International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 6

Number 2

June 2012

277

1 INTRODUCTION

Transportation is expected to be the major driving

force behind a growing world demand for energy. It

is the largest end-use of energy in developed coun-

tries and the fastest growing one in most developing

countries. Furthermore, adequate, efficient, and ef-

fective transport systems are important for access to

markets, employment, education and basic services

critical to poverty alleviation. Transport plays an

important role in increasing the accessibility of par-

ticular regions. Creating development opportunities

in peripheral areas through infrastructural invest-

ments is one of major EU goals. The peripheral are-

as in the EU, especially those situated in regions

with the undeveloped accessibility - like the coastal

region Pomorskie voivodship - and low level of the

economic development, have the opportunity to im-

prove their availability, assuming the proper use of

EU resources. The activity of the central, regional

and local authorities will be of great importance dur-

ing the implementation of the adopted development

strategies and programmes. One of the biggest chal-

lenges is the assurance of sustainable transport de-

velopment planning in compliance with the EU

guidelines.

2 EU TRANSPORT POLICY IN THE CONTEXT

OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND

COHESION POLICY

In its transport policy the EU aims at changing the

demand pattern through shifting potential demand

from the road transport sector towards the rail, in-

land waterway and sea transport – short-distance

shipping as well as promoting combined transport

and collective public transport. Such solutions are

Sustainable Transport Planning &

Development in the EU at the Example of the

Polish Coastal Region Pomorskie

A. Przybyłowski

Gdynia Maritime University, Gdynia, Poland

ABSTRACT: The efficient and affordable transport systems are necessary for economic development and for

the need to mitigate adverse externalities to health and the environment. Countries all over the world should

support greater use of public and non-motorized transport and promote an integrated approach to policy mak-

ing including policies and planning for land use, infrastructure, public transport systems and goods delivery

networks, with a view to providing safe, affordable and efficient transportation, increasing energy efficiency

and reducing pollution, congestion and also adverse health effects. The peripheral areas in the EU, especially

those situated in regions with the undeveloped accessibility and low level of the economic development, have

the opportunity to improve their availability, assuming the proper use of EU resources. The activity of the

central, regional and local authorities will be of great importance during the implementation of the adopted

development strategies and programmes for transport investments for the period 2007-2013. It is worth taking

a closer look at one of the biggest current challenges that is the assurance of sustainable transport develop-

ment & planning on the regional level. The goal of the paper is to present the research analysis, based on the

available strategic documents and statistical data, on the present EU transport policy guidelines in the context

of sustainable development concept and cohesion instruments, as well as transport planning and development

in Poland with a special regard to one of its coastal regions Pomorskie voievodship.

278

more environmentally friendly, thus helping pursue

sustainable development. The transport policy goals

are based on two assumptions (Commission of the

European Communities, COM (2006):

− mobility is the key to Europe’s prosperity and the

free movement of its citizens;

− the negative effects of this mobility, i.e. energy

consumption and the impact on health and the

environment, must be reduced.

The EU transport policy might foster various as-

pects of the regional development policy pursued

within the cohesion policy, and it may influence dif-

ferent sectoral policies implemented by cohesion

policy instruments. The functioning of common

transport policy instruments brought about many

positive EU-wide changes, for instance (Grzelakow-

ski and all., 2008):

− improvement of the quality of services provided

and a wider offer of the form and mode of

transport,

− reduced costs of transport and a decrease in prices

of goods at the Community level, which limited

inflation and stimulated exports and investment

as well as stabilising the economies of EU Mem-

ber States,

− improvement of the economic and spatial cohe-

sion of certain parts of the Community,

− improvement of social mobility, resulting in

greater labour market flexibility,

− ongoing standardisation of transport equipment

and techniques, the development of modern

methods and technologies as well as of intelligent

traffic management (e.g. interoperability, telemat-

ics, the Galileo satellite navigation system).

The EU is fully aware that solely efficient

transport sector provided with modern infrastructure

and effective market mechanisms can guarantee

necessary level of mobility of goods and people.

Nowadays, in the age of globalisation and existing

highly competitive world economic environment,

the mobility is getting essential to the EU’s econo-

mies and communities. It is key to higher quality of

life and welfare as well as fundamental for enhanc-

ing EU’s competitiveness and vital to achieving the

goals of the EU’s ambitious strategies for growth

and employment.

The mobility, directly connected with the eco-

nomic expansion (rise of GDP), has been growing in

the EU rapidly since the mid of 90s. Goods transport

rose ca. 2.8% per year (1995-2006), i.e. more dy-

namic than GDP did and passenger transport ca.

1.7% per year in the same period. As a result goods

and passenger transport grew by 33% and 18% re-

spectively at that time and what is more, this dynam-

ic growth is envisaged to continue in the next decade

(see picture 1).

Characteristic trademark of the UE high mobility

is, however, relatively outsize share of road transport

in the existing modal split. It accounts for 45,6 % in

the servicing of total transport demand, whereas rail

accounts for 10.5%, inland waterways contribute

3.3% and oil pipelines add another 3.2%. Maritime

transport then accounts for 37.3% and air transport

for 0.1% of the total traffic (all referring to the EU27

in 2006) (Grzelakowski, 2008).

Picture 1. Most likely 2000-2020 growth in transport demand

in EU27

Source: Ponthieu E., ‘European Economic and Social Commit-

tee (EESC). Towards an integrated and coordinated sustainable

logistics and transport policy for Europe’. Roma, (19 June

2008), p.10.

As a result of currently formed modal split in the

EU’s transport sector, and as predicted realistically

by 2020, no chance for any shift in it towards the

more environmentally friendly modes of transport

such as rail and inland waterways, reaching the set

up transport policy’s objective is thoroughly impos-

sible. When this tendency is followed-up, sustaina-

ble mobility by still rapidly growing transport activi-

ty will even dash away. For, sustainable mobility

this means disconnecting mobility from its many

harmful effects for the economy, society and envi-

ronment (Ponthieu E., 2008). The goals of the EU

transport policy stem from the guidelines for devel-

opment strategies set out at the level of the European

Community. The most significant EU strategic doc-

uments include the Lisbon Strategy and the Goete-

borg Strategy. The former emphasised the necessity

to increase the competitiveness of the European area

(COM(2005) 24 final), whereas the latter drew at-

tention to ensuring sustainable development of this

area (COM(2001)264 final. Recently, the EU has

proposed a new document: Europe 2020 Strategy

(COM(2010)2020 final). The Commission has iden-

tified three key drivers for growth, to be implement-

279

ed through concrete actions at EU and national lev-

els: smart growth (fostering knowledge, innovation,

education and digital society), sustainable growth

(making the production more resource efficient

while boosting the competitiveness) and inclusive

growth (raising participation in the labour market,

the acquisition of skills and the fight against pov-

erty).

2.1 Sustainable development concept

As it was defined in the Brundtland Report the sus-

tainable development is development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the abil-

ity of future generations to meet their own needs. It

contains within it two key concepts (WCED, 1987):

− the concept of needs, in particular the essential

needs of the world's poor, to which overriding

priority should be given; and

− the idea of limitations imposed by the state of

technology and social organization on the envi-

ronment's ability to meet present and future

needs.

It is possible to graphically represent (picture 2)

the achievement of sustainable development by the

simultaneous attainment of three objectives: envi-

ronmental and natural resource sustainability, eco-

nomic growth and social equity.

Picture 2. Sustainable Development triangle

Source: Dourojeanni, A. ‘Procedimientos de Gestión para el

Desarrollo Sustentable: Aplicados a Microrregiones y Cuen-

cas’, Santiago: Instituto Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Pla-

nificación Económica y Social de las Naciones Unidas

(ILPES). Documento 89/05/Rev1., (1993); Nijkamp, P, ‘Re-

gional Sustainable Development and Natural Resource Use. In

World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics’,

Washington D.C., (1990), p.10.

The attainment of environmental sustainability re-

fers to the balance between the human rate of use of

the environment and its resources, with natural re-

sources rates of growth and environmental resili-

ence. In similar terms, the attainment of economic

growth is related, among other things, to the genera-

tion of employment, food, income and wealth (net

economic benefits). Social equity refers to the need

to give due consideration to the need to generate

equal opportunities among people (generational,

gender, cultures) to have access to the natural re-

sources base for its use and to the wealth generated.

Therefore, the attainment of sustainable develop-

ment implies the balance between these three objec-

tives or, in other words, to their simultaneous

achievement.

Climate change is the most pressing global envi-

ronmental challenge, and one that calls for major ef-

forts and active steps on the part of industrialised

countries, in line with their common and differenti-

ated responsibilities, as well as working in conjunc-

tion with transition and developing countries. Any

such action must be taken within the framework of

the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC).

According to the Division for Sustainable Devel-

opment from the United Nations’ Department of

Economic and Social Affairs, current patterns of

transportation development are not sustainable and

may compound both environmental and health prob-

lems. (www.un.org/esa, 2010). Therefore, there is a

need for urgent action, ranging, inter alia, from the

promotion of integrated transport policies and plans,

the accelerated phase-out of leaded gasoline, the

promotion of voluntary guidelines and the develop-

ment of partnerships at the national level for

strengthening transport infrastructure, promoting and

supporting the use of non-motorised transport and

developing innovative mass transit schemes. The in-

ternational co-operation is required in order to en-

sure transport systems support sustainable develop-

ment. The efficient and affordable transport systems

are necessary for poverty alleviation and the need to

mitigate adverse externalities to health and the envi-

ronment. Countries all over the world should support

greater use of public and non-motorized transport

and promote an integrated approach to policy mak-

ing including policies and planning for land use, in-

frastructure, public transport systems and goods de-

livery networks, with a view to providing safe,

affordable and efficient transportation, increasing

energy efficiency, reducing pollution, reducing con-

gestion, reducing adverse health effects and limiting

urban sprawl (www.un.org/esa, 2010).

There is a need of the full integration of the

commitments made by the EU Member States with

regard to the Kyoto Protocol and, beyond that, the

definition of quantified objectives for reducing

greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the de-

cisions taken by the European Council and the Envi-

280

ronment Council in March 2005 - namely to reduce

such emissions by between 15 and 30% by 2020 and

by between 60 and 80% by 2050, compared with the

levels measured in 1990.

2.2 EU cohesion policy

The implementation of the sectoral EU transport pol-

icy is supported by the horizontal cohesion policy,

especially through structural funds and the Cohesion

Fund. The basic goals of the current transport and

cohesion policies are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The golas of the EU transport and cohesion policies.

Goals of the EU transport poli-

Goals of the EU cohesion

policy

permanent and sustainable de-

velopment according to the

Lisbon and Goeteborg Strate-

gies

sustainable development of

all areas preserving the in-

ternal economic, social and

territorial cohesion through

a set of legal and financial

instruments

promotion of rail, sea and in-

termodal transport

solidarity: mitigating the

effects of the absence of

internal balance at the

Community level

integrated regional systems of

public transport

cohesion: everyone bene-

fits

development of logistics aimed

at obtaining the synergy effect

between particular modes of

transport and their integration

in logistic chains

convergence through in-

vesting in infrastructure

and human capital, sup-

porting innovation and

knowledge-based society,

the environmental protec-

tion and efficient admin-

istration

promotion of intelligent

transport systems

regional competitiveness

and employment – invest-

ing in human resources,

entrepreneurship, innova-

tiveness and the develop-

ment of labour markets

fostering social integration

development of trans-European

networks

European territorial coop-

eration – strengthening the

cross-border, transnational

and interregional coopera-

tion

Source: European Union transport and cohesion policies in the

context of rural development, 2008.

It is necessary to support polycentric territorial

development of the EU in order to make better use

of the available resources in regions (Territorial

Agenda, 2007). However, the parameters and moni-

toring systems to measure territorial cohesion should

be defined. Those could be transport accessibility or

access to public transport services. Under the

transport and cohesion policies attention should be

paid to both the territorial cohesion of the whole Eu-

rope and the cohesion of specific territories (for ex-

ample regions), particularly of peripheral areas. It

appears that two parallel action strategies might be

the solution: the top-down and bottom-up approach-

es. The former would involve, in accordance with

the solidarity principle, the strengthening Communi-

ty-wide cohesion at the EU level through legal, or-

ganisational and financial instruments. The latter

strategy would require a regional approach: cohesion

development would be initiated by the regions them-

selves to a larger degree than at present. There is a

need for specific financial instruments prepared in

agreement with the European Commission to be

used, for instance, in the process of creating metro-

politan transport systems or cross-border coopera-

tion, as well as in the development of rural infra-

structure, especially enhancing access to cities. Such

a system would provide EU support and, at the same

time, promote more active regions, mobilising their

endogenous potential. It would ensure harmonious

development of the whole EU area as well as be-

coming an important diversifying element. Such a

scheme would be competitive, but still stimulating

for all the players (Przybyłowski, 2008).

The cohesion policy and its instruments should

contribute to the harmonisation of all sectoral poli-

cies at the European and national level in order to

pursue the Community objectives more efficiently

than at present (European Commission, May 2007).

But the effectiveness of the EU transport and cohe-

sion policies may be compromised due to significant

difficulties as there are some dissimilarities at the

implementation level. The transport policy, to a

larger degree, aims at liberalisation, free competi-

tion, whereas the cohesion policy is more oriented

towards interventionism. Therefore, obtaining the

synergy effect in regional development and building

a coherent and balanced transportation system poses

a challenge to the enlarged EU. The key issue is to

what extent backward regions should be supported.

It should be emphasised that the development and

modernisation of transport infrastructure does not

automatically stimulate regional development. While

enhancing the economic potential of regions, a com-

prehensive/integrated approach should be considered

so as to ensure that efforts at providing more equal

opportunities for the poorest EU areas bring the an-

ticipated results. There are examples of ineffective

use of funds throughout Europe, e.g. in East Germa-

ny and Greece. Such investment should be coupled

with other factors such as material and human capi-

tal, the competitive position of local companies, an

investment-oriented legal framework (including fis-

cal regulations), local entrepreneurship. Without

those, transport infrastructure cannot become an in-

dependent factor of regional development.

As has already been mentioned, the goal of the

current EU cohesion policy (see Table 1) is to re-

duce disparities in the development of particular re-

gions, especially of peripheral areas. This policy is

281

of great significance since it aims at mitigating the

effects of the absence of internal balance at the

Community level. While creating common policies

at the supranational level, the Community remains

too concentrated on market processes, neglecting the

stimulation of long-term adjustments concerning so-

cio-economic structures. The underlying values can

be defined as solidarity and cohesion/harmonisation

development. One of them is solidarity since this

policy is supposed to be beneficial to citizens and

regions in a worse economic and social situation as

compared to the EU average,. The other is cohesion

because everyone would benefit from reduced dis-

proportions in income and well-being between the

poorer and wealthier countries and regions. The de-

gree of such disparities is measured in three aspects:

economic (mainly by the purchasing-power-parity-

based GDP per inhabitant of the region), social (in-

ter alia by the unemployment rate in the region) and

spatial (usually by a measure of the number of con-

sumers over a given period in a given region)

(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy, 2011). Struc-

tural indicators are also important. They are used by

the European Commission in the evaluation of the

EU Member States’ progress in the implementation

of the Lisbon Strategy goals. They include five main

socio-economic domains of employment, innovation

and research, economic reform, social cohesion and

the environment, as well as the general economic

background.

In 2007, the EU introduced a modernised and

more integrated cohesion policy. It covers the period

between 2007 and 2013. The combined budget of

structural funds and of the Cohesion Fund in this pe-

riod will amount to ca. EUR 308 billion, accounting

for 36% of the total EU expenditure in the period in

question. Three funds are the instruments of the

amended cohesion policy: the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social

Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund. The appropria-

tions were divided into three categories. 81.5% of

the total amount was assigned to reducing the dis-

proportions between the poor and wealthy regions

(the Convergence objective), while 16% – to the im-

provement of the competitiveness of the poor re-

gions and job creation (the Regional competitiveness

and employment objective). The remaining 2.5% is

aimed at supporting cross-border cooperation be-

tween frontier regions (the European territorial co-

operation objective). It should be emphasised that

the compensatory nature of the cohesion policy (in

response to the needs of lagging regions) in the

amended Lisbon Strategy of 2005 was replaced with

active creation of conditions for development. At

present, the focus is on the promotion of competi-

tiveness and creating new jobs, not only on standard

convergence activities. Thereby the gap between the

EU pursuit to increase its competitiveness on the one

hand, and to support regions merely to reduce differ-

ences on the other hand is diminishing.

Authors of some analyses point out that the con-

centration on connecting regional capitals in new

Member States may contribute to increasing the dif-

ferences within these countries and lead to an anti-

cohesion effect. Due to the focus on the develop-

ment of TEN-T networks, the EU actually marginal-

ises expenditure on the remaining transport net-

works, which leads to the imbalance between

European and regional projects. Cohesion reports

unambiguously show that as the cohesion between

Member States grows, the development gap between

particular regions within these countries widens. Un-

fortunately, this negative trend is also observed in

Poland.

3 TRANSPORT NETWORK PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT IN POLAND

The transport system in Poland is neither sustainable

nor efficient in economic or technical terms, which

entails specific environmental and social conse-

quences. From the point of view of Poland’s

transport needs, the accession to the European Union

in 2004 created new possibilities in the field of ex-

tension and modernisation of transport infrastructure

since within the framework of the common transport

policy and cohesion policy there are instruments and

funds available for these purposes. At the same time,

Poland’s membership in the European Union in-

volves the introduction of and compliance with a

number of requirements concerning transport infra-

structure.

The present condition of transport infrastructure

in Poland does not meet the expectations of users of

national roads, railways and other transport sectors.

It also fails to provide appropriate handling of inter-

national cargo flows under the rapid growth in traf-

fic, which has been observed for more than a decade.

Furthermore, transport users have been increasing

their requirements regarding the quality of transport

services, in particular reduced transport time, im-

proved safety and ensuring intermodality of the

transport process. Significant decapitalisation of in-

frastructure facilities and equipment as well as not

always appropriate spatial distribution of specific

network elements may maintain or generate regional

disproportions within Poland. Major infrastructural

gaps can be found in all the transport sectors. Due to

the absence of an appropriate network of motor-

ways, express roads and high-speed rail system, the

existing transport network structure does not con-

tribute to the effective allocation of resources and

does not ensure appropriate quality of passenger and

cargo transport. Sea ports, inland waterway ports

and airports should also be modernised.

282

The most important tasks in the field of road in-

frastructure development from 2007 to 2013 include:

− extending the network of motorways and express

roads;

− programme of improving the pavement on roads

where heavy truck traffic can be observed;

− eliminating the shortcomings in the current road

network maintenance;

− programme of building by-passes or ring roads

around towns, ensuring that such roads are se-

cured against new building developments;

− modernisation of national road sections aiming

mainly at improving traffic safety, including the

launch of a programme for reducing traffic on

roads running through small towns and villages,

− improving the conditions for transit traffic as well

as for origin-destination traffic within metropoli-

tan areas.

The special Operational Programme: Develop-

ment of Eastern Poland comprises plans to build or

modernise road sections which will contribute to

improving connections between the most peripheral

parts of Poland and the transport network.

The density of gminas (the basic unit of the coun-

try’s territorial structure) roads in Poland was 47.8

km per 100 km², while the overall length of gminas

roads amounted to ca. 150,000 km at the end of

2004. At the same time, the density of access roads

to agricultural and forest land was 90.1 km per 100

km² and their overall length reached ca. 289,000 km.

Spatial distribution of roads is strongly connected

with population density and economic characteristics

of the area in question, therefore the highest density

of the road network is found in the Małopolskie,

Śląskie, Opolskie, Dolnośląskie and Wielkopolskie

voivodships. The rather well-developed network of

access roads to agricultural and forest land is never-

theless characterised by very low pavement quality.

At the same time, the quality of gminas roads is di-

rectly connected with bus communication networks

(both municipal and private), which enable local res-

idents to get to urban centres and to commute to

their non-agricultural jobs. It is of great importance

particularly in the context of the liquidation (due to

low profitability and financial inefficiency of local

governments) of regional rail connections in many

voivodships. Thanks to EU support it will be possi-

ble to reduce this development gap.

However, as regards the development of local

roads, one of the reports carried out for the Ministry

of Regional Development indicates that such roads

do not form a coherent network and are not suffi-

ciently integrated into the voivodship development

strategy implementation. Considering IROP projects

implemented so far, the complementarity index for

local roads (ranging from 0 to 3) was 1.6 on average.

The Podkarpackie, Świętokrzyskie and Lubelskie

voivodships used the EU support the most efficient-

ly, whereas the worst performer was the Pomorskie

voivodship (http://mrr.gov.pl, 2011-02-01).

There is a need for instruments increasing the in-

novativeness of technical solutions in the field of

transport infrastructure and therefore providing a

greater choice between various modes of transport.

The routine approach to increase the number of

roads and motorways, consisting in allocating most

funds to these goals, contradicts the principle of sus-

tainable development. After decades of intensive de-

velopment of road infrastructure in the EU-15, for

ca. 20 years a greater emphasis has been put on the

improvement of the railway, inland and sea transport

infrastructure. Similar observations can be made as

regards the improvement of public transport systems

in major European cities, used by a growing number

of commuters who switch from passenger cars to

public transport. Integrated regional public transport

systems represent an EU requirement: Poland is

obliged to implement this directive by 2013. The in-

tegrated regional public transport systems include

integrated tickets covering all means of public

transport, along with numerous systems of group,

zone or time discounts encouraging passengers to

choose public transport services. Such systems are

also strengthened by the policy of imposing very

high parking charges in the cities, or by locating

parking lots for bicycles near train or underground

stations. Such solutions are yet to be introduced in

Poland. The maturity of urban communities and

switching to integrated urban transport services will

become a new qualitative factor affecting the struc-

ture of demand for transport (Burnewicz, 2008).

Finally, there is a need to combine the processes

of extending necessary transport infrastructure with

the rule of balancing development by seeking selec-

tive and optimal solutions at the level of regions and

at the local level. Other instruments include much

wider application of the principle of genuine rather

than only facade social participation in the decision-

making on roads, motorways and other infrastructur-

al lines, in order to balance the interests of local and

regional communities and their development ambi-

tions as well as taking account of environmental pro-

tection aspects in investment processes in a much

more strategic way than it was the case in the past

(Gończ, 2007). In Poland, further decentralisation of

the state and public finance, along with a more ex-

tensive scope of decisions taken at the regional level

would also contribute to the harmonisation of in-

vestment activities and sustainable development

challenges.

283

4 TRANSPORT INVESTMENTS PLANNING

AND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS IN THE

POMORSKIE COASTAL REGION

Considering the social and economic situation as

well as the SWOT analysis for the voivodship, the

authorities of the Pomorski region prepared the De-

velopment Strategy for the Pomorskie voivodship

until 2020 (www.woj-pomorskie.pl, 2007); the strat-

egy aims at overcoming the weaknesses in order to

make the best possible use of the opportunities.

It is compliant with the strategic goal covered by

the NSRF

, envisaging the Pomorskie Voivodship

of 2020 to be an important partner in the Baltic Sea

region,– offering a clean environment, high quality

of life, development driven by knowledge, skills, ac-

tive and open communities, a strong and diversified

economy, cooperation based on partnership, an at-

tractive and coherent area, conserving multicultural

heritage as well as solidarity and maritime traditions.

The implementation of this vision is based onthree

new priorities, strategic objectives and specific

courses of action (Table 2).

Table 2. Priorities and strategic objectives of the Pomorskie

voivodship until 2020.

COMPETITIVENESS

COHESION

ACCESSIBILITY

1. Improved conditions

for enterprise and innova-

tion

1. Employ-

ment growth

and increased

labour mobili-

1. Efficient and safe

transport system

2. High level of education

and research

2. Strong,

healthy and in-

tegrated socie-

2. Improved opera-

tion of technical and

ICT infrastructure

systems

3. Development of an

economy based on specif-

ic regional resources

3. Civil socie-

ty develop-

ment

3. Better access to

social infrastructure,

particularly in struc-

turally disadvan-

taged areas

4. Efficient public sector

4. Shaping so-

cial and spatial

processes to

improve the

quality of life

4. Conservation and

improvement of the

natural environment

5. Established position

and effective links be-

tween the Tri-City Met-

ropolitan Area (Trójmi-

asto) and other, mainly

Baltic, regions

5. Strengthen-

ing sub-

regional de-

velopment

centres

Source: Development Strategy for the Pomorskie Voivodship–

July 2005), www.woj-pomorskie.pl/downloads/ASRWP_tekst,

2007-08-09, p. 23.

The goal under the NSRF is the creation of the conditions for

improving the competitiveness of knowledge-based economy and en-

trepreneurship ensuring an increase in employment and greater social,

economic and territorial cohesion.

The voivodship authorities were obliged to de-

velop a Regional Operational Programme for the

Pomorskie Voivodship for 2007-2013 as an instru-

ment for the implementation of the NSRF within the

region and, at the same time, a document enabling

EU support to be obtained under the Community re-

gional policy objective “Convergence.” The pro-

gramme is in line with the provisions of the follow-

ing (ROP, 2007):

− - Development Strategy for the Pomorskie Voi-

vodship,

− - National Strategic Reference Framework,

− - Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion.

The overall strategic objective of the Programme

is therefore the improvement of economic competi-

tiveness, social cohesion and spatial accessibility

through sustainable use of specific features of the

potential. ROP financial instruments using the EU

structural funds are shown in Table 3.

As shown in Table 3, the voivodship authorities

intend to allocate the highest share of the funds

(23%) for the development of the regional transport

system, which may be regarded as a good decision

since the transport system in the Pomorskie voivod-

ship is inefficient. Major shares of the appropriations

will also be granted to small and medium-sized en-

terprises (21%), basic local infrastructure (14%) and

projects concerning the development of metropolitan

functions (12%). A relatively small amount has been

provided for tourism and cultural heritage (only

5%); the lowest share of funds was allocated for

technical assistance (3%). The regional transport

system (priority axis 4) in the Pomorskie voivodship

will receive a total of EUR 271,420,167 (with the

Community contribution of 75%).

As regards other

priority axes of importance to infrastructure devel-

opment, the following are worth mentioning : axis 3

concerning urban and metropolitan functions (over

EUR 150 million), axis 6 regarding tourism (almost

EUR 60 million) and axis 8 aiming at the improve-

ment of basic local infrastructure (more than EUR

145 million). A strong preference will be given to

projects in line with the development programmes of

the whole transport infrastructure system covering

all sectors and following from the Transport Devel-

opment Strategy of the Pomorskie voivodship.

284

Table 3. The structure of ERDF funds allocation by Priority

Axis of ROP PV.

Priority axis

ERDF funds al-

location (%)

1. Development and innovation in SMEs

21.0%

2. Knowledge-based society

7.0%

3. Metropolitan functions

12.0%

4. Regional transport system

23.0%

5. Environment and environment-friendly

power industry

7.0%

6. Tourism and cultural heritage

5.0%

7. Healthcare and rescue system

4.0%

8. Basic local infrastructure

14.0%

9. Local social infrastructure and civil ini-

tiatives

4.0%

10. Technical assistance

3.0%

Total

100.0%

Source: Own study based on: ROP (Regional Operational Pro-

gramme) for the Pomorskie Voivodship 2007-2013, Annex to

Resolution of the Pomorskie Voivodship Executive Board No.

75/18/07), 5.02.2007, p. 64.

ROP PV will be financed from the ERDF as well

as with national funds, and the contribution from the

ERDF – according to Council Regulation No.

1083/2006 – was calculated with reference to the to-

tal eligible expenditure, including public and private

expenditure. The amount allocated to investment

will total EUR 1,227.1 million, of which the national

public and private contribution will be EUR 240.7

million and EUR 101.4 million respectively. Almost

half of the budget will be used for the implementa-

tion of the Lisbon goals. Other funds from other

programmes under the EU cohesion policy, the

common agricultural policy and national policies

and strategies will also be of considerable im-

portance (Table 4). (www.mrr.gov.pl, 2008).

The competitiveness and cohesion of each region

largely determine the condition and development

prospects of transport infrastructure. The transport

system of the Pomorskie voivodship consists of all

types of land, water and air transport (picture 3).

Picture 3. Transport infrastructure of the Pomorskie Voivod-

ship coastal region.

Source: Development Strategy…, op. cit., www.woj-

pomorskie.pl/downloads/ASRWP_tekst, 2007-08-09, p. 15.

The main development problem of the region is

the low quality and limited coherence of the

transport system. Despite the good location at the

crossing of two transport corridors, transport acces-

sibility of the voivodship is quite low against other

central and southern regions of Poland and the EU.

Western and eastern parts of the voivodship require

the improvement of accessibility and quality of

transport connections with the regional economic

centres, mainly with the Tri-City agglomeration

(Trójmiasto). The road network does not ensure

good access to Gdynia and Gdansk ports. Low quali-

ty of transport infrastructure prevents appropriate

quality of passenger and cargo transportation ser-

vices. The current condition increases business

costs, lowers the efficiency and competitiveness of

companies, thus reducing the attractiveness of the

region for foreign investors. It also has a negative

impact on the residents’ quality of life.

The road network of the voivodship is over

19,500 km long and covers: 8 national roads, 69

voivodship roads as well as poviat and gminas roads.

There are almost no roads of the highest technical

standard, and the majority of roads in the region are

of low quality and require modernisation. Another

weakness is the poor technical condition of bridges

and overpasses, of associated infrastructure and of

infrastructure related to traffic safety and organisa-

tion. Moreover, a significant development barrier is

the insufficient capacity of some road sections and

the absence of ring roads for transit traffic. Due to

reduced cargo and passenger traffic, the overall

length of the railway network is also gradually de-

creasing. The railway lines currently in use in the

Pomorskie voivodship are limited to 1,308 km (den-

sity of 7.2 km/100 km

). The following railway lines

included in the Trans-European Transport Network

(TEN-T) run through the voivodship: line E-65

(Gdynia-Warszawa-Zebrzydowice), CE-65 (Katowi-

ce-Tczew) and Gdynia-Kaliningrad line. As com-

pared to other transport modes, rail transport fails to

be competitive. Railway lines and the rolling stock

suffer quick decapitalisation, and more and more re-

gional lines are being closed.

In recent years air transport in the Pomorskie voi-

vodship has been characterised by a rapid growth in

traffic. The Lech Walesa Airport in Gdansk plays a

dominant role in the handling of passengers. For ex-

ample, in 1991-2005 the volume of cargo doubled,

and the number of passengers carried increased al-

most eight times. Forecasts of increased air traffic

point to the need of extending the airport and putting

other airports in the voivodship into operation, not as

yet used by civil aviation, to serve as complementary

facilities. The voivodship authorities decided on sit-

uating such an airport in Gdynia – Babie Doły.

285

Finally, it should be mentioned that mere invest-

ment in transport is not enough to stimulate econom-

ic growth in the regions. There is a need for rational

strategies and regional programmes to include infra-

structure investments in a wider context (Parteka,

2007).

The support for regional development via EU in-

struments brings about improved territorial cohesion

of some areas, like Pomorskie region. At the same

time, there are also negative results of allocating the

European funds for the implementation of the objec-

tives set out by these policies, especially as regards

peripheral areas, which leads to neglecting certain

aspects, e.g. transport connections between metro-

politan areas, towns and villages.

5 CONCLUSIONS

1 Sustainable transport planning and development

is a great challenge for the EU, national and re-

gional authorities. Neglecting the development of

regional and local transport networks (e.g. via the

extension of trans-European networks) can be an

example of such a dilemma. Another problem is

excessive concentration of expenditure on infra-

structural objectives which are not properly

linked to other development measures or, for in-

stance, at the expense of innovation measures.

2 Two main dimensions of the EU transport policy,

i.e. reduced environmental pressures and sustain-

able mobility of human resources are significant

for other EU policies, e.g. with regard to im-

proved transport in cities and metropolitan areas

or support for the development of polycentric

networks.

3 Despite the declared willingness to pursue sus-

tainable development at the level of operational

documents drawn-up by the government admin-

istration, in Poland the most funds are allocated to

road infrastructure (national roads: 33.3%, mo-

torways: 16.6%). This is also the case in the Po-

morskie voivodship, although environment-

friendly projects are given more attention due to

the coastal location of the region. However, the

co-financing rate for infrastructure projects still

represents a significant obstacle. The EU contri-

bution of up to 75% (and in the case of some in-

vestments only 50%) may pose a major problem

to many potential beneficiaries within the region.

4 The case of Pomorskie coastal region proves that

it is necessary to diversify transport investments

in order to ensure sustainable development, which

could be fostered, inter alia, by integrated re-

gional public transport systems. Partnership based

on an extended and efficient institutional coop-

eration network, coordinated by voivodship gov-

ernments and covering local and regional authori-

ties, socio-economic partners, universities, busi-

ness organisations, non-governmental organisa-

tions, government institutions, as well as other

Polish and foreign regions and institutions, might

also prove helpful in the sustainable transport

planning and development implementation.

REFERENCES

Burnewicz J., Wizja struktury transportu oraz rozwoju sieci

transportowych do roku 2033 ze szczególnym uwzględnie-

niem docelowej struktury modelowej transportu,

http://www.mrr.gov.pl/NR/rdonlyres/, 2008-01-15, p. 5.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION EUROPE

2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive

growth Brussels, 3.3.2010, COM(2010) 2020 final.

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament, “Keep Europe moving – Sustainable

mobility for our continent. Mid-term review of the Europe-

an Commission’s 2001 Transport White Paper”, Commis-

sion of the European Communities, COM (2006) 314 final,

Brussels 2006.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parlia-

ment, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Strategic

goals and recommendations for the EU’s maritime transport

policy until 2018’, COM/2009/0008 final.

Communication from the Commission, ‘A sustainable Europe

for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustain-

able Development’, Brussels 15.05.2001, COM(2001)264

final.

Development Strategy for the Pomorskie Voivodeship– July

2005, www.woj-pomorskie.pl/downloads/ASRWP_tekst,

2007-08-09.

Dourojeanni, A. ‘Procedimientos de Gestión para el Desar-

rollo Sustentable: Aplicados a Microrregiones y Cuencas’,

Santiago: Instituto Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Planifi-

cación Económica y Social de las Naciones Unidas

(ILPES). Documento 89/05/Rev1., (1993).

EU funds for the Pomorskie Voivodship in 2007-2015,

www.mrr.gov.pl, 2008-10-31.

European Commission, ‘ENERGY AND TRANSPORT IN

FIGURES 2007’, Directorate-General for Energy and

Transport in co-operation with Eurostat, p. 8.

Gończ E., Ulf Skirke, Hermanes Kleinzen, Marcus Barber, In-

creasing the Rate of Sustainable Change: A Call for a Re-

definition of the Concept and the Model for its Implementa-

tion, ELSEVIER, Science Direct, Journal of Cleaner

Production 15 (2007)

Growing Regions, growing Europe. Fourth report on economic

and social cohesion, Communication from the European

Commission, May 2007.

Grzelakowski A. S. G., “European greener mobility”, Baltic

Transport Journal, (2008).

Grzelakowski A. S., Matczak M., Przybyłowski A., Polityka

transportowa Unii Europejskiej i jej implikacje dla syste-

mów transportowych krajów członkowskich, Publ. AM in

Gdynia, Gdynia 2008 (in press), p. 66.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_transport.shtml,

(2010-07-10).

http://mrr.gov.pl, 2011-02-01.

Networks for peace and development. Extension of the major

trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries

and regions, November 2005, www.eu.int/comm, (2007-02-

23).

286

Nijkamp, P, ‘Regional Sustainable Development and Natural

Resource Use. In World Bank Annual Conference on De-

velopment Economics’, Washington D.C., (1990).

Parteka T., Przemysły morskie i infrastruktura techniczna w

Strategii Rozwoju Województwa Pomorskiego do 2020 ro-

ku, (in:) A. S. Grzelakowski, K. Krośnicka (eds.), Przemy-

sły morskie w polityce regionalnej UE, Gdynia Maritime

University, Gdynia 2007

Ponthieu E., ‘European Economic and Social Committee

(EESC). Towards an integrated and coordinated sustainable

logistics and transport policy for Europe’. Roma, (19 June

2008), p.10.

Przybylowski A., European Union transport and cohesion poli-

cies in the context of rural development, Warsaw 2008.

Przybyłowski A., Zintegrowane podejście do polityki rozwoju

Unii Europejskiej – polityka spójności a polityka transpor-

towa, (in:) Grosse T., Galek A. (eds.), Zintegrowane podej-

ście do rozwoju. Rola polityki spójności, Ministry of Re-

gional Development, Warsaw, June 2008, pp. 119-158.

ROP (Regional Operational Programme) for the Pomorskie

Voivodship 2007-2013, Annex to Resolution of the Pomor-

skie Voivodship Executive Board No. 75/18/07), 5.02.2007

Territorial Agenda of the European Union. Towards a More

Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions,

Leipzig 2007.

The EU regional policy – overview,

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy, 13-01-2011.

World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED), ‘Our common future’, Oxford: Oxford University

Press, (1987), p. 43.