Quick appraisal report : Budowa Drogi S5 Poznań – Wrocław, Odcinek Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko : CCI 2012PL161PR036.
Date: 2015-03-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: Poland, cost-benefit analysis, regional policy, road building, transport infrastructure

Quick appraisal report. 
Budowa Drogi S5 Poznań – 
Wrocław, Odcinek 
Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko 

CCI 2012PL161PR036 

Regional 
and Urban 
Policy 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate  G — Smart and Sustainable Growth and Southern Europe - Croissance intelligente et durable et 
Europe du sud 
Unit G.1. — Competence Centre: Smart and Sustainable Growth 

Contact: Mikael Landabaso 

E-mail:  REGIO-G1-HEAD-OF-UNIT@ec.europa.eu@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013 

ISBN: 978-92-79-31081-2 
doi: 10.2776/73212 

© European Union, 2013 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q U I C K   A P P R A I S A L   R E P O R T  

BUDOWA DROGI S5 POZNAŃ – WROCŁAW, ODCINEK 
KACZKOWO - KORZEŃSKO  

CCI 2012PL161PR036 

Prepared for  

European Commission – Directorate General Regional Policy 
Unit H1 
B-1049 Brussels 
BELGIUM 
11th January 2013 

 
This document has been prepared by LeighFisher in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms 
and conditions of the framework contract MULTIPLE "CASCADE" FRAMEWORK SERVICE CONTRACT - LOT 1: 
Transport investments - CONTRACT NUMBER – CCI 2009CE160AT090, between the “European Commission” and 
Jacobs Consultancy.  Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance 
on this document. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and 
notify LeighFisher. 

LeighFisher Limited 
Registered Office: 1180 Eskdale Road, Winnersh, Wokingham, RG41 5TU 
Registered in England No: 2591354 

London | Bologna |San Francisco | Ottawa | New Delhi | 

www.leighfisher.com 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2 

1.1 
1.1.1 
1.1.2 

Project Appraisal Fundamentals.....................................................................................2 
Applicant and project managing authority ......................................................................2 
Documentation available ................................................................................................2 

2 
2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 
3 
3.1 

3.1.1 

3.1.2 

3.1.3 

3.1.4 
3.2 

3.3 

4 
4.1 

4.1.1 

4.1.2 

4.1.3 

4.1.4 

4.1.5 

4.1.6 
4.1.7 

4.1.8 

4.2 

4.2.1 

4.2.2 
4.2.3 

4.2.4 

4.3 

5 

5.1 

5.2 

PROJECT STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES .................................................... 4 
Strategic objectives of the project...................................................................................4 
Project description ..........................................................................................................9 
Functional objectives of the project ................................................................................12 
Consistency with Other Union Policies...........................................................................13 
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, PROJECT COSTS AND DEMAND ANALYSIS.... 15 
Technical Feasibility .......................................................................................................15 

Feasibility Study..............................................................................................................15 

Technical Concept ..........................................................................................................18 

Environmental assessment ............................................................................................20 

Project implementation scheme and time schedule .......................................................21 
Project costs ...................................................................................................................24 

Demand analysis ............................................................................................................26 

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 29 
Financial analysis ...........................................................................................................29 

General Remarks............................................................................................................29 

General assumptions......................................................................................................29 

Investment Costs and Implementation Schedule ...........................................................29 

Revenues Generated......................................................................................................30 

Operating and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................31 

Financial profitability and sustainability ..........................................................................31 
Funding Gap Analysis and Sources of Financing ..........................................................31 

Public Contribution Viability ............................................................................................32 

Socio-economic analysis ................................................................................................32 

General Remarks............................................................................................................32 

General assumptions......................................................................................................32 
Measurable costs............................................................................................................33 

Measurable benefits .......................................................................................................33 

Risk assessment and sensitivity analysis.......................................................................34 

KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS............................................ 35 

Key questions for project appraisal ................................................................................35 

Concluding remarks........................................................................................................38 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

1 

 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1  Project Appraisal Fundamentals 

This Quick Appraisal (QA) is prepared in accordance with the “QA Check List” for major 
applications for Transport Investment, agreed with the EC – Directorate General for Regional 
Policy Directorate D: Policy Coordination. 

The objective of this QA is to support a constructive dialogue between the EU and the 
Applicants providing recommendations and suggestions, based on an in depth analysis of the 
Application form and annexed documentation. 

The structure of this report is in line with the sections and headings of the Quick Appraisal 
Check List and the Investment Application form. 

Along with the description of the findings of the analysis in each Chapter or Section of Chapter 
in relation to which: a) the quality of the information provided and available is not satisfactory, or 
b) the quality of the project is deemed to be improved, or c) the methodological and technical 
solutions adopted to undertake the CBA analysis, demand studies and project design are 
deemed as not adequate or reliable, the comments are highlighted in a recommendations and 
suggestions box. 

In the concluding remarks Chapter we summarize the main findings of our appraisal 
commenting on the essential elements of the project, and suggesting any potential solution that 
can improve its quality according to the findings of the analysis as appropriate. This section 
highlights any important issue that should be considered before the Commission can approve 
the project. 

1.1.1  Applicant and project managing authority 
The Applicant is the Polish Government – the Ministry of Regional Development responsible for 
the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment (OPI&E - POIiŚ – Program 
Operacyjny Infrastruktura i Środowisko), which is the Polish Managing Authority for the National 
Cohesion Strategy 2007-2013 (European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund). 

The Beneficiary of the project is General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways 
(Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad - GDDKiA) – Polish central administration 
authority for issues related to the national road system. 

1.1.2  Documentation available 
The application documents made available in electronic format through the CIRCABC system of 
the European Commission include the following: 
(cid:1)  Request for confirmation of assistance under Articles 39 to 41 of Regulation (EC) no 

1083/2006 (Application form); 

(cid:1)  Statement of the authority responsible for environmental protection areas monitoring 

including the map (Natura 2000 declaration); 

(cid:1)  The documents from both EIA procedures together with 2 environmental decisions, the non 
technical summary of EIA reports and other documentation confirming EIA execution; 2 
development consent decisions.  A list of attachments, including description of the 
documents, has been prepared in a text file; 

(cid:1)  Updated Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Project Construction of express road S5 Poznan – 
Wroclaw, section Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko (update prepared by the General Directorate for 
National Roads and Motorways of February 2012); 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

2 

 
 
 
(cid:1)  Cost-Benefit Analysis (active excel spreadsheet); 
(cid:1)  Table: Project sustainability (spreadsheet); 
(cid:1) 
(cid:1) 

“Traffic forecast for section S5 Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko” (dated April 2012); 

Information including: project characteristics, project concept and conditions for 
implementation, technical description, description of alternative options – 4 Word files 
containing fragments of the „Feasibility Study for the project Construction of express road S5 
Poznan – Wroclaw, section Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko”, or fragments of the Application form. 
However, the whole Feasibility Study has not been made available; 

(cid:1)  Project time schedule – Gantt chart. 
The information provided is consistent with Art. 40 Reg. 1083/2006, Annex XXI and Commission 
Regulation 1828/2006.  

It allows for detailed analysis of project compliance with the regulations and guidelines 
applicable to applying for EU co-financing. Information described in the Application form is 
generally consistent with the provided elements of project dossier.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

3 

 
 
 
2  PROJECT STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES 

Project title: “Construction of express road S5 Poznan – Wroclaw, section Kaczkowo - 
Korzeńsko”.  

2.1  Strategic objectives of the project 

Objectives of the project are well described in the project dossier. The deficiencies in the current 
technical condition of the section under appraisal – in particular insufficient capacity of the 
existing road in comparison to increasing traffic and it’s consequences are described in the 
Application form. Following the analysis of roads no. 5 and 36 and the road infrastructure in the 
region, a list of the main needs resulting from the analysis is provided. Main goals of the 
investment are:  
(cid:1) 

improvement in traffic standard and safety; 

(cid:1) 

improvement in the functioning of the road outside the TEN-T network; 

(cid:1)  modernisation of the transport connections between the regions and increased accessibility 

of the A2 and A4 motorways; 

(cid:1) 

improvement of the existing section of S5 express road throughput, especially considering 
the high share of heavy vehicle traffic. 

Specific goals are also identified. The project goals described in sections B.5.1. and B.5.2. are 
expressed in appropriate manner. The Project is in line with the priority axis VIII of the 
Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment (OPI&E - approved by the European 
Commission, Decision no. K(2007)6321 of 7 December 2007) which is Transport safety and 
national transport networks. 

Figure 1: Project location in the international (left figure) and Polish (right figure) road network 

Source: Project Characteristics; 
http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plik:NowaMapaS5.svg&filetimestamp=20120608155834 

Section Kaczkowo – Korzeńsko, subject of this appraisal, is marked with red line. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The investment is not located in the TEN-T network. The S5 express road is one of the main 
elements of the national road transportation system, construction of the section Kaczkowo – 
Korzeńsko will contribute to provide the connection between the existing A2 and A4 motorways.   

Figure 2: Approximate project location in the TEN-T road network 

Source: own based on TEN-T map 

The project is included in the indicative list of major projects for the OP&IE 2007-2013 (no 8.2-
15.1) and it is directly related to other projects in the region included in the indicative list:  

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

implemented under action 6.1 Development of road TEN-T network, main list of OP&IE 
projects: 

6.1-16 – construction of express road S5, section Gniezno - Poznań; 
6.1-32.1 – construction of express road S5, section Mielno – Gniezno. 

implemented under action 6.1 Development of road TEN-T network, reserve list of OP&IE 
projects: 

6.1-14 – construction of express road S5, section Nowe Marzy - Bydgoszcz; 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

5 

 
 
 
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
6.1-15 – construction of express road S5, section Bydgoszcz – śnin. 

In particular it is noted in section I.1.2. of the Application form, that the project is complementary 
with projects listed as 6.1-32.2 (section śnin - Gniezno), and  8.2-15.2. planned for 
implementation, as well as section Gniezno – Poznań, currently under implementation. 
However, the description provided in Project Characteristics (fragment of the Feasibility Study) 
names a broader portfolio of complementary projects implemented under OPI&E (4 projects in 
total) omitting  the two investments planned for implementation. All of the complementary 
projects named in the project dossier relate to construction of other sections of S5 express road.  

Realisation of all of the planned investments will result in reaching the strategic objectives of the 
Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment concerning development and 
improvement of road infrastructure. Improvement of the road network in the analysed region is 
essential for the provision of an effective connection between the two motorways A2 and A4 and 
improvement of transport safety and access between the two Voivodships Wielkopolskie and 
Dolnośląskie.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

6 

 
 
-
 
Figure 3: Project location within the regional national roads network in Wielkopolskie Voivodship 

Source: http://www.s5-rawicz-bojanowo.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=9 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Realisation of the project is in line with the national and regional strategies and priorities, as well 
as with EU objectives. It is compliant with Regulations 1083/2006, 1084/2006 and 1080/2006.  

Information on project compliance with the objectives of the national/ regional and local 
strategies/ programmes has been correctly provided in the Application form in section B.5.1. The 
following main strategies and priorities are fulfilled by project realisation: 

At the European and national level: 
(cid:1)  Community Strategic Guidelines – Priority 1 - improving the attractiveness of Member States, 
regions and cities by improving accessibility, ensuring adequate quality and level of services, 
and preserving the environment, Guideline 1.1.1. Expand and improve transport 
infrastructures; 

(cid:1)  National Strategic Reference Framework 2007 – 2013 – project realisation is in line with the 
strategic objective and the following horizontal objective: construction and modernisation of 
technical and social infrastructure which has a crucial effect on the increase of 
competitiveness of Poland as well as two supporting objectives: no 5 - increasing the 
competitiveness of Polish regions and preventing their social, economic and territorial 
marginalisation, and no 6 – equalization of development opportunities and enhancing 
structural changes on rural areas; 

(cid:1)  National Development Strategy 2007 – 2015 – the investment improves the technical and 

social infrastructure – which fulfils the objectives of Priority 2. The project also contributes to 
the regional development and improvement of territorial cohesion (priority 6), which is not 
mentioned in the Application form; 

(cid:1)  Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment – OPI&E – (approved by the 

European Commission - Decision no. K(2007)6321 of 7 December 2007), priority axis VIII – 
Transport safety and national transport networks, task 8.2 national roads outside TEN-T 
network; the project is included in the indicative main list of projects (it. 8.2-15.1); 

(cid:1)  National Transport Policy for 2006 – 2025 – with main goals such as improvement of  

transport accessibility and quality as a life enhancing factor and elimination of development 
barriers; the investment contributes one of ten priorities assumed in the Policy: radical 
improvement of all categories of roads (rehabilitation and enhancing the surface), 
development of motorways and express roads network on most loaded directions and linked 
to the transeuropean network; 

(cid:1)  Programme for the Construction of National Roads for 2011 – 2015 – project is part of the 

investment plan aiming at developing a basic expressways network in Poland; the analysed 
section of road S5 Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko is listed among planned investments in Appendix 
1a to the Programme; 

(cid:1)  National Programme for Road Traffic Safety2005-2007-2013 – project is compliant with 

objective 4 – construction and maintenance of safe road infrastructure.  

At the regional level: 
(cid:1)  Development Strategy for Wielkopolskie Voivodship up to 2020 – investment is in line with 

strategic goal no 1: adjustment of the space to the challenges of XXI. century as well as the 
operational objective no 1.2: increase of communication coherence and its connections with 
the surroundings; 

(cid:1)  Regional Strategy for Transport Development for Wielkopolskie Voivodship for 2007 – 2020 
– with the specified general objective: development of transport infrastructure in order to 
satisfy the communication needs of the population and creation of economy development 
friendly conditions, in particular action no. 2: construction of express roads; 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

8 

 
 
(cid:1)  Strategy for Social – Economic Development for Rawicki Poviat – investment realisation is 
compliant with one of the priority infrastructure goal: actions aiming at technical conditions 
improvement and construction of the new road infrastructure, in particular construction of 
Bojanowo and Rawicz by-pass; 

(cid:1)  Development Strategy for Dolnośląskie Voivodship up to 2020 – project fills its first objective: 

improvement of spatial cohesion of the region.  

Only development strategies for both voivodships were named in p. B.5.1 of the Application 
form, the remaining documents confirming the coherence with regional development plans were 
provided in the Project characteristic.  

2.2  Project description 

The project is located in the south-west part of Poland, it runs through Wielkopolskie and 
Dolnośląskie Voivodships, Poviats Leszczyński, Rawicki and Trzebnicki.  

The investment under appraisal is the construction of express road S5 Poznan – Wrocław, 
section Kaczkowo – Korzeńsko with a length of 29.31 km and construction of Rawicz by-pass 
located within national road no. 36 with a length of 8.96 km. The investment is composed of the 
following: 

(cid:1)  Construction of express road S5 Poznań – Wrocław, section Kaczkowo – Korzeńsko 

beginning at km 79+450 and finishing at km 108+758. Total length of this section of express 
road is 29.31 km; 

(cid:1)  Construction of Rawicz bypass as an alternative to the existing national road no. 36 from km 
68+728,00 to km 77_691 at junction with S5 „Rawicz”. Total length of the by-pass is 8.96 km. 

The reasons for inclusion of the Rawicz by-pass are considered valid and justified. The 
arguments provided in the Application form include i.a.: 
(cid:1)  creation of a road network linking the S5 express road to the existing road network and 

(cid:1) 

allowing for its full functionality; 
removing heavy road traffic from the town of Rawicz (22 thousands inhabitants); resulting in 
an increase in traffic safety and taking account the results of public consultations. 

Currently national road no. 5 and national road no. 36 both crossed the city of Rawicz. 

Project scope includes the following main investments: 
(cid:1)  construction of the two lane dual carriageway express road for a total length of 29.31 km; 
(cid:1)  construction of Rawicz bypass for a total length of 8.96 km; 
(cid:1)  construction of four road junctions: “Kaczkowo” junction at km 80+593 of the main road 

linking the new road with district road no. 4776P; “Bojanowo” junction at km 85+825 of the 
main road, linking S5 with district road no. 5475P; “Rawicz” junction at km 99+377 linking S5 
with the proposed Rawicz by-pass within the road no. 36; “korzeńsko” junction at km 
107+436 linking the new road with existing national road no. 5; 

(cid:1)  construction of 4 rest areas „Gołaszyn Wschodni” (ultimately category II standards), 

“Gołaszyn Zachodni”, “Folwark Wschodni” and “Folwark Zachodni” (ultimately category III 
standards); 

(cid:1)  construction of 35 engineering structures related to the route of S5 and Rawicz by-pass; 
(cid:1)  construction of access roads along the express road for a total length of 50.80 km; 
(cid:1)  construction of access roads from both sides of the proposed section of national road no. 36 

for a total length of 10.36 km; 

(cid:1)  construction of overpasses, underpass; 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

9 

 
 
(cid:1)  construction of 2 roundabouts linking “Kaczkowo” and “Bojanowo” junctions with national 

road no. 5; 

(cid:1)  construction of 3 roundabouts within Rawicz by-pass; 
(cid:1)  construction of a cycle path for a length of 733 m to connect to the existing the cycle path;  
(cid:1)  construction of noise barriers; retention tanks; diversion of existing utilities; lighting.  
Figure 4 shows the existing road network in the area and future layout of the S5 express road 
including the Rawicz bypass.

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

10 

 
 
Figure 4: Proposed investment against a background of the existing road network 

Source: http://www.s5-rawicz-bojanowo.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=7 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The analysed section of S5 Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko falls under the responsibility of the GDDKiA 
regional department in Poznań for the section located in Wielkopolskie Voivodship.  

The investment has been prepared (construction design) and will be fully implemented by 
GDDKiA Poznań and after completion it will be managed and maintained by GDDKiA regional 
departments in Poznań and Wrocław respectively. 
Project realisation is not divided into stages, it is a single operational unit.  

The Application form provides a clear description of project results, they are also named among 
the measurable project goals in section B.5.2. Construction of the road S5 section covered by 
this project’ scope will result in an improvement in the traffic capacity, reduction of travel time, 
reduction in number of accidents, improvement in traveller comfort, improvement of the journey 
on the existing and interregional network between Poznań and Wrocław, increase in economic 
and investment attractiveness of the region through better area accessibility.  

2.3  Functional objectives of the project 

Analyzed investment is located in the south-western part of the Wielkopolskie Voidodship and 
northern part of Dolnośląskie Voivodship. Table below presents the socio-economic data 
concerning the administrative districts in which the constructed road is located and for the 
country. 

Table 1 Territorial, demographic and economic indicators for the analysed area  

2011 

Administrative 
district  

Area [km2] 

% of the 
area of the 
country 

Total 
population 

% of the 
total 
population 

Population 
density 
[per/km2]* 

Unempl
oyment* 
[%] 

Registered 
economic 
entities 
(private 
sector) 

Poland 

312,679 

100  38,538,447 

100 

123 

12.5  3,748,026 

 Wielkopolskie 
Voivodship 

Leszczyński  
district 

Rawicki 
district 

Dolnośląskie 
Voivodship 

Trzebnicki 
district 

Górowski 
district 

29,826 

9.54  3,455,477 

8.96 

116 

9.1 

366,760 

806 

554 

- 

- 

53,013 

60,448 

- 

- 

66 

8.8 

4,969 

109 

10.9 

4,649 

19,947 

6.38  2,916,577 

7.57 

146 

12.4 

312,524 

1,025 

738 

- 

- 

82,015 

36,730 

- 

- 

80 

12.6 

7,849 

50 

26.4 

2,436 

Source: own based on Central Statistical Office; *registered unemployment rate  

The presented analysis of the socio-economic data for the area focuses on the regions strong 
economic condition. With almost 10% share in the population of the country, Wielkopolskie 
Voivodship has a relatively low unemployment rate (9.1%), whereas Dolnośląskie Voivodship 
with 12.4% unemployed reflects the situation in the whole country. Both Voivodships are 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

12 

 
 
 
situated on the crossings of relevant European communication corridors and with its dynamic 
economies are important growth areas for the country.  

The information on the socio-economic background of the project analysed in the available 
section of the Feasibility Study – Project characteristic - might have been developed more to 
show the economic growth indicators and to cover a wider regional context, as the project goals 
refer to increases in standards and safety of a road serving part of the key national and 
international road network.    

The most important socio – economic and functional effects of the project are well identified and 
considered in the Application form with respect to local as well as regional influence. 

The most important measurable social and economic objectives of the project are correctly 
identified as improvement of traffic capacity and consequently the time savings, reduction of the 
number of accidents and savings resulting from the reduction of vehicle emissions.  

The non quantified goals to be obtained through construction of the planned section of S5 and 
Rawicz by-pass within road no. 36 listed in the Application form are comparable to other projects 
of a similar nature. The following are listed: 
(cid:1) 
(cid:1) 

improvement in traffic comfort for travellers; 
improvement of the journey on the existing and interregional network between Poznań and 
Wrocław; 
increase of economic and investment attractiveness of the region through improved area 
accessibility, which impacts the economic growth of entrepreneurs and inhabitants and 
preserves the natural environment, health, cultural heritage and spatial cohesion in parallel. 

(cid:1) 

The quantified indicators and results were identified correctly and are in line with Operational 
Programme Infrastructure and Environment 2007 - 2013.  

The project is compliant with equal opportunity policy and an appropriate reference was 
provided. No exclusion of any social groups or discrimination is foreseen, and the project 
includes solutions enabling access of individuals with disabilities to the new infrastructure. 

2.4  Consistency with Other Union Policies 

The information on project financing is correctly provided in the Application form. The project is 
going to be financed only by means of public funds (national budget and the National Roads 
Fund – € 83,819,806) and the Cohesion Fund contribu tion (€ 200,792,755). The EU financial 
contribution constitutes 85% of eligible expenditures.  

According to p. I.4 of the Application form, JASPERS was not involved in project preparation.  

Three contract references are correctly included in the Application form. 

With reference to the Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management, two 
Decrees of the General Directorate for National Roads and Highways (GDDKiA) introduce an 
obligation to carry out an assessment on road traffic safety and traffic safety audits for TEN-T 
roads as well as for non TEN-T roads co-financed by means of EU aid: 

(cid:1)  Decree No. 42 (dated 3rd September 2009) on the assessment of the impact on traffic safety 

road and road safety audit of road infrastructure projects; 

(cid:1)  Decree No. 17 (dated 11th May 2009) on the requirements of stages and scope of the 
design documentation for roads and bridges at the stage of investment preparation. 

Reference to both Decrees is provided in the Application form. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

13 

 
 
As stated in the Application form, following the Directive of 2008/96/EC, three audits in total 
were conducted or foreseen: 

(cid:1)  During the design stage, 01.10.2011; according to the information provided in the Application 
form as a result of the audit some inadequacies were noted in design documentation related 
to sections of road and engineering structures and recommendations for their removal were 
concluded; 

(cid:1)  Before opening for traffic; 

(cid:1)  After investment completion, at the beginning of road operational phase (within the first year 

of operation). 

The project dossier provides no information on whether or not the suggestions resulting from the 
first audit were introduced. 

No information is provided on road signs, traffic lights, monitoring systems, alarm systems or 
road safety barriers. Detailed information of car accidents is provided in the project dossier.  

Three contract references, which are signed within the project preparation and implementation, 
are included in the Application form.  

The publicity measures described in the Application form are in line with the requirements of the 
EU regulation and are already implemented. The costs for these measures are provided and are 
deemed to be adequate.  

B.2.4. Recommendations and suggestions 

It is suggested that confirmation is provided that the road safety audit recommendations were 
provided.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, PROJECT COSTS AND DEMAND ANALYSIS 

3.1  Technical Feasibility  

3.1.1  Feasibility Study 
Neither the Feasibility Study nor any other of the documents attached to the Application form 
have been financed from the ERDF, Cohesion Fund, ISPA, or any other EU assistance.  

During the conceptual stage three different routing options were considered in the vicinity of 
Rawicz city. The process of analysis and selection of alternative options is described in the 
Application form, with some additional details – costs - in the enclosed fragment of Feasibility 
Study – Project characteristic. However this comparison refers to the section of S5 express road 
only. No description of options considered for Rawicz by-pass is provided in the project dossier, 
apart from the reference in the Application form indicating option II as the selected option for 
Rawicz by-pass (page 28 of the Application form); the scant description included in the non-
technical summary for the construction of Rawicz by-pass (with the information that the option 
with lowest acoustic impact was chosen) and the drawings illustrating alternative routing options.  

For the section of S5 express road, the following options were analysed (as illustrated in Figure 
5): 

(cid:1)  Option I – with a length of 28.53 km; located closest to Rawicz; for this option it is necessary 
to construct 24 engineering structures (junctions/bridges), including 11 over the railway line; 
estimated cost of Option I equals € 337 mln. 

(cid:1)  Option II – with a length of 29.13 km; for this option it is necessary to construct 23 

engineering structures (junctions/bridges), including 7 over the railway line; estimated cost of 
Option II equals € 326 mln; 

(cid:1)  Option III – with a length of 29.31 km; for this option it is necessary to construct 35 

engineering structures (junctions/bridges), including 8 over the railway line; estimated cost of 
Option III equals € 300 mln. 

During the design stage, in order to accommodate local conditions, the road alignment has been 
changed from the existing within a range of between a few and tens of meters. Each option 
retains the same cross section, i.e. two carriageways with three lanes with the emergency lane, 
separated by a central reservation.  

As stated in the Application form, the multi-criteria analysis was carried out during the 
conceptual stage and Environmental Impact Report preparation. The following aspects were 
analysed: 

(cid:1)  Conflicts in groundwater environment; 

(cid:1)  Length of impact on water ecosystems; location of weak bearing capacity ground; forest 

areas occupied for the purpose of construction works; no. of water intakes in the area of 500 
and 1000 m from the route; 

(cid:1)  Spatial conflicts (no. of residential buildings, no. of buildings for demolition, acquired 

communication routes: roads, streets, paths); 

(cid:1)  Requested safety barriers (screens); 

(cid:1)  Social approval. 

Option III is indicated as the preferred one together with the construction of Rawicz by-pass.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

15 

 
 
 
Figure 5 Localisation of analysed options for the analysed section of S5  

Source: project dossier, attachment no. 2.3.1; file “orientacja”  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 Localisation of options for the analysed section of S5 including Rawicz by-pass  

Source: project dossier, attachment no. 2.3.2; file “orientacja”

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

17 

 
 
 
 
It is difficult to comment on the results of option analysis, as no source materials were provided, 
the Environmental Impact Report has not been provided, whereas reference to multi-criteria 
analysis carried out and described in this report is given. The only information about the option 
analysis is a scant description of three options for section of S5 express road and its costs.     

We do not question the choice of options, it was presumably based on technical, functional, 
environmental, economic and social criteria, but no details are provided in the project dossier.   

It seems that the option preferred from the social point of view has been selected. Nevertheless 
it should be pointed out that the analysis and the selection of the preferred alternative should be 
supported by comprehensive description and valid quantitative data. 

B.3.1.1. Recommendations and suggestions 

It is suggested – especially for future reference - that a comprehensive description of options 
together with valid quantitative data is provided.  

3.1.2  Technical Concept 
Technical concept 

The investment subject to appraisal is construction of the express road S5 Kaczkowo - 
Korzeńsko section. The section starts at km 79+450 and ends at km 108+758. The length of the 
considered section of S5 express road is 29.31 km. Supplementary to the section of the express 
road S5 is the construction of the Rawicz by-pass as an alternative to the existing national road 
no. 36 from km 68+728 to km 77+691 at the intersection of the express road S5 at "Rawicz” 
junction. The length of the Rawicz by-pass is 8.96 km. 

The investment is procured by means of a "construction works" contract. 

In the analysed section a 2x2 expressway cross-section was used (two carriageways with 2 
lanes). In the future, the implementation of a 2x3 cross-section is envisaged. 

The Projected free flow movement (PSR) was calculated for the proposed road using the 
"Instructions for calculating the capacity of roads in classes I and II (motorways and 
expressways), GDDP, Warsaw 1995", in force on national roads in Poland. 

The free flow movement categories on the analysed section of S5 are shown in the table below. 

Table 2 Projected free flow movement for analysed sections 

Kaczkowo - Bojanowo (S5) 
Bojanowo – Rawicz (S5) 
Rawicz – Korzeńsko (S5) 
Source: Application form 

2013  2017  2018  2023  2028  2033  2036  2038 

A 
A 
A 

A 
A 
A 

B 
A 
A 

B 
B 
B 

C 
B 
B 

C 
C 
C 

C 
B 
B 

C 
B 
B 

The above table confirms that the adopted express road cross-section provides for the right 
traffic conditions as category C is the minimum criteria for express roads in Poland. From the 
analysis of traffic conditions, it is clear that within the design reference period there does not 
appear to be a need to widen to three lanes, an explanation of the justification for including the 
3rd lane provision should be requested.   

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Access to the analysed section of the express road will be limited as compared to the present 
national road no. 5. Connections with other public roads will be implemented through four 
multilevel junctions: 
(cid:1) 

“Kaczkowo” junction at km 80+593 of the main road at the intersection of the new road with  
district road no. 4776P;  
“Bojanowo” junction at km 85+825 of the main road, at the intersection of S5 with district 
road no. 5475P;  
“Rawicz” junction at km 99+377 at the intersection of S5 with the proposed Rawicz by-pass;  
“Korzeńsko” junction at km 107+436 at the intersection of the new road with existing national 
road no. 5; 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 
(cid:1) 

(cid:1)  construction of 4 rest areas „Gołaszyn Wschodni” (ultimately category II standard), 

“Gołaszyn Zachodni”, “Folwark Wschodni” and “Folwark Zachodni” (ultimately category III 
standard); 

The Expressway will be equipped with four service areas (MOP) which will ensure an adequate 
level of passenger service in accordance with Polish standards: 
(cid:1)  2 rest areas (MOP "Gołaszyn Wschodni" and "Gołaszyn Zachodni”) at 88+644 km; 
(cid:1)  2 rest areas (MOP “Folwark Wschodni" and “Folwark Zachodni") at 103+450 km. 

The design speed adopted for the project is 100 km/h and is appropriate for an S class express 
road and 80 km/h was adopted for national road no.36, also appropriate for this road category. 

Figure 7 The section of S5 and national road no. 36 under appraisal with indication of main junctions  

Source: project dossier; attachment 2.3.3 

Technical design 

Based on the scope of data made available in the project dossier, it appears that the technical 
parameters of the design meet the requirements of national legislation (Regulation of the 
Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy of 2 March 1999 on the technical conditions to be 
met by public roads and their location (OJ No. 43 pos. 430)).  

The available documentation attached to the Application form does not provide sufficient detail 
to review the design solutions for visibility stopping distances. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
The construction of the express road pavement has been designed for an axle load of 115 kN. 

The analysed section of express road includes 4 junctions.  

The description of the project provided in the Application dossier is considered satisfactory and 
provides sufficient information to conclude that the project is technically sound. The technical 
solutions proposed for the road are appropriate for the existing and expected traffic levels. 
Improvement in road safety, reduction of congestion on the existing road in built-up areas and 
increase in the quality of life of people living in the region are reasonably likely to be attained 
following project implementation.  

B.3.1.2. Recommendations and suggestions 

It is suggested that an explanation of the justification for including the 3rd lane provision is 
requested.  

3.1.3  Environmental assessment  
As the project footprint traverses two Voivodships (Dolnoslaskie and Wielkopolskie), according 
to the regulations binding at that time, the Environmental Assessment procedures have been 
carried out separately for each of the two sections (in Wroclaw and Poznan respectively). No 
procedural non compliances were noted at the stage of environmental decisions and granting of 
development consents. The Application form provides all the necessary information with respect 
to the environmental assessment.  

The Project is consistent with environmental sustainability rules. Relevant information was 
provided in Section F.1 a, b, c of the Application form. It is considered as satisfactory. 

Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure. The Project is in Annex I of the EIA Directive.  

Two full EIA procedures were carried out by the competent authorities. 

Two EISs meeting statutory requirements have been prepared for the project. The relevant 
environmental authorities have been consulted before the environmental decision was issued. 
The Public has been informed about the procedure and submitted some comments. As a result 
of public consultation additional acoustic screens have been included in the final design. The 
final environmental decisions have been issued: 

(cid:1)  by RDOS Poznan in February 2009; 

(cid:1)  by RDOS Wroclaw in August 2010. 

The decisions are valid and include all necessary elements.  

When the building design for the road was completed, before the development consent for road 
construction was issued, another EIA based on a new EIS was carried out at the request of the 
Investor considering the detailed technical solutions. 

All EIA Directive requirements have been met during EIA process. The relevant information in 
section F of the Application form is satisfactory. 

(cid:1)  The documents from both EIA procedures are attached. A list of attachments, including 

description of the documents, has been prepared in text file.  

The environmental decisions imposed obligations regarding the monitoring, post-execution 
analysis and mitigation measures to be included in the building design as well as conditions for 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

20 

 
 
 
the construction and operational stage. All measures resulting from EIA (underpasses for 
animals, fencing, acoustic screens, drainage system) have been included and are adequate for 
project impacts and risks. Some compensation (tree planting) is required in Dolnoslaskie area. 

Point F.5 of the Application form gives sufficient information about monitoring and post-
execution analysis. 

Point F.6 of the Application form includes the estimated proportion of the cost of mitigation 
measures as specified by the environmental decisions in the total cost of the project. 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive Application. The project is consistent 
with the strategic documents at national and regional level that fall within the scope of the SEA 
Directive. 

Section F.3.3 of the Application form contains two Internet links to access the NTS’s of relevant 
Environmental Reports. The information concerns only national level documents. No link is 
available to any regional level document. 

Natura 2000. The Wielkopolskie section of the road is located at a distance of ca 2 km from the 
border of PLH 020041 „Ostoja nad Barycza” Natura 2000 site. The analysis of likely impacts of 
the project has been carried out and showed no risk of any adverse effects either on the 
conservation objectives of the site or on the consistency of the network. The declaration issued 
by the competent authority (RDOS Poznan) in November 2010 confirms that there was no need 
to carry out an appropriate assessment required by art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.  

As the Dolnoslaskie section of the road is close (ca 700 m) to the above mentioned Natura 2000 
site the risk of negative impact was likely and the competent authority (RDOS Wroclaw) has 
carried out an appropriate assessment required by art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The results 
of the assessment are described in section F.4 and specific conditions have been imposed by 
environmental decision. Those were related to the construction phase (cutting trees, heavy 
vehicle use) and to design stage (animal under- and overpasses, fencing, special lamps). As 
compensation for destroyed forest habitats new trees shall be planted. When the proposed 
mitigation and compensation is implemented no significant impact on Natura 2000 site is 
expected. 

3.1.4  Project implementation scheme and time schedule 
The Agencies responsible for managing, maintaining and improving the main road network, and 
the investment maintenance are the GDDKiA’s regional departments in Poznań and Wrocław. 
Investment preparation and its implementation lies within the responsibility of regional 
department in Poznań.  

The project is implemented as a construction works contract. Agreement with the contractor 
selected for the construction works was signed in July 2010. A table below provides basic 
information about the contracts. 

Construction works were planned for the period from 11th August 2010 to 11th October 2012 (26 
months excluding the winter period from 15th of December up to 15th of March). From presently 
available public information provided on the project’s website and cited on the figures below, it is 
clear that the project implementation is well advanced, but the construction works have not been 
completed in the originally envisaged period. According to publicly available information an 
annex was signed on 24th October 2012 and project completion is expected by the end of 
September 2013 (http://www.s5-rawicz-bojanowo.pl/). The CUPT (Centre for European Transport 
Projects) website (http://www.cupt.gov.pl/index.php?id=991) mentions that the co-financing 
agreement was signed in June 2011 for the total project value of 1,304,835,124 PLN (EU 
contribution of 951,243,490 PLN). 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

21 

 
 
Table 3  Information about Contracts  

No. of Contract  Date of the Agreement 

Planned termination of 
works 

Value of the contract  
(PLN net of VAT) 

Construction 
works 

Project 
management 
including 
supervision 

Archeological 
research 

30.07.2010 

24.10.2012* 

11.10.2012 

27.09.2013* 

777,239,570.66  

03.08.2010 

03.12.2013 

4,069,345.02  

08.2010 

n.a. 

872,240.14 

* according to annex to the contract 
 Source:  Application  form  and  official  website  of  the  project  (http://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/a/9554/budowa-drogi-
ekspresowej-s5-poznan-a2-wezel-gluchowo-wroclaw-a8-wezel-widawa-odcinek-kaczkowo-korzensko-
obwodnica-bojanowa-i-rawicza) 

Financial progress of all construction works completed as of November 2012 was 62% 
complete.  
All three tenders were carried out in accordance with Public Procurement Law of 29.01.2004 
(Journal of Laws of 2004, No. 19, item. 177, as amended).  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

22 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8 Current advancement of construction works as of 12th December 2012 

Source: GDDKiA http://www.s5-rawicz-bojanowo.pl/images/stories/zdjecia/GRUDZIEN2012/list_nara.jpg 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

23 

 
 
 
  
Figure 9 Current state of works on the analysed section of S5 (3 engineering structures and roundabout in 
Załęcze) 

Source: http://www.s5-rawicz-
bojanowo.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=3&Itemid=10 

The project website http://www.s5-rawicz-bojanowo.pl/ provides the most up-to-date information on 
work progress on this section. 

It is worth noting that according to publicly available resources the construction works 
consortium consisting of three companies faces financial problems – two out of the three 
companies are in bankruptcy, therefore an even longer delay might occur. 

Despite the delay, there appears to be low risk that the project will not be implemented within 
the current programming period. 

There is no Public Private Partnership scheme applied. 

3.2  Project costs  

The investment costs are detailed in Table H.1. of the Application form. The total project value is 
€ 284,612,561, corresponding to PLN 1,240,000,006 ( applying a conversion factor of 4.3568 as 
adopted by the Applicant).  

The distinction between eligible and non eligible costs is described in the Application form. The 
following numbers, consistent with the calculation spreadsheet, are given: 
(cid:1)  Eligible costs – € 236,226,771;  
(cid:1)  Non-eligible costs – € 48,385,790;  
(cid:1)  Total cost – € 284,612,561. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
It is noted that the total project cost in PLN provided in the project dossier differs by from the 
cost provided on official project websites run by GDDKiA 
(http://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/a/9554/budowa-drogi-ekspresowej-s5-poznan-a2-wezel-gluchowo-wroclaw-
a8-wezel-widawa-odcinek-kaczkowo-korzensko-obwodnica-bojanowa-i-rawicza) and by the contractor 
(http://www.s5-rawicz-bojanowo.pl/).  

Construction of the section of S5 road under appraisal runs on a new route, therefore purchase 
of land was required. Total costs of land acquisition exceed 10% of total eligible costs of the 
project, therefore part of these costs not exceeding 10% is considered eligible. The purchase 
price of property does not exceed its market value. As stated in the Application form, the value 
of property has been confirmed by cost appraisal reports within the meaning of the Act of 21 
August 1997 on real estate and it’s implementing rules.  

The cost of design documentation is at the level of less than 1% of the construction works, which 
in our opinion is low. 

Construction cost per 1km for the project is shown below and in our opinion is comparable to the 
cost of similar investments made in the same time period in Poland: 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

€ 7,436,963 per 1 km of express road and by-pass wi thin the national road (inclusive of land 
purchase and VAT); 
€ 5,464,124 per 1 km of express road and by-pass wi thin the national road (exclusive of land 
purchase and VAT). 

It should be noted, that no information is provided in the project dossier on division between 
costs of construction of the express road section and the by-pass.  
Non eligible costs net amount to 17% of total cost net and apply to the following categories: 
project documentation and design, land purchase (partially), construction works (partially), 
construction supervision (partially), designer’s supervision (partially).  
The division of costs between different categories, as presented in the Figure below appears to 
be reasonable. 

 Figure 10 Categories of project costs 

16,12%

0,60%

10,41%

0,33%

0,00%

72,54%

Plans and design documentation (0.60%)

Land acquisition (10.41%)

Construction works (72.54%)

Information and promotion (0.003%)

Supervision (0.33%)

VAT (16.12%)

Source: own based on the Application form 

Project costs presented in the Application form are consistent with the values in the calculation 
spreadsheet provided. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

25 

 
 
 
3.3  Demand analysis  

Traffic forecasts were made in a satisfactory manner. 
Traffic forecast was modelled with the use of the EMME 3.3.0. programme with the use of 
General Traffic Measurements from 2010 (GPR 2010) on the national and provincial road 
network. The whole model involves a network of national and provincial roads across the 
country, inclusive of toll roads and sections of express roads. The GDP growth forecast and the 
principles of internal traffic forecast on the road network are in accordance with guidelines 
adopted by GDDKiA.  

Traffic forecasts were modelled for two variants: non-investment and investment 
(the recommended option) for the following time horizons: 2013, 2017, 2018, 2023, 2028, 2033, 
2036 and 2038. 

Modelling consists of three basic elements: 
(cid:1)  Model of the road network; 
(cid:1)  Demand model - two OD matrices: OD matrix of individual cars and OD matrix of trucks and 

buses; 

(cid:1)  Model of the distribution of traffic on the network. 
The results indicate traffic forecasts for the investment scenario, the average daily traffic on the 
relevant section of the road in 2038 will vary depending on the section from 33 700 [L/d] to 
39 800 [L/d].  

For the purpose of economic and financial analyses, transport work was calculated for the area 
distant from the investment location by 50 km.  

The results of the demand analysis are presented in the document Cost benefit analysis 
(updated in February 2012), excel spreadsheet and described in the Application form under 
items C.1.1.  

Given the measured traffic growth on the national road no. 5 and its trunk roads (see table 
below), traffic forecasts appear to be reasonable. 

Table 4 Historical changes in traffic density [vehicles/day] on national road no. 5 

Section 

Rydzyna - Rawicz 

Rawicz/przejście/ 

Rawicz - śmigrów 

Comparison of General Traffic Measurement 2010 with 2005 

Light vehicles 

Heavy vehicles 

Total 

-4.97% 

-3.08% 

21.27% 

-9.18% 

-0.10% 

13.79% 

-5.74% 

-2.67% 

19.57% 

Source: Prognozy ruchu dla odcinka Kaczkowo – Korzeńsko; April 2012 

Historical data indicates that average traffic density on the existing section of road no. 5 was at 
the level of ca. 12.3 thousands vehicles/day according to GTM in 2005 and 12.5 in 2010 (an 
increase of 1.6%), with a traffic decrease in the north of Rawicz and traffic increase in south.  

In the first operational year (2013) the traffic density on the new express road S5 will reach 10.8 
– 11.2 thousands vehicles/day (depending on the section measured) which is similar or slightly 
higher as compared to GTM 2010, and as can be seen in the following table will increase further 
with growth greatly exceeding the growth recorded historically. This data cannot be compared to 
non-investment variant, as no data is provided either in the Application form or in the original 
document. It is understood that the forecast increase is related mainly to the traffic shift from 
other roads, as the national road no. 5 is a single corridor linking two motorways and its 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

26 

 
 
importance as a transit corridor will increase considerably. One of the arguments in favour of the 
presented results might be the fact that an increase in the number of cars is still being observed 
in Poland, but with a lower dynamic and a estimated growth dynamic of transport work is lower 
than the ADT itself.  

Table 5 Forecast traffic density in the investment variant [vehicles/day] 

2013 

2017 

2018 

2023 

2028 

2033 

2036 

2038 

n
o
i
t
c
e
S

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

T
D
A

e
r
a
h
s

V
G
H

f
o

[%] 

Kaczkowo-
Bojanowo 
(S5) 

Bojanowo-
Rawicz 
(S5) 

Rawicz-
Korzensko 
(S5) 

10,800  10.3  12,600  14.7  24,300  13.1  33,200  13.7  38,000  13.7  41,700  13.6  39,400  12.7  39,800  11.5 

10,800  9.6  12,600  14.7  21,600  14.5  30,100  15.1  34,400  15.1  37,700  15.1  34,200  14.6  34,500  13.2 

11,200  15.7  12,900  19.3  19,300  15.0  29,300  15.1  34,900  14.4  38,600  14.1  33,200  15.0  33,700  13.5 

Source: Application form 

Comparison of available traffic volume forecast data for investment and non-investment 
scenarios indicates that while total traffic volume is only slightly higher for the investment 
scenario, the growth dynamic in the investment scenario is comparable to the investment 
scenario, even lower for some time periods, at a level reaching 4% in the first years.   

Table 6 Forecast traffic volume [vehicle-km] in non-investment and investment variants  

Non-investment variant  

Investment variant 

Year  Total daily traffic volume 

 [vehicle-km] 

Annual 
increase 
rate 

Total daily traffic volume 

 [vehicle-km] 

Annual 
increase 
rate 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

14,885,310 

15,490,661 

16,096,014 

16,701,364 

17,306,715 

17,972,817 

18,821,918 

19,671,019 

20,520,120 

21,369,221 

22,218,322 

22,903,424 

- 

4,07% 

3,91% 

3,76% 

3,62% 

3,85% 

4,72% 

4,51% 

4,32% 

4,14% 

3,97% 

3,08% 

14,850,670 

15,454,713 

16,058,755 

16,662,796 

17,266,838 

18,058,191 

18,880,478 

19,702,763 

20,525,050 

21,347,335 

22,169,622 

22,847,107 

- 

4,07% 

3,91% 

3,76% 

3,63% 

4,58% 

4,55% 

4,36% 

4,17% 

4,01% 

3,85% 

3,06% 

Increase 
rate as 
compared 
to non-
investment 
variant 

-0,23% 

-0,23% 

-0,23% 

-0,23% 

-0,23% 

0,48% 

0,31% 

0,16% 

0,02% 

-0,10% 

-0,22% 

-0,25% 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2025 

2026 

2027 

2028 

2029 

2030 

2031 

2032 

2033 

2034 

2035 

2036 

23,588,525 

24,273,629 

24,958,730 

25,643,832 

26,196,970 

26,750,109 

27,303,245 

27,856,384 

28,409,522 

28,633,513 

28,857,506 

29,081,497 

2,99% 

2,90% 

2,82% 

2,74% 

2,16% 

2,11% 

2,07% 

2,03% 

1,99% 

0,79% 

0,78% 

0,78% 

23,524,594 

24,202,080 

24,879,567 

25,557,052 

26,109,396 

26,661,742 

27,214,088 

27,766,434 

28,318,778 

28,686,343 

29,053,909 

29,421,474 

2,97% 

2,88% 

2,80% 

2,72% 

2,16% 

2,12% 

2,07% 

2,03% 

1,99% 

1,30% 

1,28% 

1,27% 

-0,27% 

-0,29% 

-0,32% 

-0,34% 

-0,33% 

-0,33% 

-0,33% 

-0,32% 

-0,32% 

0,18% 

0,68% 

1,17% 

Source: own on the basis of Updated Cost Benefit Analysis 

No information on ADT forecast for the non investment option was provided in the project 
dossier, only the results achieved for transport work: vehicle-km and vehicle-hours for both the 
base case (non investment) and investment scenario as indicated above, are provided. Based 
on this transport work data and applying the incremental approach, the cost benefit analysis was 
carried out. Although the ADT forecast and CBA results seem to be reasonable, it is difficult to 
verify the calculation provided or to follow the methodology, as the source information for the 
calculations (demand forecast from 2011) has not been made available.   

Taking all the above considerations into account it appears that a rather conservative approach 
for calculating the increase of traffic level has been applied.  

It should also be noted that within the risk and sensitivity analysis the financial model provides 
calculation of switching values, according to which a decrease in traffic level of 88.5% would 
lead to ENPV value equal 0 – meaning that only with such a decrease would the project become 
economically ineffective. We do not consider such a large decrease is probable, therefore we 
would not recommend that recalculation is necessary for this project. We consider this 
calculation of demand reliable.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

28 

 
 
 
4  COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

The CBA analysis of the investment has been developed according to the following guides: 

(cid:1)  European  Commission  Directorate  General  Policy  “Guide  to  Cost  Benefit  Analysis  of 

Investment Project”, July 2008; 

(cid:1)  JASPERS Blue Book for road infrastructure, December 2008; 

(cid:1) 

IBDIM Instructions for the evaluation of the road and bridge projects, 2008; 

(cid:1)  Ministry of Regional Development Guidelines for set of issues related to the preparation of 

investment projects, including revenue-generating projects, 2009; 

(cid:1)  Ministry of Regional Development Guidelines of eligible expenditures under OPI&E, 2009. 

The financial and socioeconomic analyses are based on an incremental approach and include 
the description of the results of the two analysed scenarios. 

4.1  Financial analysis 

4.1.1  General Remarks  
In general, the overall approach applied for the financial analysis is consistent with EU 
guidelines and local requirements (JASPERS, Ministry of Regional Development, General 
Directorate for National Roads and Motorways). 

Detailed remarks are presented below. 

4.1.2  General assumptions 
In order to prepare the financial analysis a projection for the period 2010-2034 (25 years) was 
developed, which is in line with the EU guidelines and local requirements that recommend a 
period of 25 years for each road project. 

A Discount rate was assumed according to the guidelines at a level of 5% (projection was 
prepared in fixed gross prices). 

Residual value is calculated as annuity from the difference between revenue and operation 
costs after the end year. According to the JASPERS requirements, the analysis uses the 
residual revenue approach allowed by COCOF GUIDANCE NOTE ON ARTICLE 55 OF 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1083/2006: REVENUE-GENERATING PROJECTS. 

The analysis is based on two scenarios: “with project” and “without project”. 

Investment Costs and Implementation Schedule 

4.1.3 
Total cost of the project amounts to 1,240,000,000 PLN (€  284,612,561). The budget for the 
investment is divided into eligible and non eligible costs. The eligibility of project costs is 
consistent with the EU guidelines and local requirements (mainly “National Strategic Reference 
Framework 2007-2013 Guidelines concerning eligibility of expenditure under The Operational 
Programme Infrastructure and Environment”, 3/2009; Ministry of Regional Development). 

The majority of expenses planned during the investment constitute eligible costs (83%). Total 
project eligible cost amounts to 1,029,192,794 PLN (€  236,226,771) and consist of, 
approximately 75% of its value, of buildings and construction. 

Detailed breakdown of cost categories is presented below.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

29 

 
 
Table 7 Eligible and non eligible expenditures in €  (according to the Application form, the CBA update and the 
excel spreadsheet - CBA active model) 

Description 

1. Planning 

2. Land acquisition 

3. Building and 
construction 
4. Equipment 

5. Contingency 

6. Price adjustment 

7. Technical 
assistance 
8. Promotion 

9. Construction 
supervision 
10. VAT 

11. TOTAL 

Total 

Non eligible costs 

Eligible costs 

Value 

% 

Value 

% 

Value 

% 

1,705,928  

0.60% 

1,705,928  

3.53% 

0  

29,631,840  

10.41% 

10,172,839  

21.02% 

19,459,001  

0.00% 

8.24% 

206,454,251  

72.54% 

29,270,777  

60.49% 

177,183,474  

75.01% 

0  

0  

0  

0  

9,689  

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0  

0  

0  

0  

0  

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0  

0  

0  

0  

9,689  

942,177  

0.33% 

141,725  

0.29% 

800,452  

45,868,676  
284,612,561 

16.12% 
100.00% 

7,094,521  
48,385,790 

14.66% 
100.00% 

38,774,155  
236,226,771 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.34% 

16.41% 
100.00% 

According to the exchange rate included in the Application form 1 € = 4.3568 PLN 
Note: General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways can’t collect VAT paid. According to the Guidelines on 
eligibility of expenditures, part of VAT is eligible. 
Source: The Application form, the CBA update and the CBA active model 

The investment costs reported in the Application form and the CBA update are consistent with 
the CBA active model. 

Investment schedule assumes that all construction works will be finalised by the end of 2013. 

According to the information published on the project website (// http://www.s5-rawicz-
bojanowo.pl/) the progress of works, in financial terms, at the end of November 2012 was 62%. 

It can be concluded that the risk of works delay beyond the current programming period is low. 

4.1.4  Revenues Generated 
The  project  belongs  to  the  category  “Revenue-generating  projects”.  The  project  assumes  the 
introduction of an electronic toll system in 2013.  

All the revenues come from future road users (for vehicles over 3.5 tons). They are based on: 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

Traffic forecast (described earlier); 

Assumptions considering tolls, which are: 

-  2011 - 2015: 0.46 PLN/per km per vehicle; 

-  2016 - 2019: 0.37 PLN/per km per vehicle; 

-  Since 2020: 0.27 PLN/per km per vehicle. 

These tolls are in accordance with the Regulation concerning the roads or sections on which the 
fee is to be collected electronically, and the rates of electronic toll (for vehicles over 3.5 tons), 
that entered into force on 1st July 2011: 

(cid:1) 

0.20-0.53 PLN/per km per other users (excluding motorcycles).  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

30 

 
 
 
 
It should be noted, that the Regulation is under development and the final requirements may 
change in the future with respect to the future EU regulation (planned amendment of the 
Directive to allow inclusion of externalities in the HGV rate).  

Changing the basic tolls could change the project into a positive net revenue generating one and 
thus seriously affect the financial gap. 

4.1.5  Operating and Maintenance Costs 
According to local requirements, the operating costs and maintenance costs of infrastructure 
(old road and new road) is based on the parameters presented in JASPERS Blue Book for road 
infrastructure, December 2008. The costs and maintenance costs of the toll collection system 
are based on the costs contained in the contract between General Directorate for National 
Roads and Motorways and the operator of the national toll collection system. 

Detailed breakdown of operating and maintenance cost categories is presented the Application 
form, the CBA update and the CBA active model. 

4.1.6  Financial profitability and sustainability 
The Application form states that: 

Table 8 Financial effectiveness indicators 

Financial indicator 

FNPV/C 

FNPV/K 

FRR/C 

FRR/K 

Result 

€ -290,228,609  

€ -103,993,022  

Not existent 

Not existent 

Source: Application form, page 21 and page 34 

Indicators are calculated using discounted cash flow method. 

Due to the fact that this project does not generate net revenue, financial sustainability is ensured 
in accordance with Art. 18, par. 1, point 1, Art. 19. par. 1 and 2, point 1 and Art. 20, point 4 of the 
Act of 21 March 1985 on public roads (Journal of Laws of 2004 No 204, item. 2086, as 
amended) by obligation of the beneficiary to carry out the operational and maintenance costs 
during the project lifetime.  

4.1.7  Funding Gap Analysis and Sources of Financing 
The project belongs to the category “Revenue-generating projects”. In this situation the level of 
co-financing is based on a financial gap. According to the calculations included in the CBA 
active model, the funding gap is equal to 100.00%. In this case, the funding rate was fixed at the 
level of 85% according to the priority axis (Axis VIII: Transport safety and national transport 
networks). 

Table 9 Level of EU grant 

Eligible costs - Total 

Co-financing level 

€ 236,226,771  

85% 

Source: own based on the Application form 

EU grant 

€ 200,792,755  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

31 

 
 
 
 
The level of EU grant and the value of EU grant reported in the Application form are consistent 
with the CBA active model. 

4.1.8  Public Contribution Viability 
The project does not involve State Aid.  

Community financial assistance will accelerate the project implementation.  

Cost sharing for eligible and non eligible is in line with Art. 56 of Regulation 1083/2006. Detailed 
breakdown of costs was not presented in the project dossier. No detailed description of each 
category of cost has been provided.  

EU grant contribution has been calculated properly in the Application form. VAT is treated 
correctly as an eligible cost.  

4.2  Socio-economic analysis 

4.2.1  General Remarks 
The overall approach applied in the economic analysis is consistent with EC guidelines and local 
requirements (JASPERS, Ministry of Regional Development, General Directorate for National 
Roads and Motorways). Economic evaluation was carried out using standard cost benefit 
techniques. The procedures are consistent with the guidelines set out in the EC “Guide to Cost-
Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects” and the JASPERS guide “Blue Book – Road 
infrastructure”. 

Detailed remarks are presented below. 

4.2.2  General assumptions 
In order to prepare the economic analysis a projection for the period 2010-2034 was developed.  

The discount rate was assumed at the level of 5%.  

Projection was prepared in fixed gross prices. 

The economic analysis is based on two scenarios: “with project” and “without project”. These 
scenarios have been detailed and presented in the Application form, the CBA update and the 
CBA active model. 

In the cost-benefit analysis, based on the financial data, corrections of expenditures and results 
generated by the project were made, including fiscal and external effects. 

The following streams of costs and benefits were used: 

Measurable costs 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

Adjusted investment costs; 

Adjusted operating and maintenance costs (road and toll collect system); 

Measurable benefits 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

Adjusted residual value; 

Time savings; 

(cid:1)  Reduction in accidents (passengers and freight traffic); 

(cid:1)  Reduction in environmental external costs (emissions); 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

32 

 
 
(cid:1)  Gains as a result of reducing vehicle operation costs. 

4.2.3  Measurable costs 
In the economic analysis costs were adjusted in two phases: elimination of VAT and correction 
of fiscal transfers. The following fiscal correction factors were applied: 

(cid:1) 

Investment costs: 0.8; 

(cid:1)  Operating and maintenance costs: 0.7. 

A description of the methodology adopted to estimate these conversion factors has been 
provided in the Application form, the CBA update and the CBA active model. Applied 
methodology is compliant with the requirements. 

4.2.4  Measurable benefits 
The values of main benefits were estimated on the basis of formulae and unit costs contained in 
the “Blue Book – Road infrastructure” (JASPERS, 12/2008). 

Results  from  the  cost-benefit  analysis  show,  that  time  savings  are  the  most  dominant  benefit, 
which is comparable to other Polish road projects of similar nature.  

Figure 11 Economic costs and benefits 

2 000 000 000

1 500 000 000

1 000 000 000

R
U
E

500 000 000

0

-500 000 000

Time savings

Accidents

CAPEX

Emissions

OPEX

Car exploitation

Source: own based on the Application form 

4.2.5. Immeasurable costs and benefits 
Non quantified costs and benefits have not been identified in part E.2.5 of the Application form, 
however, these have been described in section B.5.2 of the Application form.  

4.2.6. Economic Performance Indicators 

Cost-benefit analysis indicates that the planned investment is important from the social point of 
view and should be implemented. 
(cid:1) 
ENPV = € 1,643,298,218; 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

ERR = 25.74%; 

B/C = 8.71. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

33 

 
 
 
 
Economic effectiveness parameters are much higher than the results presented in other Polish 
road projects of similar nature. The value of “Time saving” appears to be overestimated. This is 
usually the result of overestimated traffic forecast, however, in this case the traffic appears not 
to be overestimated. The recalculation of demand is not necessary, because the impact of “Time 
saving” changes is not significant on the economic effectiveness indicators, see table below, 
even a decrease of 3 times the “Time Saving” will still give an economically valid project.  

Table 10 Impact of “Time saving” change on the Economic Performance Indicators  

Economic 
Performance 
Indicators 

ENPV 

ERR 

B/C 

Decrease of “Time saving”  

Decrease of “Time saving”  

Decrease of “Time saving”  

by 1.5 

by 2 

by 3 

€ 1,022,926,619  

€ 712,740,819  

€ 402,555,019  

20.95% 

5.80 

17.88% 

4.34 

13.92% 

2.89 

Source: own calculations 

4.2.7. Impact on Employment 
The impact on employment has been estimated in accordance with JASPERS Blue Book 
requirements. However, General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways foresee no 
increase of employment, which was explained in the Application form (p. E.2.4). 

B.4.2 Recommendations and suggestions 

It is suggested that an explanation of the high value of “Time saving” is requested from the 
applicant to draw attention to this issue for future reference. 

4.3  Risk assessment and sensitivity analysis 

4.3.1. Sensitivity analysis 

The sensitivity analysis has been undertaken in accordance with the EU and national guidelines 
issued by the Ministry of Regional Development and JASPERS and is in general consistent with 
requirements specified for this kind of project. The choice of parameters that were examined 
(traffic, investment costs, unit cost of time, accidents, emissions, etc.) is considered reasonable. 

4.3.2. Risk analysis 

A  qualitative  risk  analysis  has  been  developed  mainly  based  on  the  risk  for  the  project.  Five 
categories were identified. For each risk factor a probability of occurrence, effect and weight has 
been provided together with an alternative plan for its reduction.  

Sensitivity analyses as well as the risk analysis are acceptable.  

Additionally, the switching values have been calculated. Switching value is the percentage 
change of certain parameters at which ENPV=0. The following results were achieved: 

(cid:1)  Change in time cost: -88.30%; 

(cid:1)  Change in investment cost: 929.06%; 

(cid:1)  Change in ADT: -88.51%. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
5  KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 

5.1  Key questions for project appraisal 

(a) Is the application dossier complete? 

The project dossier can be acknowledged as complete, although the Feasibility Study was not 
provided as a complete document but in the form of 4 files comprising information on the project. 
Application form complies with the EC Regulations. The information provided is consistent with 
Art. 40 Reg. 1083/2006, Annex XXI and Commission Regulation 1828/2006. 

(b) Does the project meet the expected strategic and functional objectives? 

Description of the investment provided in the application dossier is satisfactory regarding the 
strategic and functional objectives of the project. Analysis of the up-dated socio-economic data 
confirms that the rationale behind the project realisation is sound. Realisation of the project is in 
line with the described in detail national and regional strategies and policies.  

(c) Is the project consistent with the EU policies?  

The investment is a part of the strategic plan that is construction and reconstruction of roads 
localised outside the TEN-T network. It is in line with the national and EU policies and in 
particular with the regional cohesion and economic development policies of DG Regio. It is 
compliant with Regulations 1083/2006, 1084/2006 and 1080/2006. 

According to the information provided in the Application form, the road safety audit was carried 
out during preparation of design and two more are planned: before opening for traffic and after 
investment completion, at the beginning of road operational phase (within the first year of 
operation). Some recommendations were issued after the first audit, but the project dossier 
provides no information on whether or not the recommendations were introduced. It is 
suggested that such an explanation is provided [see Recommendations and suggestions box 
B.2.4]. 

 (d) Is the project technically sound? 

Review of the description of the technical solutions and design provided in the Application 
dossier lead to the conclusion that the project is technically sound. From the operational stand 
point, the solutions proposed for the road are appropriate for the existing and expected traffic 
levels. Although, from the analysis of traffic conditions, it is clear that within the design reference 
period there does not appear to be a need to widen to three lanes, therefore an explanation of 
the justification for including the 3rd lane provision should be requested [see Recommendations 
and suggestions box B.3.1.2]. Overall, the section on technical solutions is comprehensive; 
however it omits details of some of the technical parameters.  

With respect to option analysis, it is difficult to comment on the results of option analysis, as no 
source materials were provided. The only information about the option analysis is a scant 
description of three options for section of S5 express road and its costs. We do not question the 
choice of options, it was presumably based on technical, functional, environmental, economic 
and social criteria, but no details are provided in the project dossier. However, for future 
reference, it should be pointed out that the analysis and the selection of the preferred alternative 
should be supported by a comprehensive description and valid quantitative data [see 
Recommendations and suggestions box B.3.1.1]. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

35 

 
 
 
Construction works were originally planned for the period from August 2010 to October 2012. 
From presently available public information provided on the project’s website, it is clear that the 
project implementation is well advanced, but the construction works have not been completed in 
the originally envisaged period. According to publicly available information an annex was signed 
in October 2012 and project completion is expected by the end of September 2013. It is worth 
noting that according to publicly available resources the construction works consortium 
consisting of three companies faces financial problems – two out of the three companies are in 
bankruptcy, therefore an even longer delay might occur. Despite this, we consider that there is a 
low risk that this project will not be completed within the current programming period. 

 (e) Are the project costs reasonable? 

Project costs appear reasonable and in line with Polish experience. In our opinion, construction 
cost per 1km is comparable to the cost of similar investments made in the same time period in 
Poland. The division of costs between different categories is not being questioned. We noted a 
small discrepancy between the value of costs presented in the project dossier and the data 
available on project website. 

 (f) Are the results of the demand analysis acceptable? 

Traffic analysis was prepared in line with the requirements in force. The analysed period covers 
25 years, as required by the DG Regional Policy 2008 CBA Guidelines. JASPERS Blue Book-
2008 and GDDKiA regulations. The traffic forecast has been provided appropriately for “without 
project” and “with project” scenario.  

No information on ADT forecast for the non investment option was provided in the project 
dossier, only the results achieved for transport work: car-km and car-hours for both the base 
case (non investment) and investment scenario as indicated above are provided. Based on this 
transport work data and applying the incremental approach, the cost benefit analysis was 
carried out. Although the ADT forecast and CBA results seem to be reasonable, it is difficult to 
verify the calculation provided or to follow the methodology, as the source information for the 
calculations (demand forecast from 2011) has not been made available. For future reference, it 
would be a benefit to provide the source information used for the calculations. 

It appears that a conservative approach have been applied.   

It should also be noted that within the risk and sensitivity analysis the financial model provides 
calculation of switching values, according to which a decrease in traffic level of 88.5% would 
lead to ENPV value equal 0 – meaning that only with such a decrease would the project become 
economically ineffective. We do not consider such a large decrease is probable, therefore we 
would not recommend that recalculation is necessary for this project. We consider this 
calculation of demand reliable. 

(g) Is the environmental assessment compliant with the EC regulations? 

The EIA procedure does not raise any concerns. The EIA procedure was carried out in 
accordance with the regulations binding at that time, the Environmental Assessment procedures 
have been carried out separately for each of the two sections (in Wroclaw and Poznan 
respectively). No procedural non compliances were noted at the stage of environmental 
decisions and granting of development consents. An appropriate description was provided in the 
project dossier together with the necessary evidence. 

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

36 

 
 
 
 
 (h) Are the results of the Financial Analysis acceptable? 

The overall approach applied in the financial analysis is consistent with EU and national 
guidelines (JASPERS, Ministry of Regional Development, General Directorate for National 
Roads and Motorways).  

An appropriate reference period of 25 years was taken into consideration. Discount rate was 
assumed according to the guidelines at the level of 5% (projection was prepared in fixed net 
prices). Residual value is calculated as annuity from the difference between revenue and 
operation costs after the end year. According to the JASPERS requirements, analysis uses the 
residual revenue approach allowed by COCOF GUIDANCE NOTE ON ARTICLE 55 OF 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1083/2006: REVENUE-GENERATING PROJECTS. 

The analysis is based on the incremental approach: two scenarios are compared: “with project” 
and “without project”. 

This project belongs to the category “Revenue-generating projects”. It assumes an introduction 
of an electronic toll system. In this situation, calculation of the funding gap is required. However, 
the value of operating costs exceeds the revenue generated, therefore the funding gap equals 
100% and maximum available level of co-financing is foreseen. The funding rate was fixed at 
the level of 85% according to the priority axis (Axis VIII: Transport safety and national transport 
networks). 

 (i) Is the value of EU contribution correctly estimated? 

As the project belongs to the category of “Revenue generating projects” a calculation of funding 
gap is required. However, the value of operating costs exceeds the revenue generated, 
therefore the funding gap equals 100% and maximum available level of co-financing is foreseen. 
The funding rate was fixed at the level of 85% according to the priority axis (Axis Axis VIII: 
Transport safety and national transport networks). The value of EU contribution was correctly 
calculated and is consistent among the project dossier. 

(j) Are the foreseen socio-economic benefits likely to be attained? 

Economic effectiveness parameters are similar to the results presented in other Polish road 
projects of a similar nature. The achieved values appear to be realistic, although the value of 
“Time saving” appears to be overestimated. This is usually the result of overestimated traffic 
forecast, however, the traffic appears not to be overestimated. The recalculation of demand is 
not necessary, because the impact of “Time saving” changes is not significant on the economic 
effectiveness indicators, even a decrease of 3 times the “Time Saving” will still give an 
economically valid project. 

The economic effectiveness parameters confirm the project’s economic viability.  

(k) Are the results of the Cost Benefit Analysis acceptable? 

The overall approach applied for the economic analysis is consistent with EC guidelines and 
national requirements (JASPERS, Ministry of Regional Development, General Directorate for 
National Roads and Motorways). Economic evaluations were carried out using standard cost 
benefit techniques. The procedures are consistent with the guidelines set out in the EC “Guide 
to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects” and the JASPERS guide “Blue Book – Road 
infrastructure”. We consider that the results of CBA analysis as acceptable. However, for future 
reference, it would be helpful if applicants provided an explanation of the high value of one of 
the economic benefits – time savings – appearing in majority of Polish projects. 

Also the sensitivity and risk analysis have been undertaken in line with binding requirements.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
5.2  Concluding remarks 

The project under appraisal that is “Construction of express road S5 Poznan – Wroclaw, section 
Kaczkowo - Korzeńsko” is in line with the strategic objectives included in the Operational 
Programme Infrastructure and Environment as well as other relevant strategies at the national 
and regional level. Implementation of the investment (together with the other complementary 
projects planned or under realisation) will help to strengthen the spatial integrity of the region 
and improve its competitive advantages, thus improving its social and economic situation. 

With respect to compliance with the Directive 2008/96/EC on road safety, we suggest that, an 
explanation on whether the recommendations issued after the first audit carried out during the 
design stage, were introduced.  

With respect to the technical solutions, we suggest that an explanation of the justification for 
including the 3rd lane provision should be requested. 

Taking into account all the above considerations, we consider this project as functionally, 
technically and economically valid and suggest that a positive answer to this project is given.  

 CCI 2012PL161PR036, January 2013 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
N
-
0
1
-
1
3
-
4
0
0
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]