DOCSLIB.ORG

Road to Inland Waterways Transfer of Shipment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Road to Inland Waterways Transfer of Shipment D.T2.1.2 Road to Inland Waterways Transfer 02.2019 of Shipment Road to Inland Waterways Transfer of Shipment Responsible Partner: PP3 The Union for the Development of the Moravian Silesian Region Contribution partners: PP1 Upper Silesian Agency for Entrepreneurship and Development Ldt. PP4 Transport Research Institute, JSC. PP5 University of Zilina Content 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Definition of the area of interest .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2. Project aim ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. EUROPEAN CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. EU white paper ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2. TEN-T ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3. AGN ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.4. Low carbon economy ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5. Smart and sustainable growth .................................................................................................................................. 6 3. NATIONAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................ 6 3.1. Poland ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2. Czech republic ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1. Government resolution ČR č. 368/2010 ............................................................................................................... 8 3.2.2. Transport policy ČR for perion 2014–2020 with a view to 2050 ......................................................................... 8 3.2.3. Transport sectoral strategies 2. phase ................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.4. The concept of freight transport for the period 2017-2023 with a view to 2030 .................................................. 9 3.3. Slovakia ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 4. WATERWAYS IN EZUS TRITIA .......................................................................................................................... 10 4.1. Oder watewrway .................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.1. Historical contexts .............................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.2. Current state and perspective .............................................................................................................................. 11 4.2. Channel Gliwicki ................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.2.1. Historical contexts .............................................................................................................................................. 12 4.2.2. Current state and perspective .............................................................................................................................. 14 4.3. Channel Slazski...................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.3.1. Historical contexts .............................................................................................................................................. 17 4.3.2. Current state and perspective .............................................................................................................................. 17 4.4. Vah waterway ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 4.4.1. Historical contexts .............................................................................................................................................. 19 4.4.2. Current state and perspective .............................................................................................................................. 22 5. CHARAKTERISTICS OF WATER TRANSPORT ................................................................................................ 24 5.1. Transport costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.2. Speed ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 5.3. Energy consumption .............................................................................................................................................. 26 5.4. Environment impact ............................................................................................................................................... 28 5.5. Safety ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 5.6. Waterway operation ............................................................................................................................................... 30 5.6.1. Basic rules ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 5.6.2. Operational practice ............................................................................................................................................ 30 6. POSSIBILITIES OF GOODS TRANSPORT TRANSFER TO WATERWAYS IN TRITIA REGION ................. 32 6.1. Oder waterway, transfer potential, traffic flow intensity ....................................................................................... 32 6.2. Very large and very heavy products ...................................................................................................................... 32 6.3. Transfer of bulk material transport on shorter sections than 300 km ..................................................................... 35 6.3.1. Building materials ............................................................................................................................................... 35 6.3.2. Coal ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36 6.3.3. Waste .................................................................................................................................................................. 36 6.4. Transfer of container transport between terminals ................................................................................................ 36 6.5. Transfer of traffic due to bottleneck in other modes of transport .......................................................................... 37 7. TECHNICAL CONDITIONS OF GOODS TRANSPORT TRANSFER ................................................................ 37 Page 1 7.1. Sufficient traffic flow ............................................................................................................................................. 37 7.1.1. Czech republic .................................................................................................................................................... 39 7.1.2. Poland ................................................................................................................................................................. 39 7.1.3. Slovakia .............................................................................................................................................................. 41 7.2. Reducing financial costs when using a waterway .................................................................................................. 45 7.2.1. Czech republic .................................................................................................................................................... 45 7.2.2. Poland ................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Map of the European Inland Waterway Network – Carte Du Réseau Européen Des Voies Navigables – Карта Европейской Сети Внутренних Водных Путей
    Map of the European Inland Waterway Network – Carte du réseau européen des voies navigables – Карта европейской сети внутренних водных путей Emden Berlin-Spandauer Schiahrtskanal 1 Берлин-Шпандауэр шиффартс канал 5.17 Delfzijl Эмден 2.50 Arkhangelsk Делфзейл Архангельск Untere Havel Wasserstraße 2 Унтере Хафель водный путь r e Teltowkanal 3 Тельтов-канал 4.25 d - O Leeuwarden 4.50 2.00 Леуварден Potsdamer Havel 4 Потсдамер Хафель 6.80 Groningen Harlingen Гронинген Харлинген 3.20 - 5.45 5.29-8.49 1.50 2.75 р водный п 1.40 -Оде . Papenburg 4.50 El ель r Wasserstr. Kemi Папенбург 2.50 be аф Ode 4.25 нканал Х vel- Кеми те Ha 2.50 юс 4.25 Luleå Belomorsk K. К Den Helder Küsten 1.65 4.54 Лулео Беломорск Хелдер 7.30 3.00 IV 1.60 3.20 1.80 E m О - S s Havel K. 3.60 eve Solikamsk д rn a е ja NE T HERLANDS Э р D Соликамск м Хафель-К. vin с a ная Б Север Дви 1 III Berlin е на 2 4.50 л IV B 5.00 1.90 о N O R T H S E A Meppel Берлин e м 3.25 l 11.00 Меппел o о - 3.50 m р 1.30 IV О с а 2 2 де - o к 4.30 р- прее во r 5.00 б Ш дн s о 5.00 3.50 ь 2.00 Sp ый k -Б 3.00 3.25 4.00 л ree- er Was п o а Э IV 3 Od ser .
    [Show full text]
  • Save Pdf (0.16
    EDITORIAL COMMENT 75 UPPER SILESIA On October 12, 1921, the Council of the League of Nations unani­ mously adopted a recommendation fixing the boundary line between Ger­ many and Poland in Upper Silesia as follows: The frontier-line would follow the Oder from the point where that river enters Upper Silesia as far as Niebotschau; it would then run towards the northeast, leaving in Polish territory the communes of Hohenbirken, Wilhelmsthal, Easchutz, Adamowitz, Bogunitz, Lissek, Summin, Zwonowitz, Chwallenczitz, Ochojetz, Wilcza (upper and lower), Kriewald, Knurow, Gieraltowitz, Preiswitz, Makoschau, Kunzendorf, Paulsdorf, Ruda, Orzegow, Schlesiengrube, Hohenlinde; and leaving in German territory the communes o f Ostrog, Markowitz, Babitz, Gurek, Stodoll, Niederdorf, Pilchowitz, Nie- borowitzer Hammer, Nieborowitz, Schbnwald, Ellguth, Zabrze, Sosnica, Mathesdorf, Zaborze, Biskupitz, Bobrek, Schomberg; thence it would pass between Eossberg (which falls to Germany) and Birkenhain (which falls to Poland) and would take a north­ westerly direction, leaving in German territory the communes o f Karf, Miechowitz, Stollarzowitz, Friedrichswille, Ptakowitz, Larischhof, Miedar, Hanusek, Neudorf- Tworog, Kottenlust, Potemba, Keltsch, Zawadski, Pluder-Petershof, Klein-Lagiewnik, Skrzidlowitz, Gwosdzian, Dzielna, Cziasnau, Sorowski, and leaving in Polish territory the communes o f Scharley, Eadzionkau, Trockenberg, Neu-Eepten, Alt-Eepten, Alt- Tarnowitz, Eybna, Piassetzna, Boruschowitz, Mikoleska, Drathhammer, Bruschiek, Wiistenhammer, Kokottek, Koschmieder,
    [Show full text]
  • Bojničky 2016 - 2024  Štruktúra - Úvod Analytická Časť Strategická Časť Programová Časť Realizačná Časť Finančná Časť Záver Prílohy
    Program hospodárskeho a sociálneho rozvoja obce Bojničky 2016 – 2024 Názov Program hospodárskeho a sociálneho rozvoja obce Bojničky Územné vymedzenie: Trnavský samosprávny kraj Okres: Hlohovec Obec: Bojničky Región: ZMO - Jaslovské Bohunice, Dolné Považie Nadmorská výška: 193 m n. m Počet obyvateľov: 1 384 Rozloha 927 ha Hustota obyvateľstva 147,68 obyv./km² Územný plán obce schválený xxx Dátum schválenia PHSR 05. 09. 2016 Dátum platnosti PHSR Od 01. 10. 2016 do 31. 12. 2024 Verzia 1.0 Publikovaný verejne 09. 09. 2016 Obsah Úvod 1. Zámer spracovania PHSR 2. Harmonogram spracovania PHSR 3. Východiskové koncepčné dokumenty 4. Analytická časť 4.1 Analýza vnútorného prostredia 4.1.1 História obce 4.1.2 Geografické hľadisko 4.1.3 Prírodné zdroje 4.1.4 Demografické zdroje 4.1.6 Sociálna infraštruktúra 4.1.7 Kultúrny a spoločenský život 4.1.8 Mimovládny sektor 4.1.9 Podnikateľské prostredie 4.1.10 Materiálne zdroje 4.1.11 Cestovný ruch 4.2 Analýza vonkajšieho prostredia 4.3 SWOT 4.4 Zhodnotenie hlavných disparít a faktorov rozvoja 5. Strategická časť 5.1 Vízia rozvoja územia obce Bojničky 5.2 Strategický cieľ 6. Programová časť 6.1 Opatrenia a projekty vrátane ich priradenia k jednotlivým prioritám 6.2 Súbor ukazovateľov výsledkov a dosahov 7. Realizačná časť 7.1 Popis postupov organizačného a inštitucionálneho zabezpečenia realizácie PHSR 7.2 Systém monitorovania a hodnotenia 7.3 Akčný plán 8. Finančná časť 8.1 Indikatívny finančný plán na celú realizáciu PHSR 8.2 Model viaczdrojového financovania jednotlivých projektov Záverečná časť Prílohy Úvod Posledná dekáda 20. storočia až po súčasnosť je poznačená kumuláciou procesov, ktoré výrazne predznamenali dynamiku a charakter premien spoločensko-politických, hospodárskych, sociálnych, sociálno-kultúrnych s celou škálou pozitívnych ale aj problémových dopadov na spoločnosť i jednotlivé spoločenstvá na Slovensku.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation Report on Strategic Document “Operational Programme Transport 2007 – 2013” According to Act No
    Evaluation report on strategic document “Operational programme Transport 2007 – 2013” according to Act No. 24/2006 Coll. Project No.: 660 -190/2006, VÚD 346/100 Customer: MDPT SR Published: 12/2006 Director general : Ing. Ľubomír Palčák Project manager: Ing. Stanislav Hreusík, PhD. REPORT IDENTIFICATION Director general: Ing. Ľubomír Palčák RNDr. Ján Hurný, PhD., Ing. Róbert Felcan, Project supervisor: RNDr. Eva Zacharová Division director: Ing. Ľuboslav Žilinčík Project manager: Ing. Stanislav Hreusík, PhD., Ing. Ľubomír Mateček Solvers: Ing. Marta Hajniková,Ing.Mária Štefániková Cooperating organisations: Number of pages 73 Number of figures - Number of tables 26 Number of appendixes 11 Report status Final Director general : ........................................................... Division director : ........................................................... Project manager : ..................................................... 1 Evaluation report on strategic document “Operational programme Transport 2007 – 2013” according to Act No. 24/2006 Coll. Solvers collective, contact addresses: Chief solver of Ex ante evaluation of Výskumný ústav dopravný a.s. Žilina Operational programme Transport: Veľký Diel 3323, Žilina, tel.: 41/5652 819 [email protected] Ing. Stanislav Hreusík, PhD. Chief solver of evaluation report on impacts of strategic Ing. Ľubomír Mateček, authorised civil engineer, Žilina document: Smreková 11, Žilina, tel.: 041/723 53 51, [email protected] Solver of parts: transport infrastructure and urban Ing. Ľubomír Mateček, authorised civil engineer, Žilina environment Solver of parts: natural environment and country: Ing. Marta Hajniková, Žilina [email protected] 2 Evaluation report on strategic document “Operational programme Transport 2007 – 2013” according to Act No. 24/2006 Coll. Content: I. Contract authority basic data 4 II. Strategic document basic data 4 III. Basic data about present state of environment affected territory 6 III.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Hospodárskeho a Sociálneho Rozvoja Mesta Leopoldov
    PROGRAM HOSPODÁRSKEHO A SOCIÁLNEHO ROZVOJA MESTA LEOPOLDOV PROGRAM HOSPODÁRSKEHO A SOCIÁLNEHO ROZVOJA MESTA LEOPOLDOV Samosprávny kraj: Trnavský Okres: Hlohovec Región: ZMO - Jaslovské Bohunice Adresa: Mestský úrad Hlohovecká cesta 2 920 41 Leopoldov Tel: 033 / 734 22 07, 734 23 88, 73 Fax: 033 / 734 22 07 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.leopoldov.sk IČO: 312703 Počet obyvateľov: 4053 Rozloha: 566 ha Prvá písomná zmienka: v roku 1665 Programovacie obdobie 2008 – 2017 2008 2 PROGRAMOVACIE OBDOBIE 2008 - 2017 PROGRAM HOSPODÁRSKEHO A SOCIÁLNEHO ROZVOJA MESTA LEOPOLDOV Sídlo: Povstalecká cesta 16 974 09 Banská Bystrica Poštová adresa: SCARABEO, s.r.o. P.O.BOX č. 8 974 09 Banská Bystrica Tel. fax. Web: 0907 439 224 [email protected] www.scarabeo.sk © SCARABEO, s.r.o. 2008, Banská Bystrica 3 PROGRAMOVACIE OBDOBIE 2008 - 2017 PROGRAM HOSPODÁRSKEHO A SOCIÁLNEHO ROZVOJA MESTA LEOPOLDOV 1 ÚVOD ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2 ZÁKLADNÁ CHARAKTERISTIKA MESTA ............................................................................................................ 11 2.2 PRÍRODNÉ POMERY .............................................................................................................................................. 12 2.3 TECHNICKÁ INFRAŠTRUKTÚRA .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydronymia Povodia Oravy
    VEDA, vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied Slovenská akadémia vied Jazykovedný ústav Ľudovíta Štúra Recenzent: Prof. PhDr. Pavol Žigo, CSc. Hydronymia Slovaciae Milan Majtán – Kazimierz Rymut Hydronymia povodia Oravy VEDA, vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied 2006 © PhDr. Milan Majtán, DrSc. Prof. dr. habil. Kazimierz Rymut ISBN 80-224-0906-5 Obsah Úvod .............................................................................................................. 7 Celková charakteristika názvov .................................................................... 9 Zásady spracovania ....................................................................................... 10 Toky povodia Oravy na území Slovenska..................................................... 11 Toky povodia Čiernej Oravy na území Poľska ............................................. 149 Vodné plochy a pramene povodia Oravy na území Slovenska ..................... 171 Vodné plochy a pramene povodia Čiernej Oravy na území Poľska .............. 179 Hydrografia ................................................................................................... 185 Skratky prameňov a literatúry ....................................................................... 199 Mapka Oravy ................................................................................................ 206 Mapka povodia rieky Oravy ......................................................................... 207 Úvod Monografia Hydronymia povodia Oravy predstavuje nové spracovanie súčas- ných a historických
    [Show full text]
  • The Tatra Mts – Rocks, Landforms, Weathering and Soils Tatry – Skały, Rzeźba, Wietrzenie I Gleby
    Geoturystyka 2 (13) 2008: 51-74 The Tatra Mts – rocks, landforms, weathering and soils Tatry – skały, rzeźba, wietrzenie i gleby Marek Drewnik1, Ireneusz Felisiak2, Irena Jerzykowska3 & Janusz Magiera2 1Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Biology and Earth Sciences; ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków, Poland. (Institute of Geography and Spatial Management) 2AGH University of Science and Technology; Faculty of Geology, Geophysics and Environmental Protection; Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland. 3Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Biology and Earth Sciences; ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków, Poland. (Institute of Geological Sciences) e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Chabówka Introduction Nowy Targ The Tatra Mountains are the most prominent, the highest Szczawnica (2,655 m a.s.l.) and presently non-glaciated mountains in the Warszawa Czarny Dunajec Niedzica Central Europe, located approximately halfway between the Baltic Sea and the Adriatic Sea, and between the Atlantic Zakopane Ocean and the Ural Mts. Thus, they occupy a transitional Kraków position between the maritime Western Europe and the con- tinental Eastern European lowland. Field trip leads through the core of the central part of the Tatry Mts: Bystra valley, Kasprowy Wierch Mt, and Sucha Woda valley (Fig. 1). It gives good insight into geological Abstract: The trip gives insight into geology and landforms as well structure, landscape as well as weathering and soil forming as into past and present dynamic geological, geomorphologic and processes. Essential differences between the both main parts soil-forming processes in the central part of Polish Tatra Mts.
    [Show full text]
  • Modele Struktury Miast Górnośląsko-Zagłębiowskiej Metropolii Structural Models for Gzm Metropolia
    MODELE STRUKTURY MIAST GÓRNOŚLĄSKO-ZAGŁĘBIOWSKIEJ METROPOLII STRUCTURAL MODELS FOR GZM METROPOLIA Praca zbiorowa - prowadzący / Team work - team leaders Dr inż arch.Tomasz Bradecki, dr hab. Inż. arch. Krzysztofa Kafka Zrealizowana w ramach zajęć Struktura Miasta/ realized in the framework of the Structure of the city pod opieką Prof. dr hab. Inż. arch.Zbigniewa Kamińskiego autorzy/ authors zespół studentów Wydziału Architektury Politechniki Śląskiej/ team of students from Department of Architecture on Silesian University of Technology W PROJEKCIE UCZESTNICZĄ: POLITECHNIKA ŚLĄSKA WYDZIAŁ ARCHITEKTURY POLITECHNIKI GZM ŚLĄSKIEJ W PROJEKCIE UCZESTNICZĄ IN COOPERATION WITH GZM POLITECHNIKA ŚLĄSKA WYDZIAŁ ARCHITEKTURY POLITECHNIKI ŚLĄSKIEJ GZM to 41 gmin, które łącznie zajmują powierzchnię ponad 2,5 tys. km². Obszar ten zamieszkuje przeszło 2,2 mln mieszkańców, co stanowi z kolei więcej niż połowę wszystkich Wydział Architektury Politechniki mieszkańców województwa śląskiego. Politechnika Śląska należy do Śląskiej działa od 23 września 1977 Urząd Metropolitalny GZM wspiera największych uczelni technicznych w .Jego strukturę tworzy 5 Katedr. Za realizację projektu i rozpoczął Polsce. Jest szkołą wyższą o bogatej projekt odpowiada Katedra działalność od 1-go stycznia 2018 70-letniej już tradycji, jedną z Urbanistyki i Planowania Barbary 21A, 40-053 Katowice najstarszych uczelni technicznych w Przestrzennego kraju i najstarszą na Górnym Śląsku. GZM consists of 41 municipalities, a The Faculty of Architecture of the pair of all sectors over 2.5 thousand. Silesian University of Technology is Silesian University of Technology has km². The area of ten inhabited one of the largest technical been operating since September 23, inhabitants will translate 2.2 million universities in Poland. Is a high school 1977.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intramontane Orava Basin – Evidence of Large-Scale Miocene to Quaternary Sinistral Wrenching in the Alpine-Carpathian-Pannonian Area
    Acta Geologica Polonica, Vol. 69 (2019), No. 3, pp. 339–386 DOI: 10.24425/agp.2019.126449 The intramontane Orava Basin – evidence of large-scale Miocene to Quaternary sinistral wrenching in the Alpine-Carpathian-Pannonian area MIROSŁAW LUDWINIAK1,*, MICHAŁ ŚMIGIELSKI1, SEBASTIAN KOWALCZYK1, MACIEJ ŁOZIŃSKI1, URSZULA CZARNIECKA2 and LENA LEWIŃSKA1 1 Faculty of Geology, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 93, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland 2 Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway *corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Ludwiniak, M., Śmigielski, M., Kowalczyk, S., Łoziński, M., Czarniecka, U. and Lewińska, L. 2019. The intramontane Orava Basin – evidence of large-scale Miocene to Quaternary sinistral wrenching in the Alpine- Carpathian-Pannonian area. Acta Geologica Polonica, 69 (3), 339−386. Warszawa. The Carpathian Orava Basin is a tectonic structure filled with Neogene and Quaternary deposits superimposed on the collision zone between the ALCAPA and European plates. Tectonic features of the south-eastern margin of the Orava Basin and the adjoining part of the fore-arc Central Carpathian Palaeogene Basin were studied. Field observations of mesoscopic structures, analyses of digital elevation models and geological maps, supple- mented with electrical resistivity tomography surveys were performed. Particular attention was paid to joint network analysis. The NE-SW-trending Krowiarki and Hruštinka-Biela Orava sinistral fault zones were recog- nized as key tectonic features that influenced the Orava Basin development. They constitute the north-eastern part of a larger Mur-Mürz-Žilina fault system that separates the Western Carpathians from the Eastern Alps. The interaction of these sinistral fault zones with the older tectonic structures of the collision zone caused the initiation and further development of the Orava Basin as a strike-slip-related basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    Press release Bad Kötzting 19 March 2021 Page 1 from 6 The treetop walks of Erlebnis Akademie AG Spring atmosphere at the treetop walk Neuschönau © Erlebnis Akademie AG The treetop walks of the company based in the Bavarian Forest are a tribute to nature. Erlebnis Akademie AG designs, builds and operates treetop walks nationally and internationally. Characteristic of the company's nature experience facilities are a sustainable wooden construction, a low-barrier walkway through the floors of the forest, play and learning stations, as well as an observation tower at each location that provides new and unique perspectives. In addition to providing an experience for visitors of all ages, Erlebnis Akademie AG's self- imposed ecological educational mission is a key component of the concept. As a specialist for tourist highlights in nature, it creatively implements extraordinary facilities, placing great emphasis on sustainable construction and a barrier-free use for all facilities. The overall concept is designed to promote visitors' sensitivity to the unique natural environment and to enable them to experience it in an interactive way. Individual additional offers at each location complete the concept. Treetop Walk Bavarian Forest The treetop walk in Neuschönau in the Bavarian Forest Press release National Park was opened in 2009. The predominantly Bad Kötzting wooden structure is carefully integrated into the mixed 19 March 2021 mountain forest and conveys an unspoiled experience Page 2 from 6 of nature, which is complemented by mobility and learning stations along the barrier-free walkway. The 1,300-meter-long and up to 25-meter-high footbridge ends on the platform of the observation tower, affectionately called the tree-egg by visitors, at a height of 44 meters and promises a magnificent view on the one hand in the direction of Rachel and Lusen of a settlement-free area with forest and wilderness, and on the other hand of the cultivated cultural landscape of the Bavarian Forest all the way to the Alps.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Project Description
    E1139 Volume 2 Government of Poland rZGW Wroclaw Ministry of Interior and Administration RZGW Gliwice Office for Natural Disasters Recovery DZMiUW Ministry of Environment Public Disclosure Authorized ODRA RIVER BASIN FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Disclosure Authorized ,~~~~~~U Public Disclosure Authorized *~~~ Public Disclosure Authorized Main Report August 2005 I TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................... 1....................................I 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .1 1.2 EMERGENCY FLOOD RECOVERY PROJECT .3 1.3 STRATEGIC CONTEXT: THE ODRA 2006 PROGRAMME .4 1.4 THE ODRA RIVER BASIN FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT .5 1.5 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .5 1.6 THE EA TEAM.6 1.7 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .6 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................... 7 2.1 THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT .... 7................................7 2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS ..................................... 7 2.3 THE RACIBORZ DRY POLDER ..................................... 9 2.3.1 General.9 2.3.2 Resettlement.9 2.3.3 Principal characteristics of the reservoir .10 2.3.4 The embankment and outlet works .10 2.3 .5 Ancillary works.10 2.3.6 Construction cost.12 2.4 THE MODERNIZATION OF THE WROCLAW FLOODWAY SYSTEM ................... ...................... 13 2.4.1 General .............................................................. 13 2.4.2 Sub-components of WFS .............................................................. 13 2.4.3 Cost of WFS .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bakalářská Práce Jan Coufal
    UNIVERZITA PALACKÉHO V OLOMOUCI Přírodov ědecká Fakulta Katedra geografie Jan Coufal KOMPLEXNÍ SOCIOEKONOMICKÁ CHARAKTERISTIKA SO ORP LITOMYŠL Bakalá řská práce Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Petr Kladivo Olomouc 2010 Prohlašuji, že jsem zadanou bakalá řskou práci vypracoval samostatně a uvedl v seznamu veškerou použitou literaturu a další zdroje. V Olomouci dne .……………………. Podpis Rád bych na tomto míst ě pod ěkoval panu Mgr. Petru Kladivovi za cenné rady a připomínky p ři tvorb ě této práce. OBSAH: 1 ÚVOD ............................................................................................................................ 8 1. 1 ÚVOD A CÍLE PRÁCE ................................................................................................. 8 1. 2 DATA A METODY ZPRACOVÁNÍ ................................................................................ 8 2 VYMEZENÍ ÚZEMÍ ................................................................................................... 12 3 ZÁKLADNÍ FYZICKOGEOGRAFICKÁ CHARAKTERISTIKA ........................... 15 3. 1 GEOMORFOLOGICKÉ ČLEN ĚNÍ ................................................................................ 15 3.2 KLIMATICKÉ CHARAKTERISTIKY ............................................................................ 16 3.3 HYDROLOGICKÉ POM ĚRY ....................................................................................... 17 3.4 PŮDY A P ŮDNÍ POKRYV ........................................................................................... 18 3.5 CHRÁN ĚNÁ ÚZEMÍ .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]