DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Summary / Performance Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Summary / Performance Evaluation The preparation of supplementary documentation necessary for the grant of support of the European Regional Development Fund regarding the construction of development of highway no. 62 sections between M8 (new Danube-bridge) and Székesfehérvár Application for Grant Annex No. IV/A: Environmental summary / Performance evaluation Budapest, September 2013 Transinvest - Budapest Kft. Kereskedelmi Iroda 1106 Budapest Telefon: 252 1577 Cégjegyzékszám: 01-09-063800 Fehér út 10. Fax: 252 3577 Mérnök Iroda Fővárosi Bíróság Cégbírósága Postacím: [email protected] Építő Iroda 1581 Budapest, Pf. 96. www.transinvest.hu Adószám: 10322837-2-42 Made by: Vibrocomp Kft. Dr. Pálné Bite E-mail: [email protected] Mobile phone: 06-30-940-1285 Environmental engineer MMK ID: 01-0193 SZKV-zr Expert in noise- and vibration protection SZKV-le Expert in air purity protection and environmental protection SZKV-vf Expert in water- and geological medium protection SZKV-hu Expert in waste management and environmental protection OKTVF ID: Sz-035/2009 SZTjV Landscape protection SZTV Biota protection Mr. Szabolcs Silló Geographer specialized in Tract development and Community development MMK ID: 13-13573 SZKV-1.4. Expert in noise- and vibration protection SZKV-1.2. Expert in air purity protection SZKV-1.3. Expert in water- and geological medium protection SZKV-1.1. Expert in waste management OKTVF ID: Sz-036/2009 SZTjV Landscape protection Mr. Szabolcs Nerpel Engineer specialised in Geographic information systems Ms. Tímea Bencsik Engineer of Landscape Architecture Ms. Éva Ruckerbauer Engineer of Landscape Architecture Mr. Attila Gergely Biologist OKTVF ID: Sz-013/2008 SZTjV Landscape protection SZTV Biota protection TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 6 1. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 21 1.1. MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION ................................................................ 21 1.2. THE EXTENT OF THE TASK AND THE EXAMINED DOCUMENTS ................................. 22 1.3. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................ 24 1.4. NECESSITY OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................. 24 1.5. TECHNICAL VERSIONS CONSIDERED ................................................................... 27 2. LEGISLATION AND DESIGN BACKGROUND ................................................... 30 2.1. RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION .......................................................... 30 2.1.1. Overview ................................................................................................ 30 2.1.2. Geological medium and the quality of under-the-surface waters ..... 30 2.1.3. Quality of surface waters ...................................................................... 31 2.1.4. Nature conservation .............................................................................. 31 2.1.5. Noise and vibration ............................................................................... 32 2.1.6. Air quality ............................................................................................... 34 2.2. APPLIED RULES OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION PROCESSES ............................................................................................................ 35 2.2.1. Environmental authorization ................................................................ 35 2.2.2. Construction authorization ................................................................... 38 2.3. CURRENT STATUS OF PERMITS ........................................................................... 41 2.3.1. Environmental decisions and information of the public .................... 41 2.3.2. Construction permits and information of the public .......................... 43 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED PROJECT ....................................... 45 3.1. MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ...................................................................... 45 3.2. TRAFFIC FORECAST .......................................................................................... 50 3.3. MAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULES .............................................. 51 3.4. OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 52 4. PRESENT STATUS OF THE ENVIRONMENT .................................................... 52 4.1. TOPOGRAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, GEOHYDROLOGIC AND SOIL CONDITIONS..................... 52 4.2. SURFACE WATERS ............................................................................................ 53 4.2.1. Hydrographical characteristics ............................................................ 53 4.2.2. Water drainage solutions ...................................................................... 54 4.3. HABITAT, FLORA AND FAUNA, NATURA 2000 ...................................................... 62 4.4. LANDSCAPE ..................................................................................................... 69 4.5. BUILT ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 70 4.6. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 73 4.7. NOISE AND VIBRATION....................................................................................... 78 4.8. WASTES .......................................................................................................... 80 5. STUDY OF IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 81 5.1. CONSTRUCTION PHASE ..................................................................................... 81 5.1.1. Geologic medium and sub-surface water ........................................... 81 5.1.2. Surface waters ....................................................................................... 81 Performance evaluation 4. 5.1.3. Habitat, flora and fauna, Natura 2000 .................................................. 82 5.1.4. Landscape .............................................................................................. 83 5.1.5. Built environment .................................................................................. 84 5.1.6. Air quality ............................................................................................... 86 5.1.7 Noise and vibration protection .............................................................. 86 5.1.8. Wastes and hazardous materials ......................................................... 87 5.2. OPERATION PHASE ........................................................................................... 88 5.2.1. Geologic medium and sub-surface water ........................................... 88 5.2.2. Surface waters ....................................................................................... 88 5.2.3. Habitats, flora and fauna ....................................................................... 89 5.2.4. Landscape .............................................................................................. 91 5.2.5. Built environment .................................................................................. 91 5.2.6. Air quality ............................................................................................... 91 5.2.7. Noise and vibration protection ............................................................. 94 6. IMPACT REDUCING MEASURES ...................................................................... 96 6.1. GEOLOGICAL MEDIUM AND UNDER-THE-SURFACE WATER ..................................... 96 6.2. SURFACE WATERS ............................................................................................ 97 6.3. HABITATS, FLORA AND FAUNA ........................................................................... 99 6.4. LANDSCAPE ................................................................................................... 100 6.5. BUILT ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................... 102 6.6. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 104 6.7. NOISE AND VIBRATION..................................................................................... 104 6.8. WASTE .......................................................................................................... 105 7. MONITORING PLAN.......................................................................................... 105 7.1. HABITATS, FLORA AND FAUNA ......................................................................... 105 7.2. NOISE AND VIBRATION..................................................................................... 106 7.3. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 107 ATTACHMENTS I. General attachment II. Biota protection attachment III. Noise protection attachment PLOT PLANS Performance evaluation 5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Transinvest Budapest Kft., project leader of National Infrastructure Development (NIF Zrt.), commissioned Vibrocomp Kft. to prepare the performance evaluation necessary in connection with the gaining of European Regional Development Fund support of development of highway no. 62 between M8 (new Danube bridge)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pozsony a Zene Városa
    M2019. JÚLIUS XXIII. évf. 2. szám ZAIK O A COLAS CSOPORT MAGAZINJA Találkozási pont POZSONY A ZENE VÁROSA INTERJÚ GUILLAUME MOUNIER-VEL ÚJRAINDULT A TISZATARJÁNI BÁNYA ZAJLIK A MUNKA AZ AUTÓPÁLYÁKON A Colas Europe munkavédelmi vezetőjével Közel három év szünet után a Colas Északkő Számos gyorsforgalmi útszakaszon nagy erőkkel a legújabb kampányokról is beszélgettünk. ismét megindította a termelést. dolgozunk. MOZAIK 2019. JÚLIUS XXIII. ÉVF. 2. SZÁM 1 Az én apukám is itt dolgozik! FÓKUSZBAN OLDALSZÁM 2–13 40 >> Hírek >> Interjú Guillaume Mounier-vel >> Interjú Görbedi Lászlóval >> Interjú Dudás Istvánnal FOTÓPÁLYÁZAT >> Újraindult a tiszatarjáni bánya >> Segítségnyújtás az M25-ös autóútnál MUNKÁINK OLDALSZÁM 14–29 >> Hídépítési munkák Nyugat-Magyarországon >> Próbaüzem Pincehelyen >> Burkolatfelújítás az M1-es autópályán >> Kecskeméten dolgozik a Colas Út >> Forgalomba helyeztük a turbó körforgalmat az 51-es úton >> Készül az M30-as autópálya 14 46 utolsó szakasza >> Folytatódik a munka az M4-esen MUNKATÁRSAINK OLDALSZÁM 30–37 >> Portrék SAFETY OLDALSZÁM 38–39 >> Az én apukám is itt dolgozik Fotózd le a kampány- KITEKINTŐ OLDALSZÁM 40–43 logót valamilyen kreatív >> Találkozási pont: Pozsony >> „Hogy lehet így futni?!” Ultrabalaton 2019 formában és 14 HÍDÉPÍTÉSI MUNKÁK NYUGAT-MAGYARORSZÁGON A dunántúli hídépítő főmérnökség csapatáról, eddigi eredményeiről – töltsd fel az Instagramra és jelenlegi munkáiról. TECHNOLÓGIA ÉS GÉPÉSZET OLDALSZÁM 44–49 #mydadworksherecontest >> Pályaszerkezetek méretezése 40 TALÁLKOZÁSI PONT: POZSONY >> Keverőtelepek korszerűbben hashtaggel Szlovákia fővárosa alig két és fél óra közúton, és számtalan >> Bányabemutató: Nógrádkövesd – vagy küldd el a fotód izgalmas látnivalót kínál. (Szanda-bánya) a [email protected] 46 KEVERŐTELEPEK KORSZERŰBBEN BESZÁMOLÓ OLDALSZÁM 50–54 Felsőzsolcára új keverő érkezett, a korábbi berendezés e-mail-címre. >> Családi nap a Vasúttörténeti Parkban Jánosházára került.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Current As of November 18, 2020
    Information Current as of November 18, 2020 Table of Contents SOURCEREE PERSPECTIVE ............................................................................................3 OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................6 WEBSITES ...........................................................................................................................6 OWNERSHIP .......................................................................................................................6 OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................6 FINANCIAL INTENTIONS .................................................................................................7 THE EFFECT ON AMERICA .............................................................................................8 ECONOMIC CORRIDORS .................................................................................................9 FUNDING .......................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX A: PROGRAM LEADERSHIP ....................................................................... 16 APPENDIX B: ASSOCIATED ENTITIES ......................................................................... 18 APPENDIX C: PARTICIPATING NATIONS.................................................................... 21 APPENDIX D: PROJECTS ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Social Council
    UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Distr. Council GENERAL TRANS/WP.5/2005/16/Add.8 24 October 2005 ENGLISH ONLY ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE INLAND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (Eighteenth session, 15-16 September 2005, agenda item 3(b)) MONITORING OF DEVELOPMENTS RELEVANT FOR THE PAN-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT CORRIDORS AND AREAS Infrastructure bottlenecks and missing links Transmitted by the Government of Hungary According to the report on “Infrastructure Bottlenecks and Missing Links in the European Transport Network” bottlenecks can be caused by: (1) insufficient infrastructure capacity; (2) low quality of transport infrastructure. In the same manner, the phenomenon of a “missing link” may be considered as a situation in which the quality of service has extremely low values due to the fact that no direct link exists between two points. As described in the above-mentioned document, as a simplified method, for individual road categories, one may take the following capacities in terms of number of vehicles as the average daily traffic: − 4-lane motorway: 40,000 – 60,000 PCU/24 hrs − roads of 2 lanes: 8,000 – 12,000 PCU/24 hrs As in the case of roads, there are a great number of factors determining the bottlenecks on a railway line. It is practically impossible to concentrate all elements in a single bottleneck measure. In order to reach practical measures it appeared appropriate to take the following capacity limits: TRANS/WP.5/2005/16/Add.8 page 2 − Single track main lines: 1 x 60 – 80 trains/day − Double track main lines: 2 x 100 – 200 trains/day According to that definition, the bottlenecks regarding the Hungarian TEN road network are described below.
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Partnerships Financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020
    EUROPEAN PPP EXPERTISE CENTRE Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Terms of Use of this Publication The European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) is part of the Advisory Services of the European Investment Bank (EIB). It is an initiative that also involves the European Commission, Member States of the EU, Candidate States and certain other States. For more information about EPEC and its membership, please visit www.eib.org/epec. The findings, analyses, interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the EIB or any other EPEC member. No EPEC member, including the EIB, accepts any responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in this publication or any liability for any consequences arising from its use. Reliance on the information provided in this publication is therefore at the sole risk of the user. EPEC authorises the users of this publication to access, download, display, reproduce and print its content subject to the following conditions: (i) when using the content of this document, users should attribute the source of the material and (ii) under no circumstances should there be commercial exploitation of this document or its content. Purpose and Methodology This report is part of EPEC’s work on monitoring developments in the public-private partnership (PPP) market. It is intended to provide an overview of the role played by the EIB in financing PPP projects inside and outside of Europe since 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Motorways Good for the Hungarian Economy?
    Are motorways good for the Hungarian economy? by András Lukács Clean Air Action Group, Hungary www.levego.hu Budapest, 2003 Are motorways good for the Hungarian economy? by András Lukács (Clean Air Action Group) „...what does the EU give to Hungary, and what do we spend the money on? I agree with those who say that at most 30 per cent of the received funds should be spent on boosting the economy, and 70 per cent should be invested into the Hungarian society itself. The newly admitted countries invested a substantial part of the money from the Structural and Cohesion Funds into their infrastructure, the only exception being Ireland. They spent 80 per cent of the EU support on education, on building a knowledge-based society. Look at them now, how far the Irish have reached!” István Fodor, President of Ericsson Hungary, and Chairman of the Hungarian EU Enlargement Business Council („Üzleti 7”, 16th December 2002) Hungarian Governments of the recent years, one after the other, tried to outdo their predecessors by planning to build even more motorways. On this issue there is a consensus among all the political parties of the Hungarian Parliament. At the same time more and more people question the rationality of these investments, but such opinions hardly gain any publicity. Will motorways improve accessibility? One of the main reasons usually brought forward to support the construction of motorways is that they will improve accessibility to the region concerned. Of course, if we only compare the time that cars, buses or trucks spend on the motorway with the time of travelling on parallel roads, this statement holds true in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Land Property Value
    Dear Reader, We would like to present you a brief summary of the results of our most recent research focusing on the real estate market soon to be published within the framework of the OTP Value Map. Maintaining previously introduced basic principles, methods and values of our real estate market analyses, this time we examine the agricultural land market. In recent years on the Hungarian real estate market agricultural land has been the second most popular type of real estate with the highest number of sales following residential properties. Based on our previous experience and according to the analyses published so far on the market, arable land has reacted to the crisis more favourably than other elements of the sector. In the course of our survey we were looking for answers to the following questions: Is agricultural land really more crisis-resistant? How has the turnover of land evolved during the crisis? What is the price of agricultural land in different areas? Does the development of the infrastructure result in price changes regarding agricultural land, and if yes, to what extent? Arable land forms a special category within the real estate market, because: ‐ it is available in limited (or actually, due to restrictions, in slightly decreasing) quantity; ‐ the speculative market is basically distinguished from the market of agricultural land meant for long- term agricultural production; ‐ its market is highly influenced by the government’s political decisions (land purchase moratorium, ban on purchases by companies, pre-emption right
    [Show full text]
  • Hungary General Report 2015
    HUNGARY GENERAL REPORT 2015 ASECAP STUDY AND INFORMATION DAYS MADRID, 23 - 25 MAY 2016 Network length Length of the motorway network in Hungary as of 31 December 2015: 1.180 km. The length of the motorway, expressway and trunk road sections operated by the Hungarian Public Road Nonprofit Pte Ltd Co. (MK NZrt.) as of 31 December 2015 are: 1071 km. The Hungarian Public Road Company is responsible for the operation and maintenance of M1, M3, M30, M31, M35, M43, M7, M8 Motorways; M5 Motorway between km sections 13 - 17.4, M6 Motorway between km sections 14 - 22,3 and several expressways (M0, M2,…). 2 AKA Zrt. (AKA Alföld Concession Motorway Co. Ltd.) is a Concession Company responsible for the operation and maintenance of M5 Motorway between km section 17+400 and 173+895, total length of 156,5 km. Overall length of the bridges on the M5 motorway are 3,7 km. No more sections are foreseen at the moment to be included in this Concession. M6 Duna Autópálya Koncessziós Zrt. (M6 Danube Concession Motorway Co. Ltd.) is a Concession Company responsible for the operation and maintenance of M6 between km sections 22+150 and 76+200 and M8 between km sections 5+750 and 10+300 which sections were opened to traffic on 11 June 2006. The bridges on the above motorways are 2,81 km long (including all types of bridges). No more sections are foreseen at the moment to be included in this Concession. M6 Tolna Autópálya Koncessziós Zrt. (M6 Tolna Motorway Concession Ltd.) is a Concession Company responsible for the design, construction, finance, operation and maintenance of M6 motorway between km sections 76+200 and 141+300.
    [Show full text]
  • PROFECY – Processes, Features and Cycles of Inner Peripheries in Europe
    PROFECY – Processes, Features and Cycles of Inner Peripheries in Europe (Inner Peripheries: National territories facing challenges of access to basic services of general interest) Applied Research Final Report Annex 12 Case Study Report Tamási járás (Hungary) Version 07/12/2017 This report is one of the deliverables of the PROFECY project. This Applied Research Project is conducted within the framework of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation Programme, partly financed by the European Regional Development Fund. The ESPON EGTC is the Single Beneficiary of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation Programme. The Single Operation within the programme is implemented by the ESPON EGTC and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, the EU Member States and the Partner States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. This delivery does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the members of the ESPON 2020 Monitoring Committee. Authors Katalin Kovács, Gergely Tagai, MTA KRTK (Hungary) Krisztina Magócs, Lechner Knowledge Center (Hungary) Advisory Group Project Support Team: Barbara Acreman and Zaira Piazza (Italy), Eedi Sepp (Estonia), Zsolt Szokolai, European Commission. ESPON EGTC: Marjan van Herwijnen (Project Expert), Laurent Frideres (HoU E&O), Ilona Raugze (Director), Piera Petruzzi (Outreach), Johannes Kiersch (Financial Expert). Acknowledgements Annamária Uzzoli, MTA KRTK (Hungary), Anna Hamar, MTA KRTK (Hungary) Information on ESPON and its projects can be found on www.espon.eu. The web site provides the possibility to download and examine the most recent documents produced by finalised and ongoing ESPON projects. This delivery exists only in an electronic version. © ESPON, 2017 Printing, reproduction or quotation is authorised provided the source is acknowledged and a copy is forwarded to the ESPON EGTC in Luxembourg.
    [Show full text]
  • El?Adas Cime
    PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY 1990- Miklós Murányi Sarolta Beregi Toth October, 2009. Seoul PPP PILOTE PROJECTS INTERMINISTERIAL COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE AND DECIDE: • Tourism (conference center) • Justice (prison) • Health care (Hospital) • Local Government (Sport stadium) PPP PILOTE PROJECTS • Education (student dormitory) • Infrastructure (fast train link from city of Budapest to Ferihegy International Airport) • Residental developments (appartements for long term rent) • Motorways FAR THE LARGEST SEGMENT • Expressway development program of the government in PPP MAIN TRANSPORTATION ARTERIES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF HUNGARY Tornyosnémeti MainMain transporttransport corridorscorridors inin Záhony V. UA Lónya HUNGARYHUNGARY Barabás Beregsurány Parassapuszta Miskolc IV. VII. Rajka SK Salgótarján Emőd Tiszabecs Hegyeshalom Nyíregyháza Medve A Komárom Eger Gyöngyös Csengersima Polgár Győr Füzesabony Debrecen Sopron Tatabánya BUDAPEST Szombathely Székesfehérvár Szolnok Veszprém Rábafüzes RO Biharkeresztes Zalaegerszeg Balatonaliga Kecskemét Zamárdi Békéscsaba Kiskunfélegyháza additional Tornyisz.miklós TINA Szekszárd SLO Letenye Szekszárd Szeged Kaposvár Sükösd elements V. Nagylak Baja Mohács Röszke Pécs HR proposed YU IV. Illocska TINA X/A. V/C. VII. elements MOTORWAY NETWORK OF HUNGARY IN 1993 UA Tisza Miskolc SK Salgótarján Nyíregyháza A M3 Duna Gyöngyös Győr Füzesabony Sopron M1 Tatabánya BUDAPEST Debrecen Szombathely Székesfehérvár Szolnok Veszprém M0 Baliga M5 RO Dunaújváros Zalaegerszeg M7 Kecskemét
    [Show full text]
  • The C-Roads Platform an Overview of Harmonised C-ITS Deployment in Europe Years of Work: 5 Since Platform Kick-Off Kilometres Covered by ITS-G5: 20,000
    Co-financed by the Connecting Europe Facility of the European Union The C-Roads Platform An overview of harmonised C-ITS deployment in Europe Years of work: 5 since platform kick-off Kilometres covered by ITS-G5: 20,000 Platform members: 18 Core Members + 7 Associated Members Kilometres equipped with cellular/long-range: Number +100,000 of cities involved: 53 RSUs operational in Europe (fixed & mobile): 2,300 Recipients of C-Roads harmonised Time communication profile: invested in 50 countries, cross-tests: +480 persons/ +3,000 hours institutions 2 The C-Roads Platform – An overview of harmonised C-ITS deployment in Europe Table of contents VIP Statements 4 Origin and concept 6 C-ITS services 6 Organisational structure 9 Technical structure 11 C-Roads Austria 14 C-Roads Belgium (Flanders) 15 C-Roads Belgium (Wallonia) 16 C-Roads Czech Republic 17 C-Roads Finland 18 C-Roads France 19 C-Roads Germany 20 C-Roads Hungary 21 C-Roads Italy 22 C-Roads Netherlands 23 C-Roads Slovenia 24 C-Roads Sweden 25 C-Roads United Kingdom 26 C-Roads Denmark 27 C-Roads Norway 28 C-Roads Spain 29 C-Roads Portugal/Cooperative Streets 30 C-Roads Greece 31 C-Roads Ireland 32 The future of C-ITS 33 The C-Roads Platform – An overview of harmonised C-ITS deployment in Europe 3 VIP Statements Intelligent transport systems have the potential to revo- Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) are one of the cornerstones lutionise road safety, reduce congestion and improve the for boosting road safety, promoting transport efficiency and environmental performance and economic efficiency of road enhancing greener and smarter mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • Documentation for Environmental Impact
    NATIONAL COMPANY FOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ADMINISTRATION BRAȘOV – ORADEA MOTORWAY OGRA – BORȘ SECTOR GILĂU – BORŞ SECTION DOCUMENTATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE TRANSFRONTIER CONTEXT “ Brașov – Oradea Motorway, sector Ogra – Borș” Documentation for environmental impact in the cross - border context Contents 1. Description of the proposed activity and its purpose .................................................................................................. 4 1.1. Purpose of the project ........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Project description ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2.1. Longitudinal profille ............................................................................................................................................ 7 1.2.2. Transversal profile .............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.3. Thus the overall width of the transversal profile will be 27.5 m / 28.0 m. ............................................................... 8 1.2.4. The route: .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2.5. Works necessary to provide the rainwater drainage ............................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Hungarian E-Vignette User Guide
    HUNGARIAN E-VIGNETTE USER GUIDE 2017 E-VIGNETTE ROAD USE AUTHORIZATION The e-vignette user charge system applies to motorcycles, passenger cars and their trailers, as well as cargo vehicles with a maximum permissible gross weight of 3.5 tons, campers and buses, and their trailers. IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT E-VIGNETTES • Road use authorization must be always paid for before you enter the toll section; purchased e-vignettes do not constitute authorized road use retroactively. In the case of a purchase within the validity period, the starting date of validity is always the date of purchase. • If you purchase more than one e-vignette at a time, please make sure that you have specified the dates of your journeys (uses) accurately. • In order to avoid unauthorized road use, please always check the registration number, the country code, the vehicle category and the validity period on your control slip when making your purchase. • In case of electronic purchase of the road use authorization, the confirming notification serves as a proof of purchase. From 1 January 2017, changes will be introduced with respect to the toll speedway network and the toll-free sections, therefore, we request you to study the information below in detail. TOLL-FREE SECTIONS According to the decree in force, the following road sections can be used toll free: • the following sections of the M0 expressway: ◦ the section between Main Road 1 and the M5 motorway, ◦ the section between expressway M4 (sign of expressway 4) and Motorway M3, ◦ Megyeri Bridge (the section between Main Road 2 and Main Road 11).
    [Show full text]