ࡱ> 5@bjbj22 1XX*p X@***>f$f$f$8$<$L>z2%2%(Z%Z%Z%Z%(&<d& zzzzzzz$|R~3z]*1Z%Z%113z**Z%Z%z7771*Z%*Z% z71 z727B8 t**MyZ%&% C鷅f$44 u6y4z0z#v*T6lMy>>*****My&)*7+r-&&&3z3z>>d"6>>"Transition Countries Transport Policies versus EU-Enlargement S. Steinera, , J. Bozicevicb and D. Badanjaka a University of Zagreb, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering Vukeliceva 4, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia b Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts Zrinjski trg 11, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia Abstract: According to the new Transport Strategy Draft, which has been prepared within the Governmental project Croatia in 21st Century (English version of document is available on URL: www.croatia21.hr), development guidelines of the Croatian transport system have been articulated through key aspects of policy institutional and legal issues, infrastructure and management issues. Main problems can be recognized in legal insufficiency, administration management as well as in commercial management in public sector. Strategic guidelines are directed toward full adopting of international, particular EU standards in national transport regulations, strict separation of regulatory and operational functions as well as governmental measures for free market strengthening in transport sector, primarily through commercialisation and privatisation of state-owned companies. Till now Transport Strategy proposal failed to be apply by Government because of political reasons. The trend of favouring the capital investments into road infrastructure is continuing through the project of progressive construction of motorways, and the inadequate investment policy is accompanied also by intensified regime of fuel taxes, which tends to be maximally eliminated in the development concepts of EU from the aspect of internalisation of external costs. The transport policy in Croatia is in continuo marked by inconsistency and branch fragmentation without development concept and comprehensive goals and is exclusively based on public financial sources (budget). Key Words: Transport Strategy; Transport Policy; Transport Infrastructure; Transport Management; Transport Legislation; External Costs 1 Introduction Croatia belongs to the group of transition countries with the imperative of structural political and economic reforms. Strategic orientation to achieve the standards of the West European countries made additionally complex due to several years of war in the country. The European countries differ, in principle, to a great extent according to the level of transport development, as well as according to the priorities of development plans. On one side, there are the countries of the European Union with developed transport systems, and on the other side there are the transition countries with lower potential of transport infrastructure, especially regarding its qualitative dimension, and with the priority tasks of institutional re-organisation of the government sector of transport infrastructure management. An aggravating circumstance in the process of economic, and then also of transport integration into the EU system, is the heritage of incompatible regulations and inertia in the changing of traditional routine of centralised planning system which had not been based on the principles of commercial management. Therefore, structural reforms are necessary, which in the transport sector concretely mean separation of the government regulatory function from the operational function (infrastructure and services), which requires legal frameworks for transition from the public into the private sector. In the sense of institutional re-organisation and of the normative harmonisation, the transition countries need to accept new regulations - laws and bylaws, which would adopt the international technical and technological standards, and primarily legal EU references. This is a process, which depends not only on the political will, but is rather time dictated by financial and human resources for preparation and implementation. The main barriers to the integration of the national transport systems of the transition countries into the common European transport system, i.e. into the international traffic flows can be generalised in the following issues: the structure of regulators and administration personnel, legal issues non-compliant regulations, financial issues free market, commercialisation/privatisation In creating and realising the strategic guidelines of transport development on the national levels, as well as in the preparation of the connecting programs, the provision of expert and technical support of the relevant European transport associations and supervision process are of extreme importance. This refers primarily to the re-structuring of the national regulators and the adequate profiling of the administration staff, as well as the implementation of the EU regulations. The transport policy in Croatia: shows inconsistency and fragmentation by transport branches; has no clear development concepts at the system level; has no comprehensive objectives and consideration of real conditions; is exclusively based on financial sources of public sector (government budget). There is a lack of inter-departmental co-operation and co-ordination of regulative measures in the key issues, primarily of the legal, tax and social politics, as well as a lack of solving critical issues of: restructuring the unprofitable state companies in the transport sector, irrational management of transport infrastructure, absence of equal market conditions for all transport branches, failure to apply the principles of traffic management by demand induction, failure to determine the external transport costs (and failure to undertake any reduction measures), failure to use the scientific potential. The problem of legal regulations refers to non-compliant regulations in the process of economic transition (transition to the free market) and in realising the strategic objective of joining the European Union (lack of co-ordination with the EU regulations). In the attempts to separate the regulatory and operative functions, the newly founded public companies, i.e. companies with limited liability, primarily owned by the state (Croatia Control, Croatian Roads, Croatian Railways etc.) have been left without the commercial management (in managerial functions political references are valued more than professional qualifications), and at the same time the regulatory domain of the authorities within the respective ministry has been reduced. Apart from the obvious differences in the development of transport branches, the main characteristic in the analysis of infrastructure construction level is the overcapacity compared to the traffic demand. On the other side, qualitative aspects, expressed in the service level and exploitation characteristics are far from satisfactory. 2 European Transport Policy Overview In 1992 the European Commission approved the White Paper with the provisions of the Common Transport Policy of the European Union. Assessing the negative impact of the previous unbalanced transport development, based exclusively on the demand criteria, the approach of intermodality i.e. planning an integrated transport system, has been applied in setting the objectives of the EU Common Transport Policy. These objectives can be generalised as follows: forming of a Trans-European network, fair pricing in transport, environmental protection, transport safety, social cohesion, stronger internal market, and stronger external dimension of a single market. In 1995 the European Commission accepted the action programme of transport development up to the year 2000, which more or less successfully provided the basis to all the strategic development objectives of the EU transport sector. Numerous reports and final documents related to undertaken activities and their results, as well as proposals for follow-up activities, actualise the discussions about the key elements of the common transport development strategy among the member countries and represent the frame of the future legislation. Significant advances were achieved in intensifying the internal market for transport activities; in integration of transport systems within the Trans-European Transport Network, in creating compatible transport management systems, in implementing intelligent transport systems; promotion of transport sector intermodality and best practice in local and regional passenger transit and in improvement of safety in all transport branches. Improvements are present also in the concept and use of transport related research at the EU level; in the shift in attitude towards environmental protection as a component of transport policy and in aspects of transport connections with the Central and East European countries. A problematic field, where no consensus among the member countries has been achieved yet, and which is slowing down the process of solving the problem, refers to the issue of pricing related to infrastructure and the external costs. The European Commission has therefore accepted the White Paper about a phase-approach to the concept of pricing for the common transport infrastructure in the European Union. In spite of declared readiness by EU members, the implementation of guidelines of the Common Transport Policy regarding investment policy at national levels has not been realised (excluding the 14 Essen TEN projects), so that the investment structure is 65% in roads, 25% in railways and 10% in other branches (1999). About 10% of the EU road network suffers from daily congestion, about 20% or railway network are described as bottlenecks, 16 main international airports report delays of more than 15 minutes on 30% of flights and consequently extra fuel consumption of 6% of the total annual consumption. Therefore, there is a requirement for a more consistent approach to the planned development goals, especially in the context of EU enlargement and the threatening growth of traffic demand. The new White Paper of the European Committee proposes a package of 60 specific measures of the transport policy as instruments to implement the principal guidelines of railway revitalisation, quality improvement in road transport sector, promotion of water transport, intermodality achievement, Trans-European transport network upgrading, safety improvement, effective infrastructure charging, users' rights and obligations, high quality urban transport, functional R&T, globalisation effects management and environmental objectives for sustainable transport system. Central and East Europe countries are in the process of political and economic transition and they tend towards joining the European Union, which shows its interest for partnership through various instruments of technical and financial assistance in their economic restructuring, and in balancing the legal framework of integration. From the aspect of application in the transport sector, the most important are PHARE and ISPA instruments, as well as new CARDS program. With the aim of establishing more efficient infrastructure systems and gradual catching up with the transport standards of Western Europe, under the authority of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), a new multimodal network of Pan-European transport corridors was defined at the Conferences on Transport (Prague 1991, Crete 1994, Helsinki 1997). In 1996 the European Commission initiated the Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) project with the aim of stimulating development of a multimodal transport network in EU accession candidate countries, and of defining the future Trans-European transport infrastructure network in the expanded European Union. At the end of 1999 the TINA project was completed, and the final document estimated the necessary investments for the period between 1998 and 2006 at about 87 billion . The image of the enormous needs in the transport sector of the EU accession countries is supplemented by the data that direct investments in the transport infrastructure through PHARE programme in the period from 1990 to 1998 amounted to 905.4mill. . The development and the density of road network as well as the system of its maintenance in the majority of transition countries are not at a satisfactory level. According to the PHARE programme data for the year 1999, there are significant differences in quantitative and qualitative dimension of the road network among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) and the countries of the European Union (EU). Length and density of motorways network in the CEEC amount to 2,850 km and 2.7 kilometres per 1000 square kilometres, respectively. For comparison, in EU countries they amount to 51,336 kilometres and 15.8 kilometres per 1000 square kilometres, respectively. The characteristics of the existing railway lines are obsolete technical parameters. The data from the PHARE programme confirm substantial differences in the quality of the railway infrastructure and in the level of transportation services between countries of the Central and Eastern Europe and the EU countries. Length and density of railway network in the CEEC amounts to 65,400 kilometres and 60.6 kilometres per 1000 square kilometres, respectively. For comparison, length and density of railway network in EU countries amount to 152,723 kilometres and 46.0 kilometres per 1000 square kilometres, respectively. Transition countries lack a developed modern multimodal transport. Therefore the need for multimodal and integral operation of the transport network was stressed at the Pan-European Conference on Transport i.e. a need for intermodal options of the existing infrastructure usage, mainly combined/integral transport. While developed EU countries are redefining their national policies of transport development towards stimulating demand for environmentally friendlier transport modes i.e. reducing the demand for road motor transport, and while they are introducing instruments of various operative restrictions in roads usage in order to compensate the external costs, national plans of transport development in transition countries focus precisely on investments into road transport infrastructure. This is confirmed by the data on PHARE-funds distribution for financing the transport development programme of individual transition countries according to which 52% of the funds are allocated to roads, 32.4% for railway, 3% for air transport, and 0.5% for waterway transport. The estimated costs of the proposed transport infrastructure development measures of the EU accession countries in the period between 1998 and 2006, according to the data from the final report of the TINA project also match the distribution regarding transport modes - 53% of total funds are planned for the roads, 36.1% for railway, 4.8% for air transport and airports and 2.3% for water transport and river ports. 3 National Transport Strategy Goals Strategic goals of the transport development in Croatia should be: Full integration into the Trans-European transport network Fair charging in transport Better environmental protection Improvement of transport safety Social cohesion Stronger transport market. The expression should be is stated because new Transport Strategy Draft, prepared by the team of fourthy transport scientists and experts within the Governmental project Croatia in 21st Century, has not been accepted yet. In meantime Croatian Government has undertook action of progressive new motorways construction, which is completely in contradiction with proposed strategic priorities. Till 2008 Croatia would have road network of about 1,370 kilometres motorways and semi-motorways. Program of motorways construction 2001-2005 predicts construction of 450 kilometres motorways and 81 kilometres semi-motorways, which is more than motorways length constructed in past thirty years. From 2005 to 2008 a construction of new 373 kilometres motorways and 61 kilometres semi-motorways has been planed. This also collide with measures for economic reform and growth in Croatia, which has been proposed 2000 by World Bank experts. The construction and contracting construction of full profile motorways is financially unfeasible from the aspect of current and expected demand, regarding also the interest of private sector to invest. The motorway programme has foreseen the construction of about 330 kilometres new motorways until 2002, with estimated costs of 1.85 billion US dollars and the additional 1,200 kilometres by the year 2013, with estimated costs of 4.63 billion US dollars. Such WB statement as well as opinion of Croatian transport experts is clear to understand if its well known that road traffic density in Croatia is small, with only 120 kilometres roads passed by 15 thousand vehicles per day. In 2001 the special fuel taxes has been introduced for motorway and road construction in amount of about 0.15 euros per litre. No other transport branch is free of these taxes, what is striking example of actual governmental approach to fair payment for infrastructure use. The economic situation and investment capability of the government, as well as comprehensive goals of transport development dictate the principle of intermodality in the concept of transport network development. Regarding the current lack of balance in the level of development of transport branches, this means in fact increased investments into the transport infrastructure of the railway, combined and water transport. The main international transport corridors through Croatia are being determined in order to systematise the guidelines of transport infrastructure development within the integrated transport network, as the backbone of the goal-oriented transport planning of all the transport branches and transport modes, as well as transport hubs and terminals: Corridor X: (SLO) Bregana-Zagreb-Slavonski Brod-Lipovac-Beograd (YU) Branch XA: (A) Graz-Maribor-Zagreb Branch VB: (H) Budapest-Zagreb-Rijeka Branch VC: (H) Budapest-Osijek-Sarajevo-Plo e Corridor VII: the Danube waterway system. In the long-term development concept with the existing international corridors through Croatia, the importance of single transport routes (infrastructure) needs to be evaluated in the long-term development of the European (international) transport network, and their integration into the Pan-European transport system recommended. This refers to the potentially new international transport corridor and extensive branches of the existing corridors: Adriatic - Ionian corridor Branch VB1: Rijeka-Koper-Trieste Branch VB2: Zagreb-Split (-Dubrovnik) While planning the polycentric development of the internal transport network, mainly in the urban and suburban transport, the alternatives to road motor transport should be stimulated (non-motorised transport, high speed railways) and the transfer of demand from individual to public transport. The competitiveness of transport services on the international and domestic market should be insured by restructuring the public sector of infrastructure and transportation with appropriate legal and administrative assumptions for commercialisation and privatisation of state-owned companies: Croatian Airlines, Croatian Railways, Croatian Roads, Croatian Post, airports, ports, etc. The development objective is the efficient transport sector management. Here, the establishment of an integrated information environment is essential, using transport policy instruments to insure at all levels the widest introduction of modern systems of recording, counting, monitoring of relevant phenomena (traffic flows speed, density, environmental levels). At the managerial level it is necessary to establish an information centre for collecting, processing and distribution of relevant data, standardisation in introducing information technology in the operational activities, as well as implementation of intelligent transport systems (especially in traffic flows management). The development objectives also include the overall improvement of traffic safety. It should be achieved through complex transport policy instruments, implicitly enabling also the reduction of external costs related to transport safety. Achieving the goals of transport development assumes regulatory autonomy of the transport department and consistent inter-department co-operation, in order to insure efficiency in the key aspects of regulative policy, traffic management, investment policy, tax policy and pricing, physical planning and social policy. 4 Supporting Mechanisms Strategic transport planning and modelling of the transport policy has to be under the exclusive authority of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Communication. This requires also organisation of transport policy (and international relations) authority, which should be the moderator of strategic plans (dynamic programs, action measures). Transport policy authority should treat transport at the level of the system and dictate the framework of activities to the branch authorities (for railway, road, water, air, sea and other transport modes). Such organisation requires professional improvement of the Ministry, which has to have certain advanced analytic and statistic sector. Regulations (legislation, control and sanction) within department authorities have to be insured (by organisation, equipment and personnel) for all the operational segments (infrastructure, transportation etc.). The guidelines of the necessary legislative changes result from the status of Croatia in the process of political and economic transition, as well as the strategic goal of integration into the European Union. Two levels of necessary legislative adjustment in transport sector can be generalised: by establishing the framework of transition to the free market system with controlled influence on the transport infrastructure management (structural reforms) by harmonising the national transport sector with the EU regulations, primarily regarding institutional and legal aspects of regulators, and technical as well as safety standards of exploitation. In order to realise the strategic guidelines of transport development by legal instruments the following has to be solved in the first place: fair definition of costs incurred by the use of infrastructure (internalisation of external costs) commercialisation/privatisation of service providers providing operators' competitiveness preventing monopoly tax policy and pricing in compliance with the strategic goals of sustainable development of the transport system on the principles of integrity and intermodality involving private sector into the investment programs of the transport infrastructure. The establishment of legal framework for a more progressive development of the railway, water, combined and sustainable development of urban (public) transport should contribute to the concentration and improvement of regulatory function of the transport department, determining of financial instruments (investment policy) and program development approach, with the necessary introduction of the institution of responsibility for the realisation of the development programs. The introduction of the institution of responsibility is extremely important for the implementation of the development programs and strategic documents. The experience shows that the previous concrete suggestions for solutions, and even the whole strategic documents (e.g. Transport Development Strategy), which had passed full Parliament procedure of acceptance, as well as certain important legally stipulated conditions (e.g. legal deadlines for accepting sub-legal documents) have not been implemented due to the failure of assigning responsibility to those who had been entrusted with implementation. The introduction of the institution of responsibility would at the same time contribute to the solving of the problem of unrealistic development planning and inadequate legal drafting. In this sense, the logic of the already determined postulates of harmonising transport legislative in the process of EU integration should be followed: by transposition of the required conditions in the transport department (transport aquis communautaire) into the national legislative system; by their implementation through determining the institutions and appropriations for the drafting and accepting of legal and sub-legal regulations; by their enforcement through determining the control and sanction mechanisms necessary to insure integral and consequent implementation of the accepted regulations. 5 Summary and Outlook According to the assumptions of common transport policy of EU, as well as the ECMT strategy of sustainable transport development, the main guidelines of complementary transport policy should be: target planning and managing of traffic flows, reduction of the harmful influence of transport on the environment, improved transport safety, increased efficiency of transport system, compensation for consequences of deregulation and liberalisation of the transport market. Some of mentioned guidelines, especially those related to environmental protection, seem to be insensitive to the criteria of satisfying the real transport demand, but in the long run they ensure optimal integration of transport sector into the national and international frames of progressive economic development. Economic justification of implementing the planned goals of transport policy is based on the estimate of the amount of external transport costs, which is in Croatia, due to the low quality transport system, certainly greater than the average at the EU level. Realisation of transport policy goals assumes consistent co-operation of transport and other government departments in order to ensure the efficiency of transport policy instruments in the key aspects: regulative policy, transport management, investment policy, tax policy and price policy, physical/urban planning, social policy. Apart from capital investments in environmentally friendly transport infrastructure, the transport policy at the national level can additionally stimulate these transport modes by various mechanisms - e.g. by subsidising and through benefits, but also by higher taxes on road vehicles, which is a significant method of compensation for external costs of road transport, and by expansion of the toll charging and higher tolls on road infrastructure. References [1] Common Transport Policy Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future, COM (98)716. [2] Competitive and sustainable growth programme UNITE UNIfication of Accounts and Marginal Costs for Transport Efficiency, Deliverable 5, Pilot accounts Results for Germany and Switzerland, ITS University of Leeds, 2002. [3] ECMT Sustainable Transport Policies, 2000. [4] European Commission Green Paper Towards Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport Policy Options for Internalising the External Costs of Transport in the European Union, COM (95)691. [5] European Commission High Level Group on Transport Infrastructure Charging Final Report on Estimating Transport Costs, 1999. [6] European Commission High Level Group on Transport Infrastructure Charging Final Report on Options for Charging Users Directly for Transport Infrastructure Operating Costs, 1999. [7] European Commission White Paper Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use: A Phased Approach to Common Transport Infrastructure Charging Framework in EU, COM (98)466. [8] European Commission White Paper European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, COM(01)370. [9] External costs of transport Accident, Environmental and Congestion Costs in Western Europe. INFRAS/IWW, University of Karlsruhe, Zrich/Karlsruhe, 2000. [10] S. Steiner, B. Galovic, B. Popovic: Segments of Croatian Transport Strategy Draft with Regard to Air Traffic. 18th Annual JAA/FAA International Conference, Conference Materials Package, Geneva, (Switzerland), June 4-8, 2001, 13 p. [11] S. Steiner, J. Bozicevic, A. Brkic: Croatian Transport Strategy Draft. Air Traffic Control Association, 46th International Technical Conference ATCA 2001: Improving Capacity and Efficiency, Conference Proceedings, Washington (USA), November 4-8, 2001, p. 223-227. [12] S. Steiner, D. Badanjak, J. Bozicevic: External Transport Costs as Element of Planning Policy. St. Petersburg University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 5th International Conference "Traffic Safety Management for Big Cities", St.Petersburg (Russia), September 19-20, 2002, 7 p. [13] Transport Infrastructure in the European Union and Central European Countries 1990-1999, Statistic in focus, Transporttheme 7-4-02, Eurostat, 2002.  E-mail: ssteiner@fpz.hr, URL: www.fpz.hr Green Paper - Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport policy options for internalising the external cost of transport in the European Union (COM/95/691).  White Paper Fair payment for infrastructure use: a phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging in the EU (COM/98/466).  Source: EXTRA/THEMATIC PAPER 2 Sustainable mobility-economic aspects, 2001.  White paper European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide, European Commission, 2001.  PHARE - Poland Hungary Aid for the Reconstruction of the Economy. Program of financial support provided by the European Union, initially intended for economic reconstruction of Poland and Hungary, and later extended to the transition countries of Central and East Europe. Substantial amount of the funds (about 11.5%) was directed to the development and harmonisation of transport systems. Since 2000 PHARE has been supplemented in the EU accession procedure by the projects ISPA and SAPARD (Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development). PHARE budget for 2000 is 1.56 billion Euros.  ISPA The Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accesion. Financial support to EU accession candidates, intended exclusively for infrastructure projects in the field of transport and ecology. ISPA budget for 2000 is 1.04 billion Euros.  CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation. Finance assistance for five countries (Albania, B&H, Croatia, FYRoM, FRY) has been agreed with budget of 4.65 billion for period 2000-2006.  According to the TEM Informative 2000 data, the network density does not exceed 1.0 km public roads per 1 km2 of area, i.e. 5-10 km of motorways and expressways per 1000 km2 of area or 3-5 km perIJKLM[\]lmopq( , 6 BDO F"**~++,,..y2oaaaajhwp0JUmH sH ,hwp5CJKHOJQJ\^JaJmH sH hwpCJOJQJ^JmH sH h-mH sH hwpH*mH sH hwp hwpH*hwpCJH*OJQJ^Jhwp5\mH sH !jhwp0J5U\mH sH hwp5H*OJQJ\mH sH hwp0J5CJ\mH sH hwpmH sH &>?no ( ) * + , 8 oBCD @`*{Ԧ@al,Vz{Vw1|    & F hh^h & F h^h & F hh^h F"k"l"4$Y$t$$$$$$%%')+,-00%22 48;> & F hh^h y2z22222R9T9;;??MBCEER?S?8AMBCDDUDDDDDDEEF>HJoKLL*NOgdK!` & Fh^h & Fh^h  d1$7$8$H$*H+H;HHKHLHNHOHrHHHHIIJJJJJJJJJJJK@KEKcKdKoKxKտ{phpp`Uh-h`mH sH hNmH sH hY+mH sH h-h-mH sH !jh-h30JUmH sH h-hnmH sH h-h3mH sH  h-h3hH h-hwph-h]j!mH sH *jh-hy0JB*UmH phsH h-h]j!B*mH phsH h-hnB*mH phsH hNB*mH phsH !xKKKKL L LLLL!L(L0L2L8LZ?ZsZZ]]_껴yqhRmH sH jh~ 0JUmH sH hP5mH sH hP5hwpOJQJmH sH hwpH*mH sH hwpmH sH hwp h]j!hS hw1hP5OJQJ^JmH sH h-h-mmH sH hNmH sH h-hpmH sH h-h`mH sH h-hP5mH sH ,OOO(PPPP.SISjSSST9VXYY[1[2[^__  & F hh^hgdK d1$7$8$H$ & F hh^h__Haacc~egh-ijj kkkkllllln!o,o.r/rrssssstttuuuuvhwowwwVx^xxxhyiy찢쏄쏄xhwpOJQJmH sH hwpH*\mH sH hwp\mH sH hwpCJmH sH hwpB*CJmH phsH hwpB*mH phsH h-mH sH h,=mH sH h-h]j!hS}mH sH hwphwpOJQJmH sH hwpmH sH hwpmH nHsH tH/_`HaIaa:bobbbJccc~egh-iiPjj k kgdS} & F hh^hgdK d1$7$8$H$ & F hh^h``` & F hh^h kkkBl]lllln!ooop'pDp]plpmp.r/r:r;rrrss & F hh^h & F hh^hgdKsssutvtttuu^v_vvvhwiwVxXxhyiyzz){*{U{{||4}` hiyyyzzzezgzzzzzzz'{){*{+{4{E{I{T{U{V{{{||||4}5}vxRT҃ԃcd*,}~´hY+B*phh]j!hY+B*phU hY+H* hY+CJhY+jhY+0JUhwpB*CJmH phsH hwpB*mH phsH hwpmHnHsH uhwpH*mH sH hwp@RHemH sH hwpRHemH sH hwpmH sH 44}vcӦԦ&`#$gd3 100,000 inhabitants.  Data source: Transport in Figures, European Commission, DG TREN; Eurostat.  In the structure of capital investments in 14 priority TEN projects, 80% is intended for railway lines, and 9% for railway-road connections.  Program of motorway construction, Croatian Highway Ltd; Ministry of public works, reconstruction and contruction, Press Center, July 2003.  Data from Program of Measures for Economic Reform and Growth in Croatia, World Bank International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, February 2000.  Curent transport planning and policy is concentrate exclusively on motorways construction program in direct ingerency of Ministry of public works, reconstruction and construction. PAGE 10 PAGE 11 ~ҦӦԦզۦܦަߦƼ뼶ƣhwpmH sH h 0JmHnHu hY+0JjhY+0JUh h~ h~ mHsHh~ mHsHh~ jh~ 0JUhY+jhY+0JU hyhY+/ 01h. A!"#$n%C "F@F Normal$a$CJ_HaJmHsHtH`@` Heading 1$$<@&a$5CJKH OJQJ\^JaJ h@h Heading 2$$<@&a$%5CJOJQJ\]^JaJmH sH \@\ Heading 3$$<@&a$5CJOJQJ\^JaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List : @: Footer$ p#a$:)@: Page Number CJOJQJL&@L Footnote ReferenceCJH*OJQJV>@"V Title$<@&a$5CJ*KHOJQJ\^JaJ @O2@ Autoren$a$5CJOJQJ2B@B2 Body TextCJRORR Institution `CJOJQJ^JmH sH 8Ob8 Abstract CJOJQJD@rD  Footnote Text$a$CJaJ:P@: Body Text 2mH sH 4Oq4 Fuzeile2$a$VOV 1. Fuzeile  p#CJOJQJ^JmHsH4@4 Header  p#LOAL Referenzen h|^`|@O@ Paragraph5CJOJQJ\^J<O< Erklrung$a$CJ\6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*phpOp liter_nast" $d(1$7$8$H$a$ CJOJQJ_HaJmHsHtH PC@P Body Text Indent !``` mH sH tH L"~#$&y***/15<>@>Oz +] i]>f z>?no()*+,8oBCD @ a l,Vz{Vw1|  Fkl4Yt!#$%((%** ,/14R5S587M89::U::::::;;<>>@oABB*DEEEFBFlFmF.HIHjHHHI9KMNNP1P2PSTTUHVIVV:WoWWWJXXX~Z\]-^^P__ ` ```Ba]aaaac!ddde'eDe]eleme.g/g:g;ggghhhhuiviiijj^k_kkkhlilVmXmhninoo)p*pUppqq4rtuhvCwwxxJyzz zzzzzz z0h0000000000000000000p0000p0p0p0p0p0p00p 0 0p 0000 0 0 0 00h 0 0 0 0 0 0p0p000p0p0p0 0p 0p 0p 0 0 0 0000000p0p0p0p00p0p00h0p00000000 00000 08 08 08 08 08 08!080h0808080@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@0 0@ 0 00p0p0H00H00H0H0P0P0P0P 0P 0P0P0P 0P 0 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P0X000 0h 0X 0X0X0X0X 0X 0 0` 0 00`0`0`0p 0 0 0 0` 0 00`0`0p0`0`0h0`0`0`0h0h0h000h0h0h0000h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0 @0p@0@0@0@0@0p@0@0@0@08@0@0p@0@0p0T١@0@0@0@0@0@000ޡ<>>BHIMN*phvCwwxx zO900^@7T0O900O900(_O900Oy00Oy00 01dOy00Ԫ,Oy00Oy00O?Oy00 01<֡y2*HxK_iy~BGIJLPT@ >O_ ks4}CEFHKMNOQD !! _Ref512662087 _Toc498702486 _Toc498741447 _Toc498746954 _Toc498748520 _Toc502524125OCRUncertain146F;;;;;Uo zjPPPPPVo z7d5CL#e5C#f5CԒ!g5C&#h5C N"i5C|!j5Cty!k5C| "l5Cd!m5C"n5C\o5C"p5Cq5C;"r5CR"s5Co!t5C!u5CTQ#v5CX#w5C "x5C!y5C)"z5C!{5C {#|5C3"}5C@#~5CLA#5C\"5CDJ#5C5C##5C##5Cl"#5C!#5C#5C5C$m"5C5C =5C"5C"5C#5C"5C#5C?#5C'#5C%#5C|$#5C!#5C#5CD#5C"5CD"5C!5C#qq 2B:B:<<AATFFF.HHH T Tccl6l6lDl)m)m2m2m@m6n6nBnBnHngogopop z      !"#$%'&()*+,-./0123456{''2I:I:<<AAZFFF6HHHTTcc(l@lMlMl/m/m=m=mNm@n@nEnEnZnmomoop z   !"#$%'&()*+,-./012345697*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=6*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=5*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate83*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB2*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState  1119200120024679DayMonthYear765732756732727272727727272772773727277657372   772   72      BJR\dm   yO \ ''44k;;;<>>O>P>>>>CEEEEEEE FF,FAFUHiHHIIJJM>>B)D*DEHII8K9KMUUJXSX~Z\],^P_R_ ``aaac]ecekk*lfllUmno*p,pTpVpppqqqq3r6rttuugvjvBwEwwwx!xxxIyLyyzz z3333333333333333334Y:;.HjH:WWBa]ad'eDeme/gWs \9vֆVU{ ٸpNR"\(S&ЅE/VNJ ;HBa(HR\.:RR\MT  \X! P](d $drZ29g?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fฎ鷅1TableVWordDocument1SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q