Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

INSTITUTE FOR SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT Brno, 3. 4. 2013 František Nantl Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "INSTITUTE FOR SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT Brno, 3. 4. 2013 František Nantl Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“,"— Presentation transcript:

1 INSTITUTE FOR SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT Brno, František Nantl Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest, Part: V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations

2 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations These principles are respected: The document contains a transport network, rail, road, Inland waterways to ports, sea ports and airports. At present, the problem was temporarily dropped airports because, when their solutions no-continuations, that could be discussed. Range transport infrastructure corresponds to the solution, which was adopted in the development of the first document in 2010 with changes that supplied individual states V4+2. No-continuations were narrowed the no-continuations already solved and you can check which remained as part of Annex 2. At the same time extended the no-continuations newly developed and identified from newly acquired or updated planning documents at national level (currently a new document - Poland /Koncepcja przestrzennego zagospodarowania kraju – further KPZK 2030/ and updated - Slovakia /KURS/). It has not been fully accepted draft document TEN-T revision since it was not implemented in the spatial development documents of states V4+2. Note: no-continuations already discussed bilaterally all states V4+2. Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest,

3 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations - railways Principles:  Kept all the existing international agreements TEN-T access, where possible (eg Poland) and TEN-T revision (missing VRT Poland-Katowice-Ostrava, Czech Republic), if it is in accordance Polish document KPZK 2030 with TEN-T revision UNECE agreements AGC and AGTC (failed to secure in the development of TEN-T specification revision of the TEN-T relationship and agreements ECE).  Continuity of no-continuations (remained single, and high-speed line /follow HSL/ from Hungary to Slovakia in Bratislava) Problems:  Fragmentation supplied GIS materials from various countries, particularly the identification of diversity in attribute tables that manifests itself? Inability to unite in the legend for the map into a single form, but this is desirable (to be solved either by mail or working group meeting).  Problem of identifying the likely emergence of no-continuations in solving VRT Wroclaw Poland-Czech Republic-Prague, which can not be read from a schematic representation (CR preferences through Liberec, Poland preference Klodsko).  In general, the problem of unsteady development and changes HSL corridors.  Preparation: TEN-T revision broken rail passenger and freight transport. 3Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest,

4 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations - railways Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest, Map of TEN-T revision status of the proposal in 3/2012 Rail passenger? (To note in the previous picture that the Polish document KPZK 2030 match (?) with a proposal for the TEN-T revision for high-speed lines (HSL) Source: TEN-T revision, 3/2012

5 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations - railways Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest, Problems markings in the legend (to unite):  Originally only three types of high-speed lines (HSL), broad and conventional, to add other (conventional)? (analogy to road transport).  Break down the existing, upgraded or modernized to VRT (according to the TEN-T revision) and planned new deal horizon 2030 and 2050?  Respond to the emergence of railway corridors - Regulation of the EP and the Council (EU), and a breakdown č.913/2010 TEN-T revision railway for passenger and freight transport? Prepared ÚÚR, 03/2013

6 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations - roads Principles: Kept all the existing international agreements TEN-T access, where possible (eg Poland) and TEN-T revision Continuity of no-continuations (there were three: Slovakia-Hungary; Štúrovo-Esztergom; Hungary-Romania; Békécsaba-Chişineu Criş a Romania-Bulgaria; Călăraşi-Shumen). Problems:  General (not only roads) in no-continuations, in which torque can be considered as a no-continuations resolved:  at the time of agreement on a bilateral meeting  at the time when the problem is transferred and approved? planning document in the relevant State in which the lack of identified?  in the substrate from Bulgaria are again other roads, where there is the Romanian-Bulgarian border no-continuations. Last time not used this time are mentioned in the barriers. enjoy it? Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest,

7 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations - roads Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest, Map V4 +2 cutout "Road network including a no-continuations" to the last point "problems." Again, there were other multinational road in Bulgaria (?) That cause no-continuations on the border with Romania. Are partially supported in Chapter barrier requirements for new bridges over the Danube. Take account of these other roads and their no-continuations? (The text part of E-G are not yet points will be added to the text in agreement with Bulgaria). Prepared ÚÚR, 03/2013

8 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations – inland waterways Principles: Kept all the existing international agreements TEN-T access, where possible (eg Poland) and TEN-T revision. Nově identifikovány nenávaznosti díky polskému dokumentu KPZK 2030, kde je nastíněn rozvoj vnitrozemských vodních cest a jejich rozdělení podle plavebních tříd (viz mapka z KPZK 2030). Problems:  The TEN-T revision substantial part of the waterways in Central Europe was not renewed, currently ongoing effort of the Czech Republic in the EU lobbying waterways in the Czech Republic, some plans in the map, but then weighs only deal AGN (signatories Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia – no-ratified), Poland is a no signatory, is to consider whether this agreement is in V4 +2 not operate.  The problem with these no-continuations in the case of Poland (see map KPZK 2030 does not take place at the border, but in the interior, has a significant impact on the viability of projects in neighboring countries (ČR, SR).  The question is whether considered as a no-continuations when KPZK the 2030 horizon 2030, but the intent DOL nenastatane until after  The question is how to build a document TEN-T revision, which in waterways has Comprehensive Network (2050) defined a general. Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest,

9 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations – inland waterways Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest, Cut-out maps of waterways KPZK 2030 from Poland shows that about km navigable rivers Oder has a regional character (at least class IV below. Given the recent improvement of the navigability of the river with flood control measures along the river, where there is an increase in IV. navigability class Oder in Poland, which affect the decision of intent DOL. Source: KPZK 2030, arr. ÚÚR, 3/2013

10 V4+2, Transport network and the solve of their no-continuations – inland waterways Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“, Budapest, Cut TEN-T revision documenting the status and intentions of waterways in the EU, the navigability of the Elbe extension to Pardubice in the Czech Republic, apparently incorrectly listed navigability scale in international class IV. to Žilina, Slovakia, according to other documents should be carried out in the years Poland excluding the section following on canal in Germany are not represented. Source: TEN-T revision, 3/2012 arr.: ÚÚR 3/2013


Download ppt "INSTITUTE FOR SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT Brno, 3. 4. 2013 František Nantl Steering Committee for „Common spatial development document of the V4+2 countries“,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google