449
1
INTRODUCTION
TheideaofbuildingawaterwayconnectingtheOder
with the Danube, and more broadly the Baltic Sea
withtheBlackSea,emergedforthefirsttimeasearly
asinthemid‐fourteenthcentury,duringthereignof
Charles IV (1336‐1378). In those years, a chamber
sluicewas
builtwhichallowed the construction ofa
canal in areas with a varied relief and leading the
waterway through the zones of successive
watersheds.It was, without adoubt,one of thefirst
attempts at building a large waterway in Europe,
whichprovesthattheenvisagedeconomicbenefitsof
that
investment were accurate [1, 2, 3]. More canal
construction projects emerged in the following
centuries [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. The drawing up of the first
designplanandthedelineationofthecanal’scourse
took place in 1719. At that time, a design plan was
developed to link the Oder
with the Morava, a
tributaryoftheDanube,aprojectwhichfromthevery
beginningseemedoverlyambitious,both technically
andfinancially.
2
PROGRESSOFDESIGNWORKSONBUILDING
THECANAL
Ever since the first mentions of the Oder‐Danube
waterwayinthefourteenthcentury,theideahasbeen
consistently entertained by many politicians and
scholarsalike. Morerealisticattemptsto connectthe
waterways of the Oder and the Danube were made
during the
First and Second World Wars, as
evidenced, among others, by the cutting of the first
piece of turf for building the section of the Oder‐
Danube Canal in Upper Silesia, on December 8th,
1939 by Rudolf Hess, the then‐minister of the Third
Reich[9].
The Danube is the largest
inland waterway in
Europe,connectingtheseaportsoftheNorthSeawith
those of the Black Sea in Romania, Ukraine and
Moldova via the Rhine‐Main‐Danube Canal. Inland
navigationontheDanubeanditstributariesplaysan
important role in the transport and economy of the
Danubecountries,whichinclude:
Ukraine,Romania,
Prospects for the Implementation of the Oder-Danube
International Waterway in the Context of the Latest
Political Landscape in the Czech Republic
J
.Łoginow&S.Skiba
GdyniaMaritimeUniversity,Gdynia,Poland
ABSTRACT:TheideaofbuildingtheOder‐Danubewaterwaydatesbacktothefourteenthcentury.Itwasone
of the first in Europe envisaging a water canal of such dimensions and spanning areas of highly diverse
topography.Sincethen,newconstructionideaswithanalteredcourse
ofthecanalandhydrotechnicalsolutions
have been proposed. The first actual design was developed in 1719. Despite the many perceived benefits,
numerousdifficultieswereencounteredovertheyearsandtheprojectwasultimatelyabandoned.Thearticle
presentsthecurrentconstructionstatusoftheOder‐DanubeCanalproject,analyzingand
assessingthepolitical
landscape in the Czech Republic as having a critical impact on the possibility of implementing the said
undertaking.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 18
Number 2
June 2024
DOI:10.12716/1001.18.02.24
450
Moldova, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary,
Slovakia,Austria,andGermany.
Fig. 1 shows an overview of the proposed Oder‐
Danubewaterwayvariants.
Legend:
1. AwaterwaylinkingViennawiththeMorava(considered
untilaround2010)
2. ASlovakconceptoftheŽilina‐Bohuminwaterway
3. AprojecttolinktheMoravawiththeDanube,bypassing
Austria(2010‐2016)
4. A2016Czech‐SlovakprojectoftheMorava‐Váh‐Danube
waterway
Figure1. Multi
‐variant design of the Oder‐Danube Canal.
Source:Ownelaboration
EarlyeffortstobuildtheOder‐DanubeCanalwere
undertaken by the Austro‐Hungarian authorities
towards the end of the dual state’s existence. The
entireareaof the planned system of waterways was
then envisaged within the borders of one country,
namely Austria‐Hungary. At that time, a link was
planned
as per Variant1inFig. 1. The canal was to
start in the north‐eastern suburbs of Vienna, run
throughtheplains towardsthe Czech Republic,and
then along the Morava (marked in red), connecting
with the Oder in the Ostrava region. Several
kilometersofthecanalwerebuilt
ontheoutskirtsof
Vienna,whichisusedtodayforrecreationalpurposes,
including canoeing. After World War I and the
collapse of Austria‐Hungary, the project was
abandoned,onlytoresurfaceinvariousformsduring
the communist regime and be resumed upon the
initiative of the Czech Republic circa 2000. Initially,
Austriaparticipatedintheundertaking,butwithdrew
from the project circa 2010 alleging environmental
concerns. Since then, the Czech Republic, Slovakia
andPolandhavebeenworkingtogethertolinkthe
OderwiththeDanube.
The largest river ports in Slovakia are Bratislava
andKomarno(KomarnoPortislocatedatthe
mouth
of theVáh’s estuary to the Danube). In Bratislava
there is, among others, a container terminal and oil
terminals[10],andtheportislargerthantheseaport
in Poland’s Kołobrzeg. Apart from the Danube, the
onlysignificantwaterwayinSlovakiaistheVáh‐the
largestSlovaktributaryof
theDanubeandthelongest
riverlyingentirelywithinthebordersofSlovakia.The
VáhunderflowstheTatraMountainsintheregionof
Liptovský Mikuláš and runs across the most
industrialized and richest region of the country,
including the cities of Žilina, Trenčín, Považská
BystricaandKomarno.TheVáh
wascascadedalready
intheinterwarperiod,underfascistSlovakiaaswell
as under communist Czechoslovakia. The river was
canalized and a system of barrages was created,
althoughtheywerebuiltwiththepowerindustryin
mind,notnavigation(meaningnosluiceswerebuilt).
Today, Slovakia has a very high share
of renewable
energyintheenergymixwhereapproximately20%of
the country’s electricity comes from hydroelectric
power plants, more than 50% from nuclear power
plants,andasmallamountfromcoal[11].
After Slovakia became an independent state in
1993, an ambitious government program was
launched to make the
Váh navigable. The program
wasdividedintofourstagesandscheduledforatime
horizon of around 2035. The aim was to adapt the
already existing Váh cascade to make them fit for
navigation.Sofar,thefirststagehasbeencompleted
and the Váh is navigable in the lower and
middle
section. The Žilina section, which is to become an
important multimodal transport hub, remains to be
completed. These plans are not at all controversial.
What is controversial is the last stage, initially
scheduled for implementation in 2025‐35, as it
envisages the construction of a 98‐kilometer‐long
Žilina‐
Bohuminwaterwayinachallengingmountain
areaintheBeskidsusingtothisendtheKysucaRiver
inSlovakiaandtheOlzaRiverintheCzechRepublic.
In this way, the connection of the Danube, through
the Váh, with the Oder, right next to the Polish
border,wastobecomereality.
Theprojectenvisaged
the construction of barrages and two shipping
tunnels,oneofwhichatJablunkovPass.Thisstageis
nowassessedaspracticallyunrealisticanditishighly
unlikelythatitwilleverbecompleted.Nevertheless,
thereisstillareserveoflandsetasideforthecanalin
the Kysuce, to the increasingly vocal discontent of
localgovernments.
Around2010,theCzechsideprotestedtheSlovak
approach to linking the Danube with the Oder
throughtheKysucaandtheOlza,andpushedforthe
constructionofthecanalaspertheoriginalVariant1.
AfterAustria withdrewfromthe
project, the Czechs
proposedVariant3bypassingAustria.Thewaterway
from the Czech border to the Danube in Bratislava
would run along the border section of the Morava,
which is the Slovak‐Austrian border. Slovakia
participatedintheworks,buttheprojectwasvetoed
byAustria,asthebordersection
oftheMoravaruns
throughprotectedareas,includingtheDanube‐Auen
National Park. Initially, the Czech Republic pushed
throughwiththeimplementationofthisproject,even
despite Austriaʹs objections, but eventually it was
deemed unfeasible. Throughout all that time, the
implementationoftheSlovaknavigationprogramfor
the Váh continued
in parallel, but the works were
carried out slowly and with delays, generating little
public enthusiasm. The construction of the Žilina‐
Bohumínwaterwaywasstillformallyplanned.
In view of Austriaʹs opposition to Variant 3, in
2016thejointcommitteesofthe CzechRepublicand
Slovakiaputforwarda
proposalforVariant4which
completely bypassed Austria. The linking of the
Morava with the Slovak Váh would be carried out
betweenHodonininMoraviaandTrenčíninSlovakia.
451
Since then, efforts towards that have been
undertaken in the form of cooperation between the
Czech Republic, Slovakiaand Poland, although they
have not been particularly intensive. The Czech
Republic implemented the project of connecting the
OderwiththeDanubeaspartofthebroaderDanube‐
Oder‐Elbe Canal
(DOL) project. Slovakia, as part of
the ongoing Váh navigation program and the still
pursued variant of the Žilina‐Bohumin passage
(which remains in plans, strategies and reserved
land),despitethewidespreadbelief,alsoexpressedin
thepositionsoftheSlovakMinistryofTransport,that
completing this section is in fact
unrealistic. Poland,
meanwhile,isbettingontheideaoflinkingtheOder
with the Danube through a set of measures to
modernizetheOderwaterwayandtheSilesianCanal
project which is to connect the Upper Oder in the
Racibórzareawiththealreadyexisting,navigablebut
dead‐end waterway
of the Upper Vistula from
OświęcimthroughSkawinatoNowaHutaintheeast
ofKrakow[12].
ThekeycountryforconnectingtheOderwiththe
DanubeistheCzechRepublic,asitisinthisarea,near
Ostrava,thattheOderwaterwaybegins,whichwould
havetobe
linkedeitherwiththeMoravaorwiththe
Váh,inonewayoranother.Itisnotpossibletolink
theOderwiththeVáhbypassingtheCzechRepublic,
thatis,directlyacrossthePolish‐Slovakborder.Sofar,
theCzechRepublichasbeentheinitiatorofallefforts
and
ideastoconnecttheOderwiththeDanubeafter
2000 [13, 14]. At the same time, this idea is viewed
ambiguouslyby the Czech public. While in Slovakia
andPolandthesubjectoftheOder‐DanubeCanal is
virtually non‐existent in public debate and remains
thedomainofasmall
groupofexperts,intheCzech
Republicitisanimportantandoftenrecurringtopic
of debate in the media and among political parties.
Arguably the most important advocate of the Oder‐
DanubeCanalintheCzechRepublicwastheformer
president Miloš Zeman, in office between 2013 and
2023.
The project was also supported by the
governments of Bohuslav Sobotka (2014‐2017) and
AndrejBabiš(2017‐2021).
The Oder‐Danube Canal was criticized by
politicians and supporters of the then opposition. In
December2021,opponentsoftheCanalwonelections
in the Czech Republic. Since December 2021, the
government of
Petr Fiala has been in office, having
decidedtowithdrawfromtheprojectandreleasethe
reserve of land originally intended for the Canal. In
March 2023, Zeman was replaced by president‐elect
PetrPavel,whoseviewsonthismatterareunknown,
althoughhewillcertainlynotsupporttheCanal
like
hispredecessorZeman.
Analternativevariantthatshouldbementionedis
the completion of national programs for the
modernizationandextensionofwaterways:theOder
inPoland,theVáhtoŽilinainSlovakiaandtheElbe
intheCzechRepublic,aswellasthedevelopmentof
multimodal terminals at the
end‐points of these
waterways in each country, at the junction of river
ports, railways and highways. In Poland, such
functionsmaybeperformedbyRacibórz,Kędzierzyn
Koźle, Gliwice or the Krakow agglomeration (in the
caseofthecreationoftheOder‐VistulaCanal,known
as the Silesian
Canal); in Slovakia, Žilina. The
transportofcontainersandothercargobetweenthese
ports, e.g. between Racibórz and Žilina, would be
carriedout,amongothers,byrail.
3
RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
Inthearticle,theanalysisoftheliteratureandexisting
materials are used to determine the history and
currentstateoftheproject.Tothisendaqueryofthe
literature and other secondary materials are used,
including press articles and unpublished internal
documents obtained in previous years as
part of
earlierresearchconductedbytheauthors.
On the basis of the thus gained knowledge, a
synthesis of the activities carried out so far and the
evolutionoftheideaoftheOder‐Danubewaterwayin
various variants was conducted. The key data from
the standpoint of the discussed
problem were the
initiativesundertakenbytheCzechRepublicin2010‐
2023, laid outinthe introduction to this paper.This
period ended with political changes in the Czech
Republic,as a result of which the Czech public was
officiallyinformedaboutthewithdrawaloftheCzech
RepublicfromtheDanube
‐Oder‐ElbeCanalproject.
Inconnectionwiththisdecision,aswellasinlight
ofthesignificantinvolvementofnewpartnersinthis
project (the Slovak Republic, Poland, the European
Union, the signatory states of the AGN Convention
concerning international waterways, international
shippingandscientificcommunity),thefutureofthe
project is being questioned. On one hand, there is
information about the final completion of the Oder‐
Danube project, especially since the decisions were
madebytheCzechRepublicwhichinrecentyearshas
been considered the initiator of the project. On the
otherhand,historyshowsthattheideaof
ashipping
connectionbetweentheOderandtheDanubeisover
100 years old, and the states pursuing its
implementationhavefailednumeroustimes(Austria‐
Hungary, Czechoslovakia). Nevertheless, the project
never ceased to resurface, which led us to pose the
followingresearchquestions:
1.
How does each of the project partners view the
decisionoftheCzechgovernment?
2.
DoestheCzechgovernment’sdecisionofFebruary
2023 spell a complete and definitive end of the
project, or do the involved parties see room for
backtracking and implementing the Canal in the
future,perhapsinadifferentform?
3.
Can theOder‐Danube Canalbeimplementedina
variantotherthantheDOL,e.g.byreturningtothe
previousvariantrunningviaVáh‐Kysuca‐Olza or
completelybypassingtheCzechRepublic?
4.
CantheOder‐Danubeprojectbeimplementedina
partial and modified variant, based on combined
freight and rail transport, and what are the
prospectsfortheprojectsalreadyunderway?
To answer these research questions, a postal
surveymethodwasusedwhereinquiriesweresentto
thefollowinginstitutions:theMinistry
ofTransportof
theCzech Republic, SlovakiaandPoland, as well as
Czech local governments (regions and major cities)
from the area where the Oder‐Danube Canal was
planned.
452
4
ASSESSINGCZECHPOSITIONTHROUGHTHE
PRISMOFCONTINUINGWORKSONTHE
ODER‐DANUBECANAL
Inresponsetothesurveys,theCzechsideconfirmed
its intention not to continue work on the Danube‐
Oder‐Elbe project. The surveyed institutions
expressedtheviewthatthedecisionisfinalandthey
do not expect
it to be revised. The position of the
Moravian‐Silesian Region is as follows:ʺThe
MoravskoslezskýKraiviewedtheplannedconnection
oftheBaltictoBohuminandtheuseofinternational
watertransportasaprojectthatcouldstrengthenthe
regionʹs economy and offer it new opportunities.
However,it
shouldbeemphasizedthatitmademuch
more sense than using the OderRiver to modernize
railtransportationandbuildhigh‐speedrailroadsfor
ourregion and its development. The constructionof
thecanal,inviewoftheabove,wasnotcrucialforour
region,andagainstthewithdrawalofthis
investment
by the government of the Czech Republic, the
Moravian‐Silesian Region did not speak outʺ. The
SouthMoravianKraiviewsthegovernmentʹsdecision
unequivocallypositively:ʺItisunequivocallya good
decision.Thecanalmadenoeconomicsense.Itwasa
megalomaniac project that would, moreover,
irreversibly destroy
the unique natural environment
in the wide vicinity of the Morava River. In the
currentsituation,municipalitiesandcitieswillfinally
not have their hands tied by forced land reserves.ʺ
Among municipal governments, the position of the
city of Hodonin, through which the Danube‐Oder‐
Elbecanalwastopass,is
representative.Inresponse
to a question about the evaluation of the Czech
governmentʹsdecision,arepresentativeofthecityof
Hodoninwrote:ʺWeassessthisdecisionratherwell,
especiallysinceitwouldbeasignificantinterference
inthelandscapeandperhapsalsointhedevelopment
oftourismonthe
MoravaRiverandtheBaťaCanal.ʺ
The surveyed institutions also responded to the
question of how the withdrawal from the Danube‐
Oder‐Elbeprojectwouldbehandledfromtheformal
and legal side. The respondents unanimously stated
thattheprocesswouldbethree‐stageandspreadover
several years.ʺFirst
of all, the decision of the
GovernmentoftheCzechRepublicwillberesponded
to by a state‐wide concept called the Territorial
DevelopmentPolicyof theCzechRepublic,which is
managedbytheMinistryofLocalDevelopment.Only
to this update can the principles of territorial
development of the
countries (regions) and then the
local plans of the municipalities refer,ʺ ‐ writes a
representativeoftheMoravian‐SilesianRegion.
Thestudyconductedbytheauthorsalsoprovided
animportantconclusion that the CzechDOL project
(Danube‐Oder‐Elbe)shouldnotbeequatedwiththe
Slovak Váh Waterway project including the
connection
of Žilina with the Oder. Such a position
hasbeenrepeatedlyexpressedbytheSlovakMinistry
of Transport over the previous years [Source: own
research]. In this context, it is worth quoting an
excerpt from the position, expressed in July 2021 in
responsetoastudyconductedbyoneof
theauthors.
ʺThe Váh waterway is covered by the AGN
Agreement wit h the designationʺE 81 Váh Riverʺ
from its confluence with the Danube at Komárno to
Žilina(withanassumedVáh‐Odraconnection)and
hasalsobeenastheVáhWaterwaysince2013,partof
the Base Network of
the Trans‐European TEN‐T
network(...)Itcanbeconcludedthatfromalegaland
technical point of view the Váh Waterway up to 70
km is an existing, used waterway and only its
technicalparameters(possibledraught)preventmore
intensiveandcontinuoususeʺ[MinistryofTransport
oftheSlovak
Republic,responsetosurvey,July2021].
In light of the Czech Republicʹs abandonment of
the DOL project, the authors asked the Slovak
Ministry of Transport questions about further
prospects for the Odra‐Danube shipping link. The
following are the most relevant excerpts from the
answersreceived(April2023).
ʺWe
learnedaboutthesuspensionofworkonthe
Danube‐Oder‐Elbe water corridor from a
representativeoftheCzechMinistryofTransportata
meeting of the Slovak‐Czech Commission on
Boundary Waters in May 2022. The minutes of this
meeting are being prepared, which will then be
approvedby
theSlovakandCzechgovernmentsafter
inter‐ministerialconsultations.
(...) The future routing of the Váh Waterway
withinthe4thstageofitsconstructionisproposedin
the Kysuca River valley. The construction of this
waterway, in accordance with the European
Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of
InternationalImportance(AGN),is
aprojectintention
included in the integrated network of international
inland waterways, which represents a long‐term
investment of strategic importance. Through
accession to the European AGN agreement, the
geographical and transport significance of the Váh
Waterwayhasbeenconfirmed,whichiswhytheland
reserveinthecourseof
theKysucaRiveriscurrently
beingcontinuouslymaintained.
We are currently preparing materials for the
announcement of a bidding process for a feasibility
studyfortheliningoftheVáhWaterway(butonlyto
Žilina) later this year. We want to finance it with
Europeanfunds.
The Vagus Waterway is a
national waterway of
international importance, which, in the section from
Komárno to Žilina, is classified as part of the basic
TEN‐Tnetwork.Inabroadercontext,itisasignificant
alternative for connecting the integrated network of
European waterways in the Baltic‐Oder‐Danube
corridor.Fromageopoliticalpoint
ofview,itenables
adirectconnectionbetweenthenorthofEuropeand
thesouth.
Inordertocompletethiswaterway,itisnecessary
to build Kolárovo waterway stage, reconstruct
Kráľová navigation lock, build Sereď‐Hlohovec
waterwaystage,11locksandNosiceshiplift.Atthe
sametime,allnavigation
channelsneedtoberepaired
andmodernized,andsixroadandthreerailbridges
need to be raised. The addition of the missing
navigation stages and the modernization of the
existing ones is dependent on an environmental
impact assessment and possible changes in the
hydropowerpotentialofthenavigablestagesʺ
.
The implementation of the fourth stage of the
waterway between Žilina and Bohumin depends on
thecompletionofthepreviousthreestages.Thestill‐
453
applicable Concept for the Development of Water
Transport of the SlovakRepublic shows the costs of
implementing the various stages expressed in 1997
prices[15].Theauthorsconvertedthepricestoa2023
value using theINEKO(Institute for Economicsand
SocialReforms)inflationcalculator(Tab.1).
Table1.CostsofimplementationoftheŽilina‐Bohumin
waterwayInvestmentpurposeInvestmentoutlay(inmillion
EUR)
________________________________________________
InvestmentInvestmentoutlay(inmillionEUR)
purpose1stage 2stage 3stage Total
________________________________________________
Shippingandports 235,87 790,43 191,31 1217,61
Energyuse5,81 237,81‐ 243,62
Publicbenefitpurposes 46,50 191,80 14,05 252,35
Total288,18 1220,04 205,36 1713,58
________________________________________________
Source:ownsourcesusinghttps://www.ineko.sk/kalk.html
[16]
According to these calculations, the total cost of
implementingthethreephases ofthe Vahwaterway
under the 1997 assumptions in February 2023 prices
would be 1.7 billion euros. This cost, however, is
basedonasimpleconversionofinflationaccordingto
officialrates,anddoesnottakeintoaccountthe
fact
that the cost of construction work and land
redemptionhasrisenfasterthaninflation.According
toinformationobtainedbytheauthorsattheMinistry
ofTransportoftheSlovakRepublic,workiscurrently
(June2023)underwaytoprepareanewʺConceptfor
the Development of Waterborne Transport in the
SlovakRepublicuntil2030withanOutlookto2050.ʺ
Thetaskisbasedon theProgramDeclaration ofthe
Slovak Government for 2020‐2024. Work on the
conceptwillbecompletedinthesecondhalfof2023.
Onlythenwillitbepossibletoprovidenew,realistic
costsforinvestmentintentions
ontheVáh.
5
CONCLUSION
The withdrawal of the Czech Republic from the
projectisrelativelynewnews,whichcreatesaneedto
reevaluate the prospects of this undertaking. So far,
this has not been properly explored in scientific
publications,whilethemediacoverageofithasbeen
ambiguous. The construction of a branched Oder
‐
Danube waterway system can be found in many
national and international planning and strategic
documents(AGNConvention,EUTEN‐T)andstates
adopt different investment plans with a view to it:
Poland, for instance, is looking to build the Silesian
Canal, currentlydevelopingaconceptualframework
andacquiringfundsto
thisend.Confirmationofthe
withdrawal of the Czech Republic from the project
thereforeraisesnewresearchquestionsregardingthe
futureofalltheseplans,thepossiblereversalofthat
decision, and the replacement of the waterway with
newprojects.
In the context of the Czech Republicʹs decision,
noteworthyis
the positionof theSlovakside,which
has been consistently implementing its program for
thegravelingoftheVáhandconfirmingitsintention
to implement the fourth stage, involving the
constructionoftheŽilina‐Bohuminwaterway(Váh‐
Oder,98km).TheCzechsideʹsongoingactivitieson
theDanube‐Oder‐
Elbeconceptbetween2010and2022
havenotledtorealprogressintheformof concrete
shipping investments. In contrast, the Slovak Váh
waterway project has been progressing all the time,
albeitslowly.Afeasibilitystudyforanothersectionof
theVáhwaterwayto Žilinais to be created in
2023,
andthesectionoftheplannedcanalfromŽilinatothe
Slovak‐Czech border has all the time had a
guaranteed land reserve and, as the Slovak side
emphasizes,remainspartoftheinternationalstrategic
documents on the development of the transport
network.
Inlightoftheabove,the
authorsbelievethatafter
the Czech Republic withdraws from the Danube‐
Oder‐Elbe project, it is still possible to connect the
Oder River with the Danube through the Bohumin‐
Žilina waterway and then the Váh Waterway. This
still requires the participationof the Czech Republic
inthisproject,butalreadyonly
onasectionofabout
40 km, on the territory of only one administrative
region (the Moravian‐Silesian Region), which, in
principle,considerstheideaofashippingconnection
between the Oder and the Danube as providing
development opportunities,although not necessarily
apriority.InfavoroftheŽilina‐Bohumin
projectis
thefactthatthepreliminaryconcept,includingalist
ofproposedwaterstages,locksandshippingtunnels,
wasdevelopedasearlyasthe1990s,aswellasthefact
that it functions in international documents such as
AGN. A major limitation is the high cost of the
project. On
the plus side, one should record the
consistency with which this project functions in
Slovak strategic documents despite changing
authorities, as well as the maintenance of a land
reserve on the Slovak side. The complicated terrain
conditions of the postulated project should be
considered an ambiguous factor. The necessity of
routingtheŽilina‐Bohumin canalinthemountains
andusingambitiousengineeringsolutions,ontheone
hand, may arouse public opposition and negative
emotions,but on the other hand,it mayalsohave a
mobilizing effect. Examples of such extreme
assessments are the shipping tunnels and ship
elevatorsplannedalongthe
route.Therearefewsuch
constructionsintheworld,andtheycanbotharouse
positive interest,becoming a touristattraction atthe
same time, and be proclaimed as a manifestation of
megalomania.
In the shorter term, the planned shipping
investmentsontheOderandVáhcanbeexpectedto
be
completed, with the establishment of multimodal
terminals at the river ports in Racibor, Kędzierzyn‐
Koźle, Zylina, and possibly Bohumin. The Slovak
MinistryofTransportassumesthatŽilinawillbecome
animportanttransporthubinthenextseveralto20
years,withaccesstotrunkrailroadlines,a highway
intersection,
an airport and the E81 international
waterway connected to the Danube.Transport
betweentheBalticports,theOderRiverandtheport
ofŽilinacanbecarriedoutbyrailandroadtransport
using the network of highways and trunk railroad
lines, the creation of which is in its final stage.
Accordingtotheauthors,itisreasonabletoconduct
further scientific research on water transport on the
Oder‐Danuberoute,butwithanemphasisontheVáh
Waterway and the Žilina‐Bohumin‐southern
Polandconnection.
454
REFERENCES
[1]SkibaS.,Modeloflogisticscostaccountancy,Carpathian
LogisticsCongress(clcʹ2016),2017
[2]Kosiek J. et al., Analysis of modern port technologies
based on literature review, TransNav: International
Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation15.3,2021
[3]Grzelakowski, A.S.,&Karaś,A.,queueingtheoryas
an
instrument of optimization operational and economic
sphere of port terminals‐case study, LogForum, 18(3)
2022.
[4]DziewońskiZ.,ProjektyimożliwościpołączeniaOdryz
innymi zlewiskami. Gospodarka wodna, nr 2,
Warszawa,1947
[5]Czaja S., Polityczne i gospodarcze uwarunkowania
budowy kanału Odra‐Dunaj, Monografie
Komitetu
GospodarkiWodnejPAN,2022
[6]Charłampowicz,J.,ProcessManagementasanEssential
Component of Management in the Maritime Container
Terminals: Empirical Evidence using Fuzzy‐DEMATEL
Approach. European Research Studies Journal, 26(1),
222‐229,2023
[7]Karaś, A., Kondycja i ewolucja polskich portów
morskich.Logistyka,2019
[8]Grzelakowski, A.
S., Herdzik, J., & Skiba, S., Maritime
Shipping Decarbonization: Roadmap to Meet Zero‐
Emission Target in Shipping as a Link in the Global
Supply Chains. Energies, 15(17), 6150, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176150
[9]Grube K., Economy and science have long since been
inseparable partners– the oder‐danube institute and
professorpeter‐heinz
seraphim(greifswald) inthe nazi
germanyperiod,StudiaMaritima,vol.XXVII/2,2014
[10]SkibaS.,Seaport‐CityCooperationOnTheExampleOf
TheCityOfGdynia.EconomicandSocialDevelopment:
BookofProceedings,2019
[11]Website Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky
https://slovak.statistics.sk/wps/portal/ext/home/!ut/p/z1/
04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8ziA809LZycDB0NL
PyCXA08QxwD3IO8TAwNTEz1wwkpiAJKG‐
AAjgZA_VFgJc7ujh4m5j4GBhY‐
7qYGno4eoUGWgcbGBo7GUAV4zCjIjTDIdFRUBADse0
bP/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/
[12]Zieliński E., Studium
połączeń żeglugowych Koźla z
Ostrawązkoncepcjawykorzystaniaakwenuprzyszłego
zbiornika w Raciborzu. CBSiPBW, „Hydroprojekt”,
OddziałweWrocławiu,1978
[13]CzajaS.,Dunaj–Odra–Łaba.Spojrzeniewprzeszłość.
Zarząd Morskich Portów Szczecin iŚwinoujście S.A.,
2019
[14]Marek, R., Marine
container terminal complexity.
EconomicandSocialDevelopment:BookofProceedings,
139‐153,2019
[15]https://www.mindop.sk/ministerstvo‐1/doprava‐
3/vodna‐doprava/vnutrozemska‐vodna‐
doprava/koncepcie,01.06.2023
[16]https://www.ineko.sk/kalk.html,01.06.2023