the subsequent financing period of the European Union:

It is necessary to further differentiate the transport policy (and the cohesion policy, to the extent, to which it makes use of the infrastructural instruments) that is realised in the old and new member states. The potential effects (also concerning the economic growth) of the investments made in the CEE countries are many times bigger than the effects of densification of the network in some countries of Western Europe (as indicated, in particular, by the 5th Cohesion Report of the EU). Moreover, the transport situation in the very CEE countries also undergoes increasing differentiation, which ought to bring further territorialisation of the policies implemented.

Mutual connections between some of the CEE countries are insufficient. This applies, in particular, to Polish-Slovak and Romanian-Bulgarian connections, as well as those

60

integrating the Baltic states. Realisation of these connections should become a priority in the framework of the instruments of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).

Transfer of the emphasis of the investment undertakings towards other branches of transport than road transport (conform to the recommendation as to the 60:40 proportion) should account for the conditioning of individual countries and regions. Experience to date indicates that the effects of the road infrastructure may come faster, this having definite importance from the point of view of the cohesion policy objectives. That is why a potential transfer of the structural funds towards the railway investments ought to be first of all enforced in these regions, where the construction of the basic motorway network has been or is being terminated. It is, analogously, desirable to move at a similar pace from the investments into the main axes towards the local solutions within the road transport branch.

At the same time, there is a risk concerning the rationality of use of the EU founds within the territory of the CEE in railway transport. Limitation of the undertakings to virtually solely modernisation works may not suffice to stop the further disadvantageous shifts in the modal structure (increase of the share of road transport in cargo and passenger traffic), given that the system of motorways would have been terminated in some countries of the macroregion. It appears purposeful to consider concentration of founds on creation (through new undertakings or continued modernisation) of the high speed rail network.

The decision processes, related to the establishment of rankings of the investment priorities, should be as much as possible de-politicised.

Location decisions concerning particular investment projects should account to the maximum extent for the potential economic advantages, and not only the current demand, formed by the existing traffic and the cost of implementation. This regards the ultimate courses of the linear infrastructure, and also location of motorway nodes, as well as stations of the higher speed railways.

Investigations confirmed that the objectives of the cohesion policy with respect to a definite region (or a metropolis) may often be attained through realisation of an investment project outside of the area of this particular entity (sometimes even at quite a geographical distance). The present political conditioning is not conducive to taking of decisions that concern the area of intervention distinctly separate from the area of support, where the benefits are supposed to arise.

Literature

Banister D., Stead D., Steen P., Akerman J., Dreborg K., Nijkamp P., Schleicher–Teppeser R., 2000, European Transport Policy and Sustainable Mobility, Spon Press, London–New York.

Button K., 2004, Myths and taboos in transport policy; w: Barriers to Sustainable Transport. Institutions, Regulation and sustainability, ed. P.Rietvald & R.R.Stough, Spon Press, London, New York, 183-196

Cieślik A., Rokicki B., 2013, Rola sieci transportowej w rozwoju polskich regionów: zastosowanie modelu potencjału ekonomicznego, Acta Universitatis Niciolai Copernici, Ekonomia XLIV No 1 (2013) 113-127

61

Crescenzi R., Rodriguez-Pose A., 2008, Infrastructure endowment and investment as determinants of regional growth in the European Union, EIB Papers, Volume 13, No2, 62-101

Crescenzi R., Rodriguez-Pose A., 2012, Infrastructure and regional growth in the European Union, DOI:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00439.x, Papers in Regional Science, Volume 91 Number 3 August 2012

Damsgaard O., P.Doucet, Z.Drahos, L.Gere, I.Illés, M.Jetmar, T.Komornicki, I.Lopez, M.Péti, R.Prokai, Á.Radvánszki, J.Ricz, G.Salamin, V.Schmidt-Seiwert, P.Schön, Á.Somfai, A.Sütő, K.Tomay, L.Vanautgaerden, J.Zaucha; 2011, The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union. 2011 update. Background document for the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020, Vati, Budapest; 90 pages

Domańska A., 2006, Wpływ infrastruktury transportu drogowego na rozwój regionalny, PWN, Warszawa.

ESPON 1.1.3. Final Report, 2006, www.espon.eu

ESPON 1.2.1. Final Report, 2004, www.espon.eu

ESPON FOCI Final Report, 2010, www.espon.eu

ESPON SeGI Interim Report, 2012, www.espon.eu

ESPON TRACC Interim Report, 2012, www.espon.eu

Hepenciuc C.V., Morosan A.A., Arionesei G., 2013, Absorpcion of Structural Funds – International Comparisons and Correlations, Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 259-272

Investing in Europe’s Future, Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, European Commission, 2010

Kemmerling A., Stephan A., 2008, Infrastructure endowment and investment as determinants of regional growth in the European Union, EIB Papers, Volume 13, No2, 36-61

Komornicki T., 2007, Rola infrastruktury transportowej w rozwoju kraju – wyzwania wobec kohezji przestrzennej, in: Rola polskiej przestrzeni w integrującej się Europie (ed. T.Markowski, A.Stasiak), Biuletyn KPZK z.233, KPZK PAN, Warszawa, 63-86

Komornicki T., Bański J., Śleszyński P., Rosik P., Świątek D., Czapiewski K., Bednarek-Szczepańska M., Stępniak M., Mazur M., Wisniewski R., Solon B., 2011, Ocena wpływu inwestycji infrastruktury transportowej realizowanych w ramach polityki spójności na wzrost konkurencyjności regionów (w ramach ewaluacji ex post NPR 2004-2006), Narodowa Strategia Spójności, Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa, 131 p.

Komornicki T., Rosik P., Śleszyński P., Solon J., Wiśniewski R., Stępniak M., Czapiewski K., Goliszek S., współpraca - Regulska E., 2013, Wpływ budowy autostrad i dróg ekspresowych na rozwój społeczno-gospodarczy i terytorialny Polski, raport końcowy badania ewaluacyjnego dla Ministerstwa Rozwoju Regionalnego w Warszawie, MRR, Warszawa

Komornicki T., Śleszyński P., Rosik P., Pomianowski W., 2010, Dostępność przestrzenna jako przesłanka kształtowania polskiej polityki transportowej, Biuletyn KPZK 241, Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, 167 p., Warszawa,

Komornicki T., Śleszyński P., Siłka P., Stępniak M., 2008, Wariantowa analiza dostępności w transporcie lądowym, [w:] Ekspertyzy do Koncepcji Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju,






62

t. II, Saganowski K., Zagrzejewska-Fiedorowicz, Żuber P. (ed.), Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa, p. 133-334.

Krugman P., Venables A.J., 1995, Globalization and the inequality of nations, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. CX is. 4

Potrykowski M., 1983, Rozwój społeczno-gospodarczy a zagospodarowania drogowe w Polsce, Studia KPZK, LXXX, PWN, Warszawa

Psenka T., 2008, Dialnice a regionálny rozvoj?, Geographia Cassoviensis II, 1 (2008) 128-131

Regulation of the cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia Nr. 120 (14th February 2006) “On the Cohesion policy framework documents”.

Rosik P., Szuster M., 2008, Rozbudowa infrastruktury transportowej a gospodarka regionów, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej, Poznań

Sectoral Operational Programme TRANSPORT, 2007 – 2013, Final Version, 2007, Government of Romania, Ministry of Transport

Spiekermann, K., Schürmann, C., 2007. Update of selected potential accessibility indicators. Final report. Spiekermann & Wegener, Urban and Regional Research (S&W), RRG Spatial Planning and Geoinformation

Stępniak M., Rosik P., 2013, Accessibility improvement, territorial cohesion and spillovers: a

multidimensional evaluation of two motorway sections in Poland, Journal of Transport Geography,

vol. 31, 154-163

Szarata A., 2012, Wpływ dostępności transportowej na liczbę podróży w obszarach miejskich, in: Dostępność i mobilność w przestrzeni (ed. Rosik P., Wiśniewski R.), IGiPZ PAN i MRR, Warszawa, p. 157-164

Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020, 2011

Urlicki M., 2012, Autostrada a1 i jej wpływ na dostępność i mobilność w pomorskiej przestrzeni, in: Dostępność i mobilność w przestrzeni (ed. Rosik P., Wiśniewski R.), IGiPZ PAN and MRR, Warszawa, p. 129-138

Vickerman RW (1995) Regional impacts of trans-European networks. Annals of Regional Science 29: 237–254

Wegener M., Korcelli P., Komornicki T., 2005, Spatial Impacts of the Trans-European Networks for the New EU Member States; Europa XXI, z. 13, New Spatial Relations in New Europe (ed. T.Komornicki, K.Ł.Czapiewski), IGiPZ PAN, PTG, Warszawa, 2005, p. 27-44,

White paper – ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ Brussels, 12.9.2001, COM(2001) 370 final

Więckowski Marek, Michniak Daniel, Bednarek-Szczepańska Maria, Chrenka Branislav, Ira Vladimir, Komornicki Tomasz, Rosik Piotr, Stępniak Marcin, Szekely Vladimir, Śleszyński Przemysław, Świątek Dariusz, Wiśniewski Rafał: Polish-Slovak borderland – transport accessibility and tourism. Warszawa: PAN IGiPZ, 2012 - 324 p. (Prace Geograficzne IGiPZ PAN; 234)

63

Annexes:

1. Blažek J.,New investment project information: Czech Republic

2. Buček J.., New investment project information: Slovakia

3. Fleischer T. New investment project information: Hungary

4. Spiridonova J., New investment project information: Bulgaria

5. Rojec M., New investment project information: Slovenia

6. Burneika D., New investment project information: Lithuania

7. Muravska T., New investment project information: Latvia

working paper series - grincoh · working paper series this paper was funded under the f p7 project...

Documents