Review

Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in

Selected Polish Cities
Piotr Szagała , Andrzej Brzeziński , Tomasz Dybicz , Piotr Olszewski * and Beata Osińska

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institute of Roads and Bridges, Warsaw University of Technology, Al. Armii
Ludowej 16, 00-637 Warsaw, Poland; piotr.szagala@pw.edu.pl (P.S.); andrzej.brzezinski@pw.edu.pl (A.B.);
tomasz.dybicz@pw.edu.pl (T.D.); beata.osinska@pw.edu.pl (B.O.)
* Correspondence: piotr.olszewski@pw.edu.pl

Abstract: The concepts of sustainable development and later sustainable mobility were used as
principal ideas to formulate transport policies for Polish cities since the early 1990s. This paper
aims to review the implementation of these policies over the past 30 years. It presents changes and
developments in urban transport systems in selected Polish cities, together with shifts in the travel
behavior of their residents. A major factor contributing to the increase in car travel is the growing rate
of motorization. The current state of urban transport subsystems—including public transport, road
networks, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure—is examined. Additionally, related
issues such as spatial planning, road safety, and air pollution are discussed. Although most city
councils have adopted sustainable mobility policies, their implementation remains unsatisfactory.
The paper concludes with insights from nearly three decades of experience, highlighting obstacles
that hinder the achievement of intended goals, such as the lack of national legislation and guidance
on sustainable urban mobility planning and limited political backing. However, two recently adopted
national strategic documents offer hope for progress in addressing sustainable mobility challenges.

Keywords: sustainable urban mobility; Polish cities; transportation policy; transport development
strategy; travel behavior changes; motorization

Citation: Szagała, P.; Brzeziński, A.;

1. Introduction
Dybicz, T.; Olszewski, P.; Osińska, B.
Problems with Implementation of Travel constitutes a significant portion of the daily life of residents in large cities.
Sustainable Urban Mobility in Economic development, the expansion of transportation networks, and increased societal
Selected Polish Cities. Sustainability wealth create the potential for an increase in the number of trips by individuals and the
2024, 16, 11003. https://doi.org/ transport of goods. In Polish cities, the number of private cars is systematically rising.
10.3390/su162411003 Combined with the developing road network, this phenomenon is leading to urban sprawl,
Academic Editor: Grzegorz Sierpiński
resulting in longer commute distances (for work, leisure travel, etc.). This situation is
contributing to a higher share of journeys by cars, thereby increasing vehicular traffic flows
Received: 30 October 2024 and exacerbating road congestion. Cities are experiencing the effects of such circumstances
Revised: 4 December 2024 in the form of climbing transport operational costs, increased energy consumption, and
Accepted: 9 December 2024 growing negative impacts on the natural environment and climate (including increased
Published: 15 December 2024
emissions of exhaust fumes and noise, as well as pressure on development of new land).
In the 1980s, particularly in Europe, it became clear that attempts to keep pace with the
growing demand for car usage and to increase road capacity were inherently doomed to
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
failure. The prevailing perspective shifted towards the notion that road capacity (the supply
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. of roads and car parks) should not be adapted to the rising needs resulting from increasing
This article is an open access article traffic; rather, demand growth should be controlled. This could be achieved through
distributed under the terms and measures such as restricting car use, shortening travel distances, and facilitating alternative
conditions of the Creative Commons modes of transportation. This line of thought led to recommendations first by the United
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Nations [1], followed by other international organizations and governments (such as the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ European Commission [2], the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) [3],
4.0/). and the OECD [4]), to apply the principle of sustainable urban development, understood

Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411003 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 2 of 25

as the pursuit of a balance between developmental goals—transport, economic, and social—

and environmental protection. By the end of the 20th century, a social consensus had
been reached on this matter, and shortly thereafter, European cities began to transform.
Today, it is difficult to imagine Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Vienna, Stockholm, Berlin, or
London without restricted traffic zones, priority for public transport and bicycle traffic, and
solutions facilitating pedestrian mobility.
These ideas rapidly spread to Poland. In 1993, Kraków implemented its transportation
policy based on sustainable development principles [5], followed by Warsaw in 1995 [6,7],
and later other cities. The goals included better use of existing resources, creating alternative
travel options, increasing the attractiveness of public transport, cycling and pedestrian
traffic, and improving traffic safety. At that time, this was a manifestation of modernity and
courage in thinking about urban transport. There was an understanding of the necessity
to act in accordance with the sustainable development concept, despite uncertainties
associated with an economy transforming toward a market system, and in the context
of rapidly growing motorization, which had been artificially suppressed for many years.
During the preparatory period before joining the European Union and after accession,
implementing sustainable development strategies also became a condition for applying for
funding for transport projects from EU funds [8].
A considerable period—approximately 30 years—has elapsed since the adoption of the
first strategic transport system documents. Consequently, achieving at least some objectives
should have been feasible. It is also crucial to ascertain whether all planned actions have
been initiated and evaluate the degree of their advancement, considering their varied nature
(investment, organizational). The article therefore aims to answer the following question:
what have been the key challenges and successes in the implementation of sustainable
urban mobility policies in Polish cities over the last 30 years, and how can future national
strategies improve on these efforts? The cities used as examples were selected from the
group of largest cities in Poland (over 300 thousand inhabitants), subject to data availability.
The methodology adopted in this article can be best characterized as a “narrative
review”—an approach which summarizes existing literature on the topic of sustainable mo-
bility and provides an overview of problems encountered in various transport subsystems
in Polish cities, with discussion and conclusions drawn by the authors.

2. Sustainable Mobility—Review of International Experience

The concept of sustainable mobility was first formulated in 1992 in the European
Union ‘Green Paper on the Impact of Transport on the Environment’ [2]. In comparison to
the more general concept of ‘sustainable development’ (which first appeared in 1987 in the
Brundtland Report [1]), this new term was specifically focused on the transport sector and
its harmful effects on the environment. It has been widely acknowledged that transport is a
significant contributor to local and global pollution of air, soil, and water. It was estimated
that in 2016, transport was the source of 24% of global CO2 emissions [9]. These negative
impacts must be drastically reduced to make transport systems sustainable. At the same
time, transport must fulfil its vital economic and social roles, which make implementation
of sustainable mobility so challenging.
Since 1992, the concept of sustainable mobility has evolved and been reflected in many
transport policy documents, both at international and national levels. It has also attracted a
great body of research, as exemplified by EU projects CIVITAS (four editions), ELTISplus,
and PROSPECTS [10,11]. A great number of scientific publications have appeared investi-
gating policy issues, transport impacts, sustainability indicators, travel behavior assessment
tools, and methodological approaches related to sustainable mobility [9,10,12,13]. Based on
the experience of implementing sustainable mobility so far, it is possible to identify three
general strategies and a number of measures or actions supporting each strategy [9,12,13].
These strategies are presented in Table 1 and can be briefly explained as follows:
• The first strategy, called ‘efficiency’, aims to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions
from road vehicles. This can be achieved through technological development of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 3 of 25

vehicles: cleaner and more fuel-efficient engines, as well as switching to alternative

fuels such as electricity and hydrogen. Full decarbonization of transport is the ultimate
goal of this strategy.
• The second strategy, called ‘substitution’, aims to change the modal shares of urban
trips so that the highly polluting individual car mode is replaced by more environ-
mentally friendly modes such as modern public transport, cycling, and walking.
Measures which promote this change include, for example, parking fees and control,
road pricing, limiting access for cars, improvements of public transport performance
and attractiveness, and improvements of walking and cycling infrastructure.
• The third strategy is called ‘travel volume reduction’, and its aim is to reduce the
number of trips, or at least their lengths, so that the total transport intensity (in
passenger-kms) is reduced. Some trips can be replaced by remotely performing
activities such as working, shopping, and studying or obtaining services online. Travel
distances can be reduced by optimized spatial planning and development control—
preventing urban sprawl and promoting a compact urban form—e.g., the 15 min city
model. Research findings reported in publications [14,15] indicate that the benefits
of the 15 min city model include, among others, a reduction in overall traffic, an
increase in walking, improved environmental conditions, and lower transportation
and mobility costs.

Table 1. Strategies and measures related to sustainable mobility (based on references [9,12,13,16]).

Strategy
Elements 3. Travel Volume
1. Efficiency 2. Substitution
Reduction
Reduction in harmful Change in modal split from Reduction in the total
pollution and greenhouse gas cars to less-polluting modes transport intensity through
Goal description
emissions, like public transport, cycling, abandoning some trips and
decarbonization and walking reducing trip lengths
Restrictive emission Car-free zones,
Effective spatial planning to
Legislative measures standards, restrictive parking capacity
prevent urban sprawl
low-emission zones policy
Developing new public
Improvements in fuel transport systems,
Densification of urban
Hard measures efficiency, street network
development,
(vehicles, infrastructure) electric, hybrid, and redevelopment,
15 min city
hydrogen vehicles improving bicycle and
walking facilities
Road pricing (congestion
charging), Promoting teleworking,
Advanced traffic
parking charges online shopping, online
Soft measures management,
limiting access for cars services, etc.,
(management) benefits for electric cars,
priority for trams and buses, optimization of freight
smart city
improving safety of logistics
vulnerable road users

It should be noted that all three strategies shown in Table 1 lead to reduced energy
consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions, but only strategies 2 and 3 lead to
reductions in traffic congestion and travel times.
In order to support progress towards sustainable mobility, in 2009, the European
Commission issued the “Action Plan on Urban Mobility”, which included a proposal to
develop “Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans” (SUMP) [17]. Since 2009, substantial progress
has been made in the development of comprehensive guidelines on the preparation and
implementation of SUMPs, and they were first published in 2013, with a revised edition
in 2019 [18]. A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan was defined as follows: “a strategic
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 4 of 25

plan designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people and businesses in cities and their
surroundings for a better quality of life”.
A 2016 paper by May et al. [19] examined the situation in EU member countries
regarding implementation of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. The authors advocated
developing national policy frameworks for SUMP. The framework should include a legal
definition of SUMP, national guidance on plan preparation, political support, and financing.
Such a framework was established in only six member countries—Poland was not one of
them [20].
In a recent report of the European Court of Auditors [21], it was recommended that
SUMP plans should be required for obtaining funding for projects under European regional
and cohesion programs.
There is a general agreement that although some progress in the right direction has
been made during the last 30 years, the goal of achieving sustainability in the urban
transport sector has not been reached [9]. The Auditors’ report [21] concludes that “there
is no clear trend towards more sustainable modes of transport”. At present, we seem to
have the knowledge and technology to change the transport system into a sustainable one,
but there are many obstacles on the way in the form of a lack of political commitment and
insufficient social support.

3. Changes in Poland over the Last 30 Years

From the perspective of the past thirty years, it is noteworthy to highlight the signifi-
cant improvement in the quality of urban public transportation in Poland, including buses,
trams, metro, and railways. This improvement encompasses high network connectivity,
accessibility of stops, high efficiency of rail transport along main transport corridors, at-
tractive service offerings regarding frequency, reliability, punctuality, and the quality of
rolling stock, and increasingly better adaptations to the needs of individuals with special
requirements.
There has been a noticeable increase in the number of bicycle trips; however, cycling
has yet to reach the level characteristic of most Western European cities (>10% of trips
during peak hours). Despite an intensive development of bicycle infrastructure in urban
and metropolitan areas (for example, in Warsaw, the length of bicycle infrastructure in-
creased from 275 km in 2010 to 710 km in 2021 [22,23]), the bicycle transportation subsystem
still exhibits considerable weaknesses. Key challenges and shortcomings include a lack of
network coherence, insufficient adaptation of downtown areas for accommodating bicycle
traffic to serve trip origins and destinations, and various barriers, such as those associated
with crossing major roadways, railway lines, and watercourses.
Regrettably, despite the positive evaluation of changes in public transportation and
the growing interest in cycling, we are witnessing a large and growing preference for
car usage and rising transport intensity within the road system. This translates to an
intrusive presence of cars in cities [24,25]. The efforts directed towards creating alternatives
to car usage have not led to a corresponding decrease in the car’s role in transportation.
Unfortunately, the trend appears to be the opposite, which is a key challenge in making the
transport systems more sustainable.
In the case of short and medium trips (ranging from 2 to 15 km), nearly half of urban
residents still find the car to be the most attractive option. The primary reason for potential
car travel reductions is not ecological awareness but rather a deficit of parking spaces
within cities [25].
The unfavorable picture of transport operations in Polish cities is further compounded
by a declining share of pedestrian trips. This is partly attributed to land use characteristics.
The principle of the 15 min (compact) city is essentially not applied, and there is a weakness
in integrating transport planning with spatial planning and a relatively low quality of
pedestrian infrastructure (poor sidewalk quality, existing barriers, and cars parked on
sidewalks restricting pedestrian space).
 The unfavorable picture of transport operations in Polish cities is further com-
pounded by a declining share of pedestrian trips. This is partly attributed to land use
characteristics. The principle of the 15 min (compact) city is essentially not applied, and
there is a weakness in integrating transport planning with spatial planning and a rela-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 5 of 25
tively low quality of pedestrian infrastructure (poor sidewalk quality, existing barriers,
and cars parked on sidewalks restricting pedestrian space).
The aforementioned trends are confirmed by comprehensive travel surveys con-
The
ducted inaforementioned trends 1are
Polish cities. Figure confirmed
illustrates thebyresults
comprehensive
of travel travel surveys
behavior conducted
surveys in Kra-
in Polish cities. Figure 1 illustrates the results of travel behavior surveys in Kraków.
ków. From 1985 to 2023, the share of public transport in non-pedestrian trips decreased From
1985 to 2023, the share of public transport in non-pedestrian trips decreased from
from nearly 84% to 54%, while the share of car trips increased from just under 15% to 39% nearly
84% to 54%, while the share of car trips increased from just under 15% to 39% [26,27].
[26,27].

Figure 1. Modal split in non-pedestrian urban passenger travel in Kraków from 1985 to 2023, based
Figure 1. Modal split in non-pedestrian urban passenger travel in Kraków from 1985 to 2023, based
on references [26,27].
on references [26,27].

Theshare
The shareofofpedestrian
pedestriantrips
tripsininKraków
Kraków slightly
slightly decreased
decreased from
from 30% 30% in 1985
in 1985 to 28%
to 28% in
in 2013 (the 2023 survey did not account for pedestrian traffic). In
2013 (the 2023 survey did not account for pedestrian traffic). In the case of Warsaw, from the case of Warsaw,
fromto1980
1980 2015,tothe2015,
sharetheof share
publicof public transport
transport in non-pedestrian
in non-pedestrian trips declined trips declined
from nearly from
81%
nearly 81% to 57%, concurrent with an increase in car usage from
to 57%, concurrent with an increase in car usage from nearly 18% to almost 39%. Compared nearly 18% to almost
to39%. Compared
Kraków, there hasto Kraków, there has been
been a significant decline a significant
in pedestriandecline
trips,indecreasing
pedestrianfrom trips,27%
de-
creasing from 27% to 18% [26]. The results of the modal split in selected
to 18% [26]. The results of the modal split in selected Polish cities presented in Table 2 Polish cities pre-
sented in
indicate Table
that only2 in
indicate
Wrocław thatdoes
onlythein Wrocław does the share
share of pedestrian trips of
havepedestrian
a growing trips haveIta
trend.
growing from
increased trend.19%It increased
in 2010 tofrom
33% in 19% in 2010
2023. That to 33% in
current 2023.
level of That current
pedestrian level
trips of pedes-
in Wrocław
istrian trips in in
the highest Wrocław
comparisonis thewith
highest in comparison
the other with
cities. In all the other
selected cities,cities. In allofselected
the share public
transport trips has a decreasing trend while the share of car trips has a growing trend. trips
cities, the share of public transport trips has a decreasing trend while the share of car The
has a growing
lowest trend.transport
share of public The lowesttripsshare
is inof public (21%,
Wrocław transport trips from
decrease is in 35%
Wrocław (21%,
in 2010), de-
while
crease
the fromis35%
highest in 2010),(47%,
in Warsaw whiledecrease
the highest
from is 53%
in Warsaw
in 1998).(47%,
Thedecrease
lowest sharefromof 53%
carin 1998).
trips is
inThe lowest(32%,
Warsaw shareincrease
of car trips
from is
26% in in
Warsaw (32%, the
1998), while increase
highestfrom
is in26%
Gdain ńsk1998),
(43%,while the
increase
highest
from 28%isinin1994).
Gdańsk (43%, increase from 28% in 1994).

Table 2. Modal split in urban passenger travel in selected Polish cities, based on references [26–29].

Mobility Rate Modal Split [%]

City Year
[Trips/Day] Walk Public Transport Car Bicycle Other
Warsaw 1980 2.0 26.80 59.20 13.10 0.00 0.90
1993 2.5 30.10 48.70 20.20 0.60 0.40
1998 2.3 20.50 52.50 25.80 0.40 0.80
2005 1.9 21.60 54.60 22.60 0.90 0.30
2015 2.0 17.90 46.80 31.70 3.10 0.50
 Table 2. Modal split in urban passenger travel in selected Polish cities, based on references [26–29].

Mobility Modal Split [%]

City Year Rate
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 Walk Public Transport Car Bicycle Other
6 of 25
[Trips/Day]
Warsaw 1980 2.0 26.80 59.20 13.10 0.00 0.90
1993 2.5 30.10 48.70 20.20 0.60 0.40
Table 2. Cont.
1998 2.3 20.50 52.50 25.80 0.40 0.80
2005 1.9 21.60 54.60
Modal Split [%] 22.60 0.90 0.30
Mobility Rate
City Year 2015 2.0 17.90 46.80 31.70 3.10 0.50
[Trips/Day] Walk Public Transport Car Bicycle Other
Kraków 1985 2.2 30.40 58.20 10.30 0.00 1.10
Kraków 1985 2.2 30.40 58.20 10.30 0.00 1.10
1994 1.9 29.20 48.60 19.20 1.60 1.40
1994 1.9 29.20 48.60 19.20 1.60 1.40
2003 2.0 2003 2.0
25.90 25.90
42.60 42.6027.10 27.101.50 1.50 2.902.90
2013 2.0 2013 2.0
28.40 28.40
36.30 36.3033.70 33.701.20 1.20 0.400.40
Wrocław 2010 Wrocław 1.9 2010 1.9
18.69 18.69
35.26 35.2641.56 41.563.56 3.56 0.930.93
2018 1.7 2018 1.7
24.20 24.20
27.60 27.6041.40 41.406.30 6.30 0.500.50
2024 1.7 2024 1.7
33.10 33.10
21.60 21.6039.80 39.804.70 4.70 0.800.80
Gdańsk 1994 Gdańsk2.2 1994 2.2
27.90 27.90
39.20 39.20 27.50 27.50n/a n/a n/an/a
2016 2.1 2016 2.1
20.80 20.80
32.10 32.1041.20 41.205.90 5.90 n/an/a
2022 1.8 2022 24.20
1.8 28.70
24.20 28.7042.80 42.804.30 4.30 n/an/a
n/a–notavailable
n/a–not available

Thesealarming
These alarmingtrends
trendsareare corroborated
corroborated by the
by the results
results of annual
of annual transport
transport surveys
surveys con-
conducted
ducted among among the residents
the residents of Warsaw
of Warsaw sincesince
2006 2006 as of
as part part
theof“Warsaw
the “Warsaw Barometer”
Barometer” [30].
[30]. Figure
Figure 2 illustrates
2 illustrates changes changes in public
in public transporttransport usage among
usage among WarsawWarsaw residents.
residents. In recentIn
recentthe
years, years, theofshare
share daily of daily
users hasusers hasbelow
fallen fallen50%
below 50%likely
(most (mostcomprising
likely comprising indi-
individuals
viduals monthly
holding holding monthly
passes). passes). At thetime,
At the same samethetime, the proportion
proportion of less-frequent
of less-frequent usersusers
has
increased. Conversely,
has increased. the number
Conversely, of individuals
the number declaringdeclaring
of individuals they never use never
they these transport
use these
modes has modes
transport decreased.
has decreased.

Figure2.2.Results
Figure Resultsofofannual
annualsurveys
surveyson
onpublic
publictransport
transport(PT)
(PT)usage
usage(excluding
(excludingrail)
rail)by
byresidents
residentsofof
Warsaw, based on reference [30].
Warsaw, based on reference [30].

Figure33illustrates
Figure illustratesthe
thestable
stableproportion
proportionofofrespondents
respondentswho
whouse
usecars
carsevery
everyday
dayasas
drivers. The overall increase in car traffic can be attributed to the rise in the share ofof
drivers. The overall increase in car traffic can be attributed to the rise in the share
individuals reporting less-frequent car use and a significant decline in the proportion of
individuals who reported never using cars as drivers.
Observations of the implementation of sustainable transport policies in Polish cities
over the past 30 years indicate that efforts focusing on the development of individual
transport subsystems, particularly modernization and capital expenditure initiatives—
including in public transport—have not yielded the expected outcomes in terms of changes
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 7 of 25

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 25

in attitudes and travel behavior, despite their importance for long-term objectives. The
focus has been primarily on projects related to the road network and public transport,
which has often
individuals involved
reporting substantialcar
less-frequent capital expenditures.
use and a significantOften, priority
decline in the was given to
proportion of
high-cost projects that could receive EU funding.
individuals who reported never using cars as drivers.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Results
Resultsofofannual
annualsurveys onon
surveys carcar
usage as drivers
usage by residents
as drivers of Warsaw,
by residents basedbased
of Warsaw, on refer-
on
ence [30].
reference [30].

ItObservations
has proven toofbe the implementation
misguided to assume of sustainable transport
that the execution policies in Polish
of development cities
programs,
over the past 30 years indicate that efforts focusing on the development
often lacking actions to influence travel behavior, would solve cities’ transportation prob- of individual
transport
lems and lead subsystems,
to durable, particularly modernization
positive outcomes. There isand capital
clear expenditure
evidence that toolsinitiatives—in-
for managing
cluding
travel in public
demand, transport—have
encouraging the usenot
of yielded the expected
public transport, outcomes
bicycles, in terms have
and walking, of changes
been
in attitudes and
underutilized andtravel behavior,applied.
inconsistently despiteAdditionally,
their importance for long-term
programs objectives.
targeted directly The
at user
focus has been primarily on projects related to the road network
groups or even individual users within the transport system—actions that directly impact and public transport,
which has
mobility, often involved
discourage substantial
car usage, capital
and mitigate theexpenditures.
negative effects Often, priority was givennot
of motorization—have to
high-cost
been projects
adequately that could[24,31].
addressed receiveMoreover,
EU funding. measures aimed at changing attitudes and
It hassuch
behaviors, proven to be misguided
as introducing to assume
congestion charges thator the
taxes execution
on vehicles,of development
are typically less pro-
grams, often
expensive andlacking
would actions
usuallyto influence
allow travel behavior,
for transport would solve cities’
system transformations faster transporta-
and on a
tion problems
larger scale, with and lead to strong
generally durable, positive
public outcomes. There is clear evidence that tools
support.
for managing
This raisestravel demand,
critical questionsencouraging the usethe
about whether of adopted
public transport,
approachbicycles,
to achievingand walk-
sus-
ing, have
tainable been underutilized
development and inconsistently
was appropriate. applied. Additionally,
Did the emphasis programs targeted
on high-cost, long-term projects
yield
directlythe atanticipated
user groups benefits?
or evenHas there been
individual userssufficient
within the consideration of proven, cheaper
transport system—actions that
measures
directly impactimplemented
mobility,indiscourage
other countries that and
car usage, effectively
mitigatepromote changes
the negative effectsin attitudes
of motor-
and behaviors among
ization—have not been transport system
adequately users? These
addressed questions
[24,31]. Moreover,address whether
measures Polish
aimed at
cities
changingembraced the and
attitudes principles of sustainable
behaviors, development
such as introducing encompassing
congestion chargesactions
or taxes such as
on ve-
the following:
hicles, are typically less expensive and would usually allow for transport system transfor-
•mations
Better faster and onof
utilization a larger
existing scale, with generally
infrastructure (e.g.,strong public support.
traffic management to control access
This
to raisesurban
selected critical questions
areas aboutroutes,
and to road whether the adopted
real-time approach toquick
traffic information, achieving sus-
response
tainable development
to emergencies, was appropriate.
introducing priorityDid
for the emphasis
public on high-cost, long-term projects
transport);
•yieldCreation
the anticipated benefits?toHas
of alternatives carthere
usagebeen sufficient
(e.g., improving consideration of proven,
the attractiveness ofcheaper
public
measures
transport,implemented
developing incycling
other countries that effectively
infrastructure, facilitatingpromote
walking);changes in attitudes
•and Integration
behaviors among transport
of transport systemwith
planning users? Theseplanning
spatial questions address
(e.g., whether of
densification Polish
de-
citiesvelopment
embracedin theareas well served
principles by mass development
of sustainable public transport, increasing actions
encompassing the functional
such as
attractiveness of urban centers, mixing land use functions to reduce travel demand);
the following:
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 8 of 25

• Application of fiscal measures (e.g., parking fees, road pricing in central areas, usage
fees for selected infrastructure components, vehicle taxes, and fare pricing in public
transport).
Moreover, the efficiency of adhering to a fundamental condition for implementing
sustainable development strategies—where decision-making is based on comparing results
of cost–benefit analyses of alternative solutions—raises concerns. Entities commissioning
and conducting such analyses should be required to seek alternative options and rec-
ommend projects with the highest possible benefit-to-cost ratio. Furthermore, solutions
should be sought that impact the largest possible number of system users, that can be
implemented within a short timeframe, and that are as cost-effective as possible during
both the implementation and operational stages.
While the need for conducting social cost–benefit analyses for individual development
projects is generally accepted, there are numerous reservations about the quality of such
analyses and their methodologies in practice. The commonplace limitation of social analy-
ses in transport projects to only costs and benefits has resulted in omitting many essential
factors that should influence decision-making but cannot be expressed in monetary units.
These include aspects such as the coherence and complementarity of the transport network,
social acceptance, urban sprawl prevention, and broadly understood environmental con-
cerns. Multicriteria analysis, which assigns appropriate weights to individual evaluation
factors, is relatively rarely used in transportation project assessment. When multicriteria
analysis is used, economic indicators such as NPV or IRR are just one of several evaluation
criteria.
Moreover, there is a notable inclination among beneficiaries of EU funds to finance
large-scale transport development projects while favoring the simplest methods of gen-
erating alternatives. Instead of seeking the most advantageous solution, the tendency is
to minimize the workload involved in preparing alternatives. This results in overlooking
more complex, smaller projects that often can offer higher economic efficiency.

4. Situation in Urban Transportation Subsystems in Poland

4.1. Public Transport
In recent years, there has been notable progress and significant improvement in the
quality of services offered to public transport passengers. These include the following:
• The modernization of tram routes (e.g., enhancing the quality of structural track design,
power supply systems, and stops).
• The replacement of rolling stock with modern, low-floor, single-space vehicles.
• The introduction of contemporary ticketing systems, including unified tickets in
metropolitan areas,
• The development of Park and Ride (P + R) systems to facilitate transfers from individ-
ual transport to public transport.
• The maintenance of a good standard of services (particularly regarding reliability, high
frequency of service, and punctuality).
• A strong capacity to introduce innovative and unconventional solutions (e.g., low-
emission buses, bi-directional trams, travel planning systems, online purchase of tickets).
• A fairly good quality of service promotions and educational initiatives (e.g., educa-
tional lines for children, car-free days, websites, and newsletters).
In this context, the implementation of strategies regarding metropolitan and regional
transport is significantly lagging behind. This is mainly due to the limited influence that
cities have over the railway system. Despite a clearly increasing passenger interest in rail
services and some signs of improvement from the perspective of the system’s offerings,
this is primarily observed in a few cities, notably in the metropolitan areas of Warsaw and
the Tri-City (Gdańsk, Gdynia, and Sopot) [24].
When it comes to the tram network, there are 15 tram systems in Poland. Practically all
of them have been modernized or expanded using European funds [32]. The most important
projects include the reconstruction of the tram system in Olsztyn [33] (construction of 17 km
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 9 of 25

of routes in the years 2012–2023), the development of tram routes in Warsaw (approx.
22 km of new routes and a modern tram depot in the years 2009–2024), and the first line of
the Krakow Fast Tram (2008, length 11.5 km, including a 1538 m long tunnel).
Positive changes in ownership structures have been seen as regional and agglomer-
ation railway operations have been taken over by local authorities (both municipal and
regional). The development of a unified ticketing system is contributing to reduced travel
costs, and there is competition—possibly more appropriately described as complementarity—
from different railway transport organizers (e.g., the authorities of Warsaw and the Maso-
vian regional authorities operate services using three railway companies: SKM (Rapid
Urban Railway), KM (Masovian Railways), and WKD (Warsaw Commuter Railway)). This
has led to an improvement in service quality (in terms of system reliability, comfort, and
frequency of trains), resulting in a noticeable, steady increase in the number of passengers,
the development of P + R and B + R parking systems, improvements in station standards,
and better accessibility. Changes in other large cities remain insufficient.
It is important to emphasize that many core problems associated with the functioning
of the railway system have not been resolved. Key shortcomings include the technical
condition of railroad infrastructure, which does not guarantee a high standard of trans-
port services and reliability, the poor state of many stations, the quality of land use and
development around these facilities, the lack of regular, fixed train schedules, and poor
coordination with the transportation lines of other public transport subsystems.
In metropolitan areas, in addition to weaknesses in railway transport, the following
issues should also be noted:
• With the exception of the Tri-City [34] and the Upper Silesian Metropolis, there is
a lack of integrated management of transport systems across entire metropolitan
areas. Such integration should allow all partners operating in the metropolitan area
to influence the planning, design, and operation of the transport network, while also
ensuring transparent accounting principles for transport services, quality control, and
tariff system formulation. What is also lacking is the integration of most passenger
transfer interchanges, regarding both the physical integration level and the mitigation
of inconveniences (e.g., for people with special needs).
• The absence of dispatcher-managed, integrated traffic management for all public
transport vehicles.
• A relatively low level of priority treatment for public transport vehicles (on routes and
at traffic signal-controlled intersections).

4.2. Road Network and the Role of Cars

In planning sustainable development of the transport system in Polish cities, the road
system was expected to implement measures such as establishing a functional hierarchy of
the road network, developing bypass routes linked to external road networks relative to the
city, limiting the traffic functions and technical standards of streets in urban centers, and
eliminating so-called “bottlenecks” and gaps within the road network. A primary task was
to systematically manage traffic [31]. This was particularly crucial due to the dynamically
increasing motorization (see Table 3).

Table 3. Development of motorization in Warsaw and in Poland (cars per 1000 inhabitants) *. Source:
reference [35], CEPIK (Central Register of Vehicles and Drivers), and GUS (Main Statistical Office).

Number of Cars per 1000 Inhabitants

Year 1960 1980 1990 1995 2000 2010 2023
Warsaw 10 157 282 383 413 540 720
Poland 4–6 60–80 100–150 ~200 275 447 517
* Data prior to 2023 may be inflated due to the frequent failure to remove non-operational vehicles from the
database.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 10 of 25

Most of these intentions have not been realized. Actions to reduce the functional
classes of streets associated with changing their roles (e.g., diminishing their significance
for carrying traffic while increasing their social functions) should be deemed insufficient.
There are positive examples of changes (e.g., transformations occurring in downtown Łódź,
where there is a movement towards converting streets into urban courtyards). However,
these examples are few and often concern individual streets, rarely leading to systemic or
area-wide solutions.
Transformations in central urban areas are generally not implemented as coherent
and consistent programs that adapt the character of the streets in specific areas of cities to
their intended functions (often associated with restrictions on space allocated for traffic
and parking) and in conjunction with building adaptations (e.g., aimed at enhancing their
attractiveness for residents).
Unfavorable cases should be identified, especially in central areas, where street ren-
ovations merely restore their condition without implementing solutions that improve
conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, public transport, or the quality of public spaces.
There are also instances of increasing the capacity of the road network (through the addition
of a second roadway, increasing the capacity of intersections) on streets leading toward the
city center (e.g., Wołoska Street in Warsaw).
From a social objective perspective, transformations of streets should take a broader
approach. Consideration must be given not only to the technical aspects of street infras-
tructure modernization but also to its surroundings (types and functions of buildings) and
the potential functional program of the street that enhances its friendliness, aesthetics, and
attractiveness as a destination (e.g., placing commercial and service points on the ground
floors of buildings, rest areas, green spaces), without the dominance of traffic functions.
Such efforts are important as they promote walking in the streets, encourage people to
spend time in street spaces, and therefore increase the modal share of pedestrian travel.
It should be emphasized that the development/changes in the road networks of
cities, especially regarding the creation of bypass routes aimed at diverting traffic from
urban centers, were strongly affected by the actions taken at the central government level.
This particularly concerns the Polish government program for building motorways and
expressways and their connections with urban road networks [36]. Realization of the
program leads to the construction of bypasses in major cities in Poland including Warsaw,
Wrocław, Łódź, Kraków, Poznań, etc., of a high technical standard including motorways
and expressways. This helps in proper distribution of external traffic but, on the other
hand, has led to serious negative consequences including uncontrolled urban sprawl and
reducing the competitiveness of public transport for inter-district and metropolitan travel.
Consequently, car usage has increased, resulting in a wide range of negative impacts.
Bypass routes, built to the standards of motorways and expressways, are also among
the most congested and dangerous sections of the road network, characterized by the
lowest reliability rates of travel times [37]. Surprisingly, these sections, managed by the
General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways (GDDKiA), are not integrated
with urban traffic management systems due to delays in development of the National
Traffic Management System, which will include speed management, lane management,
and accident detection. Therefore, ring and bypass roads lack traffic monitoring systems,
which prevent traffic engineers in the largest Polish cities from effectively managing traffic
flows to/from the bypass and ring routes within urban traffic management systems.
This is particularly problematic in cases where congestion spreads from ring/bypass
routes to street networks, for example, due to severe accidents or extreme weather condi-
tions. Examples include the traffic paralysis in Warsaw that followed heavy rains in August
2023 and 2024, which began with flash floods on the S8 ring route. The absence of traffic
management on the ring/bypass routes means that traffic managers in cities and GDDKiA
are often not fully aware of the scale of the disruptions to traffic.
The lack of traffic management on bypass routes further exemplifies the weaknesses in
traffic management in Polish cities. There are isolated system solutions in operation (e.g., the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 11 of 25

Tristar System in the Tri-City [34]). In Poland’s largest city, Warsaw, the traffic management
system is rather limited. Besides the systems mentioned, traffic management systems are
present in most large cities, including Poznań, Szczecin, Kraków, Łódź, Wrocław, and
Katowice. These systems primarily serve as tools for area traffic signal control. Systems are
also being developed in medium-sized cities (e.g., Tychy, Płock, Zielona Góra, Bielsko-Biała,
Rzeszów, Opole, Lublin, and Legnica). However, the implementation and operation of these
systems face various issues, some of which were highlighted in a report [38]. Most problems
diagnosed over a decade ago continue to be relevant. The report’s summary indicates
that ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) projects are not given enough attention and
priority within city budgets.

4.3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic

Improvements in pedestrian traffic conditions often occur alongside actions related to
other transport subsystems, especially in public transportation (e.g., increasing integration
at transfer interchanges or modernizing areas surrounding stops) and the road system
(when streets are constructed or modernized). Less frequently, these changes result from
introducing restrictions on motorized traffic in urban centers or other areas (e.g., in district
centers). The long-standing unresolved issue of organizing parking within street roadways
has a significantly negative impact on the quality of pedestrian spaces. Freeing sidewalks
from parked vehicles or organizing street parking (only in designated spaces) would allow
for a larger and better-equipped pedestrian space. Current efforts in this regard should be
considered insufficient.
On the other hand, in recent years, there has been an expansion in the quantity, scope,
and quality of pedestrian zones, particularly in city centers (e.g., Rzeszów, Białystok, Łódź,
and Katowice).
An objective assessment of the cycling situation must consider the longstanding delays
in the development of this system that exist in Poland. Despite a significant increase in the
length of cycling infrastructure in cities (Table 4), complete and coherent networks of cycling
routes do not exist. This issue arises not only from historical backlogs in infrastructure
development but also from the growth of urbanized areas in cities that are subject to the
phenomenon of urban sprawl. The adaptation of urban city centers to cycling traffic is
particularly poor, despite the attractiveness of such areas for this mode of transport due
to the concentration of origins and destinations, leading to shorter trip distances. Tools
such as traffic-calming zones (20, 30 km/h), designated cycling lanes and contraflow lanes,
or allowing cyclists to go against traffic are under-utilized. This maladjustment of urban
central zones to cycling also weakens the image of modern cities.
However, recent changes in this area provide hope for improvement (see the changes
in the modal split—Table 2), potentially leading to a transformation of the current situation.
Progress is primarily evident in the following:
• The adoption of national standards for designing cycling infrastructure, delineating
technical guidelines for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of cycling
infrastructure [40–42].
• The popularity of public bike-sharing, which has been implemented in 78 locations as
city, metropolitan, and regional systems; the oldest system has been operating since
2011 in Wrocław (2400 bicycles), while the largest system, Metrorower, operates in the
Upper Silesian Metropolis (7000 bicycles) [43].
• The development of municipal bicycle parking, especially within B + R systems, and
the placement of bike racks along streets; for example, in Warsaw, the number of bike
parking spaces provided by the city increased from 970 in 2010 to 30,000 in 2021.
• The more frequent use of solutions previously deemed unconventional, particularly
in nontraditional traffic organization (e.g., designating cycling lanes and contraflow
lanes, allowing cyclists to ride against traffic).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 12 of 25

Table 4. Length of bicycle infrastructure in selected Polish cities. Source: [39].

Length of Cycle Tracks/Lanes

City Land Area [km]
City
[km2 ]
2018 2022
Warsaw 517.2 590.0 732.2
Kraków 326.9 213.7 260.0 *
Łódź 293.3 158.3 230.3
Wrocław 292.8 260.0 385.4 *
Gdańsk 262.0 182.3 232.8
Poznań 261.9 242.5 339.7
Katowice 164.6 77.5 190.0
* Data for 2021.

4.4. Parking
Paid parking in the central areas of cities is one of the main tools cited in sustainable
mobility transport policies. Paid parking zones were first advocated in Poland in the
1980s [44]. Interestingly, in many Polish cities, this solution was implemented even before
transport policies were established. Examples include the following:
• Kraków, where parking fees were introduced in 1988, while the transport policy was
adopted in 1993 [45].
• Łódź, which began charging for parking in 1991, with its transport policy being
adopted in 1997 [46,47].
The problem of parking shortages in city centers was one of the first signs of increasing
motorization levels and the use of cars for travel by urban residents. As a result, parking
fees began to be implemented out of necessity to rationally balance demand with the supply
of parking spaces.
In the central area of Warsaw, paid parking was implemented relatively late, in
1999, several years after the transport policy had been adopted. Despite alarmist articles
published in the press, research showed that as many as 68% of car drivers were positively
inclined toward the paid parking system [48].
Public support for parking fees was also revealed in a study conducted in 2003 during
a period when, due to regulatory changes, the operation of paid parking zones was sus-
pended nationwide for 10 days. During that time, a significant surge in demand for parking
could be observed, accompanied by the return of all related inconveniences, leading to an
understanding of the importance of fiscal regulation of parking demand. Surveys of drivers
parking in paid zones during those days indicated that 58% favored the reinstatement of
paid parking [49]. It can be expected that studies conducted across the entire population
of residents, not just within the driver group, would demonstrate an even higher level of
acceptance for activities aimed at balancing parking demand with supply and limiting
car traffic.
Few cities have opted to formulate comprehensive documents outlining parking
policies, detailing goals and directions for action (such documents have been adopted
by Warsaw [50] and Kraków [51]). These plans included specific actions and initiatives
aimed at organizing the parking system (development of paid parking zones, development
of Park and Ride (P + R) systems, organization of parking in road right-of-way and in
residential areas, building of public multi-story car parks, and areas for heavy vehicle and
coach parking).
In practice, the greatest progress has been made regarding the introduction of paid
parking zones, yet many reservations remain concerning the demarcation of area bound-
aries, the methods used to calculate parking fees (without analyzing parking duration and
turnover), and the privileged treatment of certain user groups (for example, in Warsaw,
there has been a long-standing almost-free subscription for residents in paid parking zones,
while in Szczecin, reduced rates for subscriptions are available for hybrid vehicle owners).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 13 of 25

Since 2018, Poland also enacted controversial laws exempting electric vehicle owners from
parking fees [52].
Despite paid parking being the most frequently and rapidly deployed tool in sus-
tainable mobility policies, it continues to face numerous unresolved issues. These have
been highlighted at various conferences and in publications, such as reference [53], yet
they remain highly relevant. Actions taken to organize parking can be decisively rated as
inadequate. There has been no noticeable improvement in eliminating illegal parking (out-
side designated spaces, obstructing space for pedestrians and cyclists, or creating visibility
hazards for other road users). Many parkers do consider penalties for parking offences to
be inevitable (e.g., the threat of vehicle towing) and often disregard existing regulations.
This is linked to a lack of decisive actions from enforcement authorities. As a result,
land managers excessively employ bollards blocking access to parking spots, which are
aesthetically questionable and hinder pedestrian and cyclist use of streets. As a rule,
replacing sidewalk parking and angled parking with parallel parking on the roadway or in
designated spots is not practiced. This perpetuates an unfavorable approach to roadway
space allocation, complicating and often obstructing bicycle traffic and failing to ensure
the proper width for pedestrian traffic. Additionally, this situation is detrimental to the
aesthetics of urban space. However, this could change in the future due to new road design
technical guidelines introduced in September 2022 [54].
Moreover, the problem of managing parking in residential zones, particularly in high-
rise housing areas, has not been resolved and has rather worsened over the years. This issue
pertains both to older housing estates, where the number of cars exceeds the number of
available parking spaces within estate land (resulting in obstructed sidewalks and streets),
as well as to newly built developments, where parking spaces are typically provided solely
for residents, without provisions for visitors. This leads to disorganized parking beyond
the commonly fenced-off residential estates.
The policy of imposing limits on parking spaces in new buildings has also been
poorly utilized (e.g., in the form of standards for permitted or required spaces based on the
building’s function and its location relative to the city center) [55]. This particularly pertains
to areas that are well serviced by public transport yet face shortage of space. Attempts to
implement such policies have been made, for instance, in Warsaw’s central area. However,
the parking standards applied have proven to be too lenient, resulting in minimal reduction
in car access to the city center. Moreover, there has been a noticeable lack of progress in
providing urban multi-story parking structures, which should be linked to reducing the
number of surface-level parking spots and freeing street space previously used for road
transport for other purposes.
One of the more serious issues regarding parking in paid zones is the ambiguity of
regulations concerning fee collection [56] and the insufficient control of illegal parking.
This has resulted in numerous violations of parking rules, with vehicles parked outside
designated spaces and even posing safety threats (e.g., in visibility zones).
Assuming that the best criterion for parking fee optimization is maintaining a parking
occupancy rate of 85%, the primary tool for determining fees is a demand price elasticity
analysis. Unfortunately, this mechanism has practically not been applied in Poland. Until
2003, legal regulations [57] tied parking fee levels to gasoline prices, and afterward (since
2003) imposed maximum fee levels and allowed progressive rates only for the first three
hours of parking [58]. In practice, this hindered the optimization of parking fees, travel
demand management, and the shaping of user behavior in the transport system.
In 2019, new regulations were introduced [59], allowing for the establishment of
central paid parking zones in addition to existing paid parking zones, with fee levels linked
to the minimum wage. These new regulations provided the opportunity for introducing
higher fees, hence offering greater flexibility in their structuring.
New paid parking organization rules (central paid parking zones) have been mainly
introduced in larger cities (such as Kraków, Poznań, Wrocław, Katowice, and Gdańsk).
They have enabled higher fees for parking in critical areas of paid zones where higher fees
 In 2019, new regulations were introduced [59], allowing for the establishment of cen-
tral paid parking zones in addition to existing paid parking zones, with fee levels linked
to the minimum wage. These new regulations provided the opportunity for introducing
higher fees, hence offering greater flexibility in their structuring.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 New paid parking organization rules (central paid parking zones) have been mainly
14 of 25
introduced in larger cities (such as Kraków, Poznań, Wrocław, Katowice, and Gdańsk).
They have enabled higher fees for parking in critical areas of paid zones where higher fees
arenecessary
are necessarytotobalance
balancedemand
demandand
andsupply.
supply.Unfortunately,
Unfortunately,the
thenew
newlaw
lawdoes
doesnot
notpermit
permit
suchsolutions
such solutionsinincities
citieswith
withpopulations
populationsbelow
below100,000.
100,000.

4.5.
4.5.Air
AirPollution
Pollution
Last
Lastyear,
year,thethePolish
PolishSupreme
SupremeAuditAuditOffice
Officeconducted
conductedan anaudit
auditinincities
citiesmost
mostexposed
exposed
totoNO
NO22 emissions. In all the audited cities, the emissions exceeded the EuropeanUnion’s
emissions. In all the audited cities, the emissions exceeded the European Union’s
annual 3
annualpermissible
permissibleaverage
averagevalue
valueofof4040µg/m µg/m3 [60].
[60]. In
In four
four cities—Warsaw,
cities—Warsaw, Kraków,
Kraków,
Wrocław,
Wrocław,and andKatowice—NO
Katowice—NO 2 2emissions
emissionsinin2022
2022surpassed
surpassedthe theEUEUthreshold
thresholdbybyno
nomore
more
than 10 µg/m 33 (Figure 4). However, in other cities, the exceedances were two to three times
than 10 µg/m (Figure 4). However, in other cities, the exceedances were two to three times
higher
higher[61].
[61].The
TheEU’s
EU’sNONO22emission
emissionlimit
limithas
hasbeen
beeninineffect
effectsince
since2010,
2010,aligning
aligningwith
withearlier
earlier
WHO
WHO guidelines from 2005. Since 2021, the WHO has recommended an annualmean
guidelines from 2005. Since 2021, the WHO has recommended an annual meanNONO 22
value 3
valuenot
notexceeding
exceeding10 µg/m3 [62].
10µg/m [62]. The
The new
new EU EU standard,
standard, set
set to
totake
takeeffect
effectin
in2030,
2030,will
will
lower 3 3 [63].
lowerthethepermissible
permissiblevaluevaluefrom
from40 µg/m3 to
40µg/m to 20
20 µg/m
µg/m3 [63].

Figure4.4.NO
Figure NO2annual
annualmean
meanvalues
valuesfor
forselected
selectedPolish
Polishcities,
cities,based
basedon
onreference
reference[29].
[29].
2

Since 2018, legislation [52] has enabled the creation of clean transport zones (Polish
name for ‘low-emission zones’) in cities with populations over 100,000, restricting access to
these zones for vehicles other than electric, hydrogen-powered, and natural gas vehicles.
The goal is to reduce emissions and the negative impacts of transport on people, the
environment, and the climate.
Six years since the new regulations were enacted, a clean transport zone has been
established only in Warsaw (effective from 1 July 2024) [64]. Another such zone is planned
to be launched in Kraków (from 1 July 2025). The limited interest of cities in creating these
zones led to a proposed amendment to the regulations [52], which introduces an obligation
to establish clean transport zones in cities over 100,000 residents if they exceed permissible
levels of nitrogen dioxide. Permanent exceedances occur in only four Polish cities, Warsaw,
Kraków, Wrocław, and Katowice, meaning that little change should be expected in the
approach of other cities to establishing clean transport zones.
Regrettably, the legal regulations regarding clean transport zones have not initiated
discussions in cities about how to transform the spaces of central areas and district centers
to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, how to create attractive public spaces, or
how to give priority to public transport while limiting the role of cars. Proposed regulations
have shifted public attention toward restrictive solutions—limitations on access for specific
vehicles—restrictions often perceived as unjustified.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 15 of 25

Another drawback of emerging clean transport zones is the low-emission standards

required for vehicles allowed into the zones, along with numerous exemptions for residents.
In Warsaw, following the establishment of the zone, there is also a lack of information
regarding whether the introduction of new solutions has yielded any results. This does not
help in fostering public trust in actions taken for the protection of health, the environment,
and the climate. Considering the applied criteria and exemptions for vehicles allowed in
the zone, its real impact on pollution reduction seems negligible. This situation may only
change in the medium- to long-term future. The adopted regulations for the zone foresee
a gradual decrease in emission thresholds for vehicles in subsequent years, as well as a
reduction in exemptions.
The bus fleet in cities is also changing. The number of buses meeting the strictest
European emission standards is increasing. Figure 5 shows the rapidly growing share of
buses meeting the Euro 6 standard and low-emission vehicles since 2013. More and more
old buses are being replaced with zero-emission vehicles (electric and hydrogen-powered).
Especially in large cities such as Warsaw, Kraków, and Poznań, the number of electric
buses is significant. In 2021, there were 160 electric buses in Warsaw (10.95% of the entire
bus fleet), while 79 electric buses (13.72%) were operating in Kraków and 58 (18.30%)
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of in
25
Poznań [65].

Figure5.5.Bus
Figure Busfleet
fleetin
inPoland
Polandby
byemission
emissionclass,
class,based
basedon
onreference
reference[66].
[66].

4.6. Spatial
4.6. SpatialPlanning
Planning and
and Transport
Transport
From
Fromthe theonset
onsetof ofimplementing
implementingsustainable
sustainabledevelopment
development policies,
policies, inadequate
inadequate spa- spa-
tial
tialplanning
planningand andshortcomings
shortcomingsin inintegrating
integratingtransport
transportsystem
systemdevelopment
developmenthave havebeen
been
identified
identifiedas asprimary
primarythreats
threatstotoPolish
Polishcities.
cities.Reflecting
Reflectingononthe
thepast
past30
30years,
years,ititseems
seemsthese
these
threats
threatshave
havenot
notbeen
beenmitigated.
mitigated. Weaknesses
Weaknesses in inplanning,
planning,combined
combined withwithincreasing
increasingcar car
ownership,
ownership,have haveled
ledtotoprogressive
progressiveurban
urban sprawl
sprawl and
anda decrease
a decreasein the spatial
in the integration
spatial integrationof
cities and agglomerations, resulting in the emergence of monofunctional
of cities and agglomerations, resulting in the emergence of monofunctional areas within areas within cities
(e.g.,
citiesareas
(e.g.,dominated by residential
areas dominated or office or
by residential functions). For example,
office functions). For itexample,
was reportedit was[67]
re-
that, “since 2016, the building sector in Poland has seen a steady increase
ported [67] that, “since 2016, the building sector in Poland has seen a steady increase in the number in
of
thehouses
number constructed
of houses per 10,000 people”.
constructed per 10,000 Thepeople”.
spatial variability
The spatialofvariability
the total number of
of the total
completed
number ofdwellings
completed per 10,000 population
dwellings per 10,000reveals “bagels”—areas
population surrounding the
reveals “bagels”—areas largest
surround-
metropolises that also surpass urban centers”. This phenomenon is confirmed
ing the largest metropolises that also surpass urban centers”. This phenomenon is con- by results
of monitoring
firmed directions
by results of internal
of monitoring migration
directions in Poland
of internal [68]—asinpresented
migration in Figure
Poland [68]—as 6.
pre-
sented in Figure 6. During the last 33 years, migration to suburban zones has increased
from 17% to 34% of the total internal population inflow.
This situation has led to threats described in [69]—larger urban sprawl and housing
dispersion. These developments have shaped Polish urban regions into their current spa-
tial and functional structures, which are significantly unbalanced and unfavorable con-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 16 of 25

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW

During 17 ofof25
the last 33 years, migration to suburban zones has increased from 17% to 34%
the total internal population inflow.

Figure 6. Changes in the composition of registered internal population inflows, based on reference
Figure 6. Changes in the composition of registered internal population inflows, based on refer-
[68], updated.
ence [68], updated.

In Polish
This situationcities,
hasspatial
led to planning has not been
threats described utilized asurban
in [69]—larger a fundamental
sprawl and tool for reg-
housing
ulating transport demand. Cities have failed to maintain compact
dispersion. These developments have shaped Polish urban regions into their current spatial spatial forms, with high
densities of origins and destinations in urban centers, district
and functional structures, which are significantly unbalanced and unfavorable concerning centers, and corridors well
served by public transport, and with mixed land
mobility needs, transportation systems, and car ownership characteristics. use in specific areas. Furthermore, the
typical
Theinstruments used to achieve
detrimental phenomenon spatial order suburbanization
of uncontrolled within cities have been poorly
around applied.
large cities has
Standards for been
unfortunately regulating
a common parking and
issue controllingthe
throughout access
EU, toasspecific
describedcityinareas
[70].for cars have
According
tohardly been used
[71], extensive (these
urban should particularly
expansion leads to space be occupation,
applied during the construction
including valuable natural permit
issuance stage). Where such standards exist (e.g., in Warsaw
areas, excessive emissions and air pollution, and increased costs of functioning in urban since 2006), they were main-
tained at too lenient a level, failing to discourage car use for
areas. This also raises the demand for transport and influences the types of transport used trips to urban central areas,
especially
(with for commuting
an increasing interesttoinwork.
car usage), consequently escalating municipal operating
costs. Local
Such planning
a development (i.e., local
model spatial
does development
not encourageplans), walking as and
formally
cycling established
due to thein
Polish law [72]
unacceptable tripthrough
lengths.the processes of plan creation and approval, does not serve as an
instrument
In Polish forcities,
rationalizing urban spatial
spatial planning has development
not been utilized or executing sustainable tool
as a fundamental mobility
for
policies. For
regulating many years,
transport demand. a major
Cities flawhave hasfailed
been to
that these plans
maintain are usually
compact spatial based
forms,on un-
with
realistic
high demographic,
densities of origins social, and developmental
and destinations assumptions
in urban centers, districtregarding
centers, and thecorridors
transport
well served
system. They by have
publicnot transport,
protected and with mixed
against fencingland use indevelopment
off large specific areas.complexes
Furthermore, (e.g.,
the typical instruments
residential, office), leading used to achieve spatial order
the segregation within
of public cities within
spaces have been the poorly applied.
city, complicat-
Standards
ing accessfor regulatinghubs
to transport parking
(e.g.,and controlling
causing extended access to specific
walking city areas
distances), for cars
or lengthening
have hardly
cycling routes. beenTheusedplans (these
did not should
account particularly be applied
for a functional balance during
in land theuse construction
to differen-
permit issuance within
tiate functions stage). one
Where such standards
or several neighboring existplans
(e.g., in
and Warsaw
did notsince 2006),
forecast thethey wereof
impact
maintained at too lenient a level, failing to discourage car
planned developments on generated and absorbed traffic within the plan area or the ef- use for trips to urban central
areas,
fects onespecially
the modal for split
commuting to work.
and potential trip loads on the transport system (road traffic, pub-
Local planning
lic transport, cycling,(i.e., local spatial development plans), as formally established in
walking).
PolishAs law [72] through
a result, the processes
the dispersion of plan creation
of development, and approval,
particularly does not
characteristic ofserve as an
the periph-
instrument for rationalizing urban spatial development or executing
eral areas of cities, partially stems from the ineffectiveness of local laws that do not effec- sustainable mobility
policies. For many
tively protect years, changes
and control a major in flaw has spaces
urban been thatandthese
combat plans are usually
the increase in thebased on
number
unrealistic demographic, social, and developmental assumptions
and length of trips. Integrated spatial planning has rarely, or not at all, covered areas regarding the transport
system.
larger thanTheytypical
have not areasprotected
addressed against
by localfencing
plansoff large
(e.g., development
selected areas incomplexes
city centers,(e.g.,
sur-
residential,
roundings of transport interchanges, corridors served by high-quality complicating
office), leading to the segregation of public spaces within the city, mass public
transport, and areas planned for redevelopment of current buildings with a change of
function). Consequently, the conditions and opportunities for redevelopment and densi-
fication of buildings have been poorly identified, and opportunities for activating areas
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 17 of 25

access to transport hubs (e.g., causing extended walking distances), or lengthening cycling
routes. The plans did not account for a functional balance in land use to differentiate
functions within one or several neighboring plans and did not forecast the impact of
planned developments on generated and absorbed traffic within the plan area or the effects
on the modal split and potential trip loads on the transport system (road traffic, public
transport, cycling, walking).
As a result, the dispersion of development, particularly characteristic of the peripheral
areas of cities, partially stems from the ineffectiveness of local laws that do not effectively
protect and control changes in urban spaces and combat the increase in the number and
length of trips. Integrated spatial planning has rarely, or not at all, covered areas larger than
typical areas addressed by local plans (e.g., selected areas in city centers, surroundings of
transport interchanges, corridors served by high-quality mass public transport, and areas
planned for redevelopment of current buildings with a change of function). Consequently,
the conditions and opportunities for redevelopment and densification of buildings have
been poorly identified, and opportunities for activating areas through planned locations of
urban facilities and projects that enhance social integration and improve city image (and
create public spaces) have been underutilized. Moreover, collaboration opportunities be-
tween public and private parties (through jointly identifying programs of action, timelines,
implementation principles, and funding) have been inadequately exploited.
As a result, cities have missed the opportunity to take the initiative in planning and
programming attractive areas, thus ensuring control over their developmental directions
(type and intensity of development, transportation service methods) and establishing any
mutual obligations related to financing modernization and infrastructure development.
One of the challenges, especially in central areas, has been and will be the revitalization
of streets and squares. Counteracting the appropriation of public spaces by cars while
improving their quality and accessibility for all citizens (including those with limited
mobility) remains crucial. In recent years, many positive examples can be found that
move away from giving priority to car traffic (e.g., car-free zones in historic city centers
and transformations of 23 local streets in Łódź). Nevertheless, there is no doubt that
considerable backlogs remain in this area.

4.7. Road Safety

Improving road safety in cities, especially for unprotected road users—pedestrians
and cyclists—contributes indirectly to sustainable mobility, as it increases the attractiveness
of walking and cycling and enhances access to public transport.
The improvement in road safety in Poland can undoubtedly be regarded as one of the
successes of the last 30 years. In the second half of the 1980s, with rising car ownership
and minimal expenditure on road construction and maintenance, road safety deteriorated
significantly, with nearly 8000 traffic fatalities recorded in the worst year, 1991. In the
following years, there was a gradual improvement, yet Poland has long exhibited one of
the worst road safety statistics in the European Union [73–75]. Significant progress has
been achieved only in the past decade, with a 47% decrease in fatalities on the roads from
2012 to 2022. The corresponding reductions were 63% for pedestrians and 41% for cyclists.
This favorable change in road safety is particularly evident in urban areas. Figure 7
illustrates the decline in the number of fatalities in road accidents in selected Polish cities
from 2000 to 2023, showing a decrease of between 76% and 86% in the indicated urban areas.
 achieved only in the past decade, with a 47% decrease in fatalities on the roads from 2012
to 2022. The corresponding reductions were 63% for pedestrians and 41% for cyclists.
This favorable change in road safety is particularly evident in urban areas. Figure 7
illustrates the decline in the number of fatalities in road accidents in selected Polish cities
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 18 of 25
from 2000 to 2023, showing a decrease of between 76% and 86% in the indicated urban
areas.

Figure 7. The number of fatalities in road accidents in selected Polish cities from 2000 to 2023; source
of data: [76].

The improvement in the safety situation is the result of multifaceted actions taken at
both the national and local urban levels. Subsequent versions of the National Road Traffic
Safety Program have been adopted, outlining directions for systemic actions. Local pro-
grams and initiatives aimed at enhancing safety have also been implemented in cities [77].
In brief, the following actions can be highlighted:
• Legislative changes, such as stricter penalties for violations, reduced speed limits
at night in built-up areas (now 50 km/h—the same as during daytime), and the
introduction of pedestrian priority at unsignalized zebra crossings.
• Improvement of road infrastructure: construction of new divided roadways of higher
class streets and traffic-calming measures on local roads.
• Introduction of modern traffic management systems in cities, associated with the
modernization of traffic signals and CCTV monitoring.
• Implementation of enforcement measures such as speed cameras, section speed mea-
surement, and cameras monitoring red-light violations.
• Enhancement of cycling infrastructure, including the construction and modernization
of bicycle paths, lanes, and crossings.
• Improvement of pedestrian infrastructure: sidewalks and road crossings. In Warsaw,
an audit of all pedestrian crossings was conducted, encompassing assessments of
geometry, visibility, lighting, and traffic signaling.
Overall, these efforts reflect a commitment to improving road safety and support-
ing sustainable urban mobility, contributing to more livable and accessible cities for all
residents.

5. Planned Actions
An important issue in the context of transport policy in Polish cities is the quality of
planning future actions. In this regard, two recently adopted documents are crucial: the
“Sustainable Transport Development Strategy until 2030” [78] and the “National Urban
Policy 2030” (KPM 2030) [79], which both have a strategic character. It seems that, especially
considering the latter document adopted in 2022, these may bring about improvements.
They outline key challenges regarding cities and their functional areas and propose priority
solutions focusing on issues such as the following:
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 19 of 25

• Mitigating the problems of chaotic suburbanization and establishing spatial order.

• Improving the quality of the natural environment in cities and implementing adaptive
measures against climate change.
• Managing urban mobility and safety, particularly for vulnerable road users.
Numerous solutions are planned within each challenge, although a specific set of
priority actions is lacking. Notable proposals include the following:
• Establishing a “planning union” modeled after the German system, which would
formalize cooperation among local governments within a functional area to promote
coherent and coordinated spatial planning and development.
• Creating a unified catalog of spatial development principles and space management
that beneficiaries of European funds and other grant programs should adhere to when
implementing supported projects.
• Introducing new regulations encouraging the establishment of traffic-calming zones.
• Providing legal possibilities for forming municipal–county–voivodeship associations
and municipal–voivodeship associations aimed at organizing public transport.
• Creating opportunities for metropolitan city governments to purchase “transport
effects” in neighboring municipalities, such as financing the construction of Park and
Ride facilities at railway stations in suburban areas.
• Legally defining shared transport, for example, by distinguishing shared vehicle types
within traffic regulations (Highway Code).
• Coordinating mobility and urban spatial planning through Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plans (SUMP); transport development plans (which belong to the group of legally
regulated documents) should follow and be consistent with the SUMPs.
• Incorporating analyses and recommendations into local spatial development plans
and revitalization plans regarding how their provisions will impact pedestrian and
cycling traffic conditions.
• Allowing municipalities to determine the designated number of parking spaces for cars
in local law. This means that a municipality could obtain a pool of funds for transport
projects from a developer, calculated as the number of parking spaces multiplied by a
convergence coefficient and a fixed equivalent cost for building parking spaces.
• Changing regulations to allow parking on sidewalks exclusively in designated areas.
Additionally, the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP), recommended by the
European Commission, could become a tool for transport policy, particularly considering
ecological aspects, road safety, and the use of intelligent transport systems [80,81]. So far,
35 such plans have been prepared in Poland. However, these plans have not been approved
or adopted by the local authorities. The authors of this article believe that they do not
fulfill their intended purposes and are merely treated by the obligated entities as a formally
required document, lacking real implications for conscious planning of transport system
development.
In recent years, the concept of Smart Cities has increasingly emerged, a concept that is
difficult to envision without sustainable mobility [16,82].

6. Conclusions
The authors encountered challenges in collecting the data necessary to perform consis-
tent analyses. Due to lack of appropriate datasets, the scope of the analyses was limited,
and comparisons were conducted only for a few major cities. This highlighted the issue of
an insufficient amount of transportation-related research conducted by the cities, as well as
the inconsistent methodologies applied. Despite these limitations, the authors were able to
draw some valuable conclusions under the given circumstances.
Referring to the three strategies of implementing sustainable urban mobility (Table 1),
the current situation in Polish cities can be generally summarized as follows:
• Strategy 1—efficiency—there has been a limited progress: traffic management systems
have been implemented in several cities; new low-emission and electric buses are
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 20 of 25

being introduced; there has been a reduction in NO2 emissions. However, there is only
one low-emission zone with very soft restrictions.
• Strategy 2—substitution—public transport systems have been modernized and gener-
ally offer a high-quality service; there has been a marked improvement in the extent
and quality of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure; there has been a significant
improvement in traffic safety. However, despite these facts, motorization and the pro-
portion of trips by car are still increasing—this is partly due to lack of strict restrictive
measures for cars, like access restrictions, limits on parking capacity and standards,
and reshaping of street networks.
• Strategy 3—reduction in travel volume—there has been some reduction in travel as
teleworking, online shopping, and services have become popular. However, there is
a permanent problem with urban sprawl and lack of effective spatial planning and
development control.
Recent experiences indicate a need to seek new solutions that transform the function-
ality of cities and their central areas. These changes should focus on the organization of the
transport system as well as the awareness and mentality of system organizers (planners,
designers, managers), politicians, and society at large. It is crucial that, when making deci-
sions, there is a strong social justification for the changes being made, and that transport
organizers (and politicians) realize that through their actions, they can alter the environ-
ment, influence the behavior of transport system users, and transform cities into more
livable and travel-friendly spaces while maintaining their economic competitiveness. Un-
fortunately, several issues threaten this change in approach. The most significant among
them include the following:
• A focus on major transportation projects, which leads to a lack of understanding
regarding the importance of simpler actions aimed at changing user behavior within
the transport system.
• Changes in land use that result in the dispersion of development beyond compact
urban areas, coupled with a lack of mechanisms to counteract this phenomenon and
promote spatial distribution that should be imposed by local governments (e.g., issues
concerning developer building projects in areas poorly served by or without public
transport).
• Fear of implementing restrictive measures (e.g., charging for the use of infrastructure
or restricting access to city centers for private vehicles, charging more for resident
parking permits for households with two or more cars).
• Weaknesses in educational and awareness programs for children and youth that shape
social behaviors within the transport system.
• Insufficient understanding of user behavior, needs, and expectations, making it diffi-
cult to recommend essential actions.
Past experiences have shown that actions other than new development projects are
often taken reluctantly, and when they are taken, they are inconsistently executed. Numer-
ous examples illustrate this. Paid parking, where it exists, is utilized more as a source of
revenue for local governments than as a mechanism to restrict traffic flows and discourage
long-term vehicle parking. Traffic management systems, with few exceptions, operate
with various shortcomings. Their introduction is often justified by the need to reduce
congestion, which, without implementing solutions that influence travel behavior and limit
car usage, becomes an unrealistic aim that may lead to disappointment among residents.
Consequently, giving priority to surface public transport often remains merely declarative
due to fears of reducing road and intersection capacity. Limiting access to specific areas or
individual streets is frequently perceived as an assault on the interests of motorists, while
transforming street spaces by reducing parking spots is seen as an attack on the interests of
local residents.
Despite visible improvements in road safety in cities, much work remains to be done:
large-scale implementation of restricted speed zones (30 km/h), streets and zones with
traffic calming, and home zones.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 21 of 25

It is also important to recognize that isolated solutions are often ineffective. This is
particularly evident with large (and expensive) transport development projects, which
typically only address small city areas or single transport corridors and thus do not impact
the broader user base. Greater emphasis should be placed on solutions that influence the
transport behaviors of the majority and encourage “abandoning” cars in favor of other
modes of travel and solutions reducing travel distances (e.g., 15 min city model). Many
opportunities exist in this regard; however, realizing them requires courage from designers
in proposing actions and from decision-makers in taking those decisions. This is not a
simple task and often involves overcoming social resistance. Currently, there is still too
little focus on education and promoting bold solutions. Consequently, society is poorly
prepared to reduce the role of cars in urban areas and to implement innovative solutions.
Considering the 30-year experience with the implementation of sustainable transport
policy, there is a concern that this situation will not change for a long time. In this context,
the strategic documents adopted at the national level in recent years [78,79] have gained
significant importance. It is hoped that they will contribute to increasing awareness among
all stakeholders regarding the identified transportation issues and provide a foundation
for developing tools at both the central and local levels to facilitate the implementation of
sustainable development policies in transportation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.O. and A.B.; methodology, P.S. and P.O.; validation,
A.B., T.D. and B.O.; investigation, P.S. and T.D.; resources, A.B., T.D. and B.O.; writing—original
draft preparation, P.S., A.B., T.D. and P.O.; writing—review and editing, P.S., A.B., T.D., P.O. and
B.O.; visualization, T.D. and P.O.; supervision, P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. WCED. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
2. European Commission. Green Paper on the Impact of Transport on the Environment. A Community Strategy for ‘Sustainable Mobility’;
COM (92) 46 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
3. ECMT. Urban Travel and Sustainable Development; European Conference of Ministers of Transport and Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 1995.
4. OECD. Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France,
2022.
5. Friedberg, J.; Rudnicki, A. Polityka Transportowa w Krakowie (Transport Policy in Kraków); Transport Miejski; Wydawnictwo
Komunikacji i Łaczności:
˛ Sulejówek, Poland, 1993; pp. 16–19.
6. Brzeziński, A. Doświadczenia we wdrażaniu systemów zarzadzania ˛ ruchem w polskich miastach. In Bezpieczeństwo i Zarzadzanie
˛
Ruchem—Zadaniem Samorzadów ˛ i Administracji Drogowej; Zielińska, A., Ed.; (Experiences in implementing traffic management
systems in Polish cities. In Safety and Traffic Management—The Responsibility of Local Governments and Road Administration); SITK:
Warszawa, Poland, 2001; p. 223, ISBN 83-914510-1-1.
7. Polityka Transportowa m.st. Warszawy (Transport Policy in Warsaw). Załacznik ˛ do Uchwały Rady Warszawy nr XXVI/193/95 z
dnia 27.11.1995 r. Available online: https://zm.org.pl/polityka_transportowa_95/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
8. Brzeziński, A.; Rezwow, M. Zrównoważony transport—Ekologiczne rozwiazania ˛ transportowe. In Ekorozwój i Agenda 21.
Interdyscyplinarny Model Kształcenia; Pieczyński, P., Ed.; (Sustainable transport—Ecological transport solutions. In Eco-Development
and Agenda 21. An Interdisciplinary Education Model); Collegium Balticum SSW: Szczecin, Poland, 2007; p. 596, ISBN 83-917445-8-2.
9. Holden, E.; Banister, D.; Gössling, S.; Gilpin, G.; Linnerud, K. Grand Narratives for sustainable mobility: A conceptual review.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 65, 101454. [CrossRef]
10. Foltýnová, H.B.; Jordová, R. The contribution of different policy elements to sustainable urban mobility. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014,
4, 312–326. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 22 of 25

11. May, A.D. Encouraging good practice in the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2015, 3,
3–11. [CrossRef]
12. Holden, E.; Gilpin, G.; Banister, D. Sustainable mobility at thirty. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1965. [CrossRef]
13. Campisi, T.; Nahiduzzaman, K.M. Beyond COVID-19: Planning the Mobility and Cities Following ‘15-Minute City’ Paradigm. In
The City in an Era of Cascading Risks: New Insights from the Ground; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 25–35.
14. Papas, T.; Basbas, S.; Campisi, T. Urban mobility evolution and the 15-minute city model: From holistic to bottom-up approach.
Transp. Res. Procedia 2023, 69, 544–551. [CrossRef]
15. Walnum, H.J.; Aall, C.; Løkke, S. Can rebound effects explain why sustainable mobility has not been achieved? Sustainability 2014,
6, 9510–9537. [CrossRef]
16. Zawieska, J.; Pieriegud, J. Smart city as a tool for sustainable mobility and transport decarbonisation. Transp. Policy 2018, 63,
39–50. [CrossRef]
17. European Commission. Action Plan on Urban Mobility; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
18. Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, Second Edition. 2019. Available online: https:
//urban-mobility-observatory.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-09/sump_guidelines_2019_second%20edition.pdf (ac-
cessed on 24 October 2024).
19. May, A.; Boehler-Baedeker, S.; Delgado, L.; Durlin, T.; Enache, M.; van der Pas, J.W. Appropriate national policy frameworks for
sustainable urban mobility plans. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2017, 9, 1–16. [CrossRef]
20. Rupprecht Consult. The State-of-the-Art of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans in Europe. 2012. Available online: https://www.
rupprecht-consult.eu/fileadmin/migratedRupprechtAssets/Documents/SUMP_state-of-the-art_of_report.pdf (accessed on 24
October 2024).
21. European Court of Auditors. Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU; Special report 06/2020; European Court of Auditors: Luxemburg,
2020.
22. Brzeziński, A.; Czajkowski, M.; Jesionkiewicz-Niedzińska, K.; Kosmowski, P.; Lasek, W.; Masłowski, K.; Przytulska, M.; Ejchorszt-
Rybczyńska, M.; Utkin, M. Warszawski Raport Rowerowy 2010 (Warsaw Cycling Report 2010); Biuro Drogownictwa i Komunikacji
Urz˛edu m.st. Warszawy: Warszawa, Poland, 2010.
23. Zarzad ˛ Dróg Miejskich. Warszawski Raport Rowerowy 2021 (Warsaw Cycling Report 2021); Zarzad ˛ Dróg Miejskich w Warszawie:
Warszawa, Poland, 2021.
24. Sydorów, M.; Chmiel, B.; Żukowska, S. Wyzwania zrównoważonej mobilności miejskiej na tle polityki miejskiej Unii Europejskiej:
Wybrane przykłady (Challenges of sustainable urban mobility in the context of European Union urban policy: Case studies).
Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG 2023, 26, 9–21. [CrossRef]
25. Janczewski, J.; Janczewska, D. Zrównoważona mobilność miejska—Dobre praktyki (Sustainable urban mobility—Good practice).
Zarzadzanie
˛ Innowacyjne w Gospodarce i Biznesie 2021, 2, 165–196. [CrossRef]
26. Gadziński, J.; Goras, E. (Eds.) Raport o Stanie Polskich Miast. Transport i Mobilność Miejska (Report on the State of Polish Cities.
Transport and Urban Mobility); Instytut Rozwoju Miast i Regionów: Warszawa, Poland, 2019.
27. Kompleksowe Badania Ruchu w Krakowskim Obszarze Metropolitalnym 2023 (Comprehensive Travel Survey in Kraków Metropolitan
Area 2023); Raport Końcowy z Badań Ankietowych Podróży wraz z Synteza˛ Wyników; Wydział Gospodarki i Klimatu, Urzad ˛
Miasta Krakowa: Kraków, Poland, 2023. Available online: https://www.bip.krakow.pl/plik.php?zid=457396&wer=0&new=t&
mode=shw (accessed on 24 October 2024).
28. Kompleksowe Badania Ruchu we Wrocławiu i Otoczeniu—KBR 2024 (Comprehensive Travel Survey in Wrocław Metropolitan
Area 2024). Available online: https://bip.um.wroc.pl/artykul/565/70659/kompleksowe-badania-ruchu-we-wroclawiu-i-
otoczeniu-kbr-2024 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
29. Gdańskie Badania Ruchu 2022. Raport 3a, Opracowanie Wyników Badań i Pomiarów (Gdańsk Traffic Studies 2022. Report
3a, Analysis of Survey and Measurement Results). Biuro Rozwoju Gdańska. 2022. Available online: https://www.brg.gda.pl/
attachments/article/282/Raport-III.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
30. Barometr Warszawski (Warsaw Barometer), Various Years. Available online: https://um.warszawa.pl/waw/warszawa-w-
liczbach/barometr-warszawski (accessed on 24 October 2024).
31. Brzeziński, A. Czy może być zrównoważony transport miejski? In Miasto Idealne—Miasto Zrównoważone. Planowanie Przestrzenne
Terenów Zurbanizowanych i Jego Wpływ na Ograniczenie Skutków Zmian Klimatu; Kalinowska, A., Ed.; (Can sustainable urban
transport be achieved? In The Ideal City—The Sustainable City. Spatial planning of urbanized areas and its impact on mitigating the
effects of climate change); Uniwersytet Warszawski: Warszawa, Poland, 2015; ISBN 978-83-917679-6-2.
32. Beister, M.; Górny, J.; Połom, M. Rozwój infrastruktury tramwajowej w Polsce w okresie członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej (The
development of tram infrastructure in Poland during the period of EU membership). Technol. Transp. Szyn. 2015, 7–8, 20–36.
33. Wojtaszek, M. Powrót tramwajów na ulice Olsztyna (The return of trams to the streets of Olsztyn). Technol. Transp. Szyn. 2016, 3,
27–31.
34. Oskarbski, J. Struktra funkcjnonalna systemu zarzadzania˛ transportem w Trójmieście—TRISTAR (Functional structure of the
transport management system in Tri-City—TRISTAR). Przeglad ˛ Komun. 2011, 7–8, 26–31.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 23 of 25

35. Strategia Zrównoważonego Rozwoju Systemu Transportowego Warszawy do 2015 roku i na lata kolejne (Strategy for the
Sustainable Development of the Transport System of Warsaw until 2015 and beyond). Uchwała nr LVIII/1749/2009 Rady
Miasta st. Warszawy. Biuro Drogownictwa i Komunikacji Urz˛edu m.st. Warszawy: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. Available on-
line: https://transport.um.warszawa.pl/documents/62470/8560273/strategia.pdf/a4601234-06db-6ca5-e65c-21942d1faee3
?t=1634498738792 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
36. Rozporzadzenie
˛ Rady Ministrów z dnia 24 Września 2019 r. Zmieniajace ˛ Rozporzadzenie
˛ w Sprawie Sieci Autostrad i Dróg
Ekspresowych (Regulation of the Council of Ministers Changing the Regulation on Network of Motorways and Expressways).
Dz. U. 2019, poz. 1819. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20190001819 (accessed on 24
October 2024).
37. Olszewski, P.; Dybicz, T.; Jamroz, K.; Kustra, W.; Romanowska, A. Assessing highway travel time reliability using Probe Vehicle
Data. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 118–130. [CrossRef]
38. Ministerstwo Transportu Budownictwa i Gospodarki Morskiej. Raport Końcowy: Ocena Najważniejszych Problemów Wyst˛epujacych ˛
w Projektach z Zakresu Inteligentnych Systemów Transportowych w Ramach Działania 8.3 POIiŚ (Final Report: Assessment of the
Main Problems Occuring in Intelligent Transport System Projects); Ministerstwo Transportu Budownictwa i Gospodarki Morskiej:
Warszawa, Poland, 2012.
39. Centrumrowerowe.pl. Raport: Miasta dla Rowerzystów 2023 (Report: Cities for Cyclists 2023). 2023. Available online:
https://www.centrumrowerowe.pl/blog/miasta-dla-rowerzystow/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
40. Ministerstwo Infrastruktury. Wytyczne Projektowania Infrastruktury dla Rowerów Cz˛eść 1: Planowanie Tras dla Rowerów. (Guidelines for
Designing Bicycle Infrastructure Part 1: Planning Bicycle Routes); Ministerstwo Infrastruktury: Warszawa, Poland, 2022.
41. Ministerstwo Infrastruktury. Wytyczne Projektowania Infrastruktury dla Rowerów Cz˛eść 2: Projektowanie Dróg Dla Rowerów, Dróg Dla
Pieszych i Rowerów Oraz Pasów i Kontrapasów Ruchu Dla Rowerów (Guidelines for Designing Bicycle Infrastructure Part 2: Design of
Bicycle Paths); Ministerstwo Infrastruktury: Warszawa, Poland, 2022. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/attachment/2a5fc4
ea-6b73-483f-b150-5f9923a62062 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
42. Ministerstwo Infrastruktury. Wytyczne Projektowania Infrastruktury Dla Rowerów Cz˛eść 3: Projektowanie Przejazdów Dla Rowerów
Oraz Infrastruktury Dla Rowerów na Skrzyżowaniach i W˛ezłach (Guidelines for Designing Bicycle Infrastructure Part 3: Design of Bicycle
Crossings); Ministerstwo Infrastruktury: Warszawa, Poland, 2022. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/attachment/9fffdb38-b0
61-4270-a1bc-97a1b9649587 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
43. Macioszek, E.; Świerk, P.; Kurek, A. The Bike-Sharing System as an Element of Enhancing Sustainable Mobility—A Case Study
based on a City in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3285. [CrossRef]
44. Olszewski, P.; Suchorzewski, W. Samochód w Śródmieściu (Car in the City Center); Wydawnictwa Komunikacji i Łaczności:
˛ Warszawa,
Poland, 1983.
45. Litewka, W. Krótka historia płatnego parkowania w Krakowie (Short history of paid parking in Kraków). Zeszyty Naukowo-
Techniczne SITK Polityka Parkingowa w Miastach 2003, 106, 145–150.
46. Kopias, M. Strefa płatnego parkowania w Łodzi (Paid parking zone in Łódź). Zeszyty Naukowo-Techniczne SITK Polityka Parkingowa
w Miastach 2007, 134, 95–102.
47. Polityka Transportowa dla Miasta Łodzi (Transport Policy for the City of Łódź). Załacznik ˛ do Uchwały nr LI/528/97 Rady
Miejskiej w Łodzi z dnia 29 stycznia 1997 r. Available online: https://bip.uml.lodz.pl/files/bip/public/rada_miejska/
interpelacje/7/02_528.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
48. Dybicz, T. Zmiana zachowań parkingowych po wprowadzeniu płatnego parkowania w Centrum Warszawy (Change of parking
behavior after the introduction of paid parking in Warsaw city center). Transport Miejski 2000, 9, 9–14.
49. Dybicz, T. 10 dni bezpłatnego parkowania w Warszawie (10 days of free parking in Warsaw). Transport Miejski 2004, 1, 8–10.
50. WYG International. Kierunki Realizacji Polityki Parkingowej na Obszarze m.st. Warszawy do Roku 2035 (Directions of
Implementing Parking Policy in Capital City of Warsaw up to Year 2035). 2009. Available online: https://siskom.waw.pl/
planistyka/warszawa/Polityka_parkingowa_Warszawy_2035_synteza.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2024).
51. Uchwała nr LIII/723/12 Rady Miasta Krakowa z dnia 29 Sierpnia 2012 r. w Sprawie Przyj˛ecia Programu Parkingowego dla
Miasta Krakowa (Resolution of the Kraków City Council on Adoption of Parking Program for the city of Kraków), Rada Miasta
Krakowa: Kraków, Poland, 2012. Available online: https://www.bip.krakow.pl/?dok_id=167&sub_dok_id=167&sub=uchwala&
query=id=19309&typ=u (accessed on 24 October 2024).
52. Ustawa z Dnia 11 Stycznia 2018 r. o Elektromobilności i Paliwach Alternatywnych (Act on Electromobility and Alternative Fuels),
Dz. U. 2017 poz. 2222 ze zm. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20170002222/U/D20172
222Lj.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
53. Brzeziński, A.; Dybicz, T. Problemy funkcjonowania strefy płatnego parkowania w centrum miasta (Problems of functioning of
paid parking zone in the city center). Zeszyty Naukowo-Techniczne SITK Seria Materiały Konferencyjne 2013, 1, 25–36.
54. Wzorce i Standardy Rekomendowane Przez Ministra Właściwego ds. Transportu (Guidelines and Standards Recommended by
the Minister for Transport). Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/infrastruktura/wr-d (accessed on 18 October 2024).
55. Lower, A.; Szumilas, A. Parking Policy as a Tool of Sustainable Mobility—Parking Standards in Poland vs. European Experiences.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11330. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 24 of 25

56. Ustawa Prawo o Ruchu Drogowym z Dnia 20 Czerwca 1997 r. (Act on Road Traffic Law). Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.
pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19970980602/U/D19970602Lj.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
57. Rozporzadzenie
˛ Rady Ministrów z Dnia 5 Lipca 1994 r. w Sprawie Szczegółowych Zasad Wprowadzania Opłat za Parkowanie
Pojazdów Samochodowych na Drogach Publicznych (Regulation of the Council of Ministers on Principles of Introducing Fees for
Parking of Motor Vehicles on Public Roads). Rada Ministrów RP. 1994. Available online: https://eli.gov.pl/api/acts/DU/1994/4
16/text/O/D19940416.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
58. Ustawa z dnia 14 listopada 2003 r. o zmianie ustawy o drogach publicznych (Act on changes in the Act on Public Roads).
Dz.U.2003 nr 200 poz. 1953, 2003. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20032001953
(accessed on 24 October 2024).
59. Ustawa z Dnia 5 Lipca 2018 r. o Zmianie Ustawy o Partnerstwie Publiczno-Prywatnym oraz Niektórych Innych Ustaw (Act
on Changes in the Act on Public-Private Partnership and Some Other Acts). Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1693, 2018. Available online:
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20180001693/T/D20181693L.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
60. EU Air Quality Standards. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/air/air-quality/eu-air-quality-standards_
en (accessed on 24 October 2024).
61. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli. Informacja o Wynikach Kontroli: Działania na Rzecz Ograniczenia Zanieczyszczeń Komunikacyjnych
w Miastach (Information on the Results of the Inspection: Actions to Reduce Traffic-Related Pollution in Cities). 2024. Available
online: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,28986,vp,31818.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
62. WHO Air Quality Guidelines. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/what-are-the-who-
air-quality-guidelines (accessed on 24 October 2024).
63. European Union New Stricter Air Pollution Limits. Available online: https://seetheair.org/2024/02/26/europe-new-pm2-5
-limits/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
64. Uchwała Nr XCI/2974/2023 Rady Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy z 7 Grudnia 2023 r. w Sprawie Ustanowienia na Terenie Miasta
Stołecznego Warszawy Strefy Czystego Transportu (Resolution of the Warsaw City Council on Establishment in the Capital City
of Warsaw of the Clean Transport Zone). Rada m. st. Warszawy. 2023. Available online: https://edziennik.mazowieckie.pl/eli/
POL_WOJ_MZ/2023/14557/ogl/pol/pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
65. Portal Kierowców Samochodów Elektrycznych (Electric Car Drivers’ Portal). Available online: https://elektromobilni.pl/
(accessed on 24 October 2024).
66. Izba Gospodarczej Komunikacji Miejskiej. Komunikacja Miejska w Liczbach (Public Transport in Numbers). Available online:
https://igkm.pl/statystyka/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
67. Werner, P.A.; Kaleyeva, V.; Mariusz Porczek. Urban Sprawl in Poland (2016–2021): Drivers, Wildcards, and Spatial Externalities.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2804. [CrossRef]
68. Nowak, M.J.; Śleszyński, P.; Legutko-Kobus, P. Spatial Planning in Poland: Law, Property Market and Planning Practice; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022.
69. Kołsut, B.; Kudłak, R. From systemic to sustainability transitions: An emerging economy perspective on urban sprawl and the
automobile revolution. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2024, 31, 149–167. [CrossRef]
70. Urban sprawl in Europe. The Ignored Challenge; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006.
71. Radziejowski, J. Planowanie przestrzenne jako sposób adaptacji do zmian klimatu i przeciwdziałania zjawisku rozlewania si˛e
miast. In Miasto Idealne—Miasto Zrównoważone. Planowanie Przestrzenne Terenów Zurbanizowanych i Jego Wpływ na Ograniczenie
Skutków Zmian Klimatu; Kalinowska, A., Ed.; (Spatial Planning as a Way to Adapt to Climate Change and Counteract Urban
Sprawl. In The Ideal City—The Sustainable City. Spatial Planning of Urbanized Areas and its Impact on Mitigating the Effects of Climate
Change); Uniwersytet Warszawski: Warszawa, Poland, 2015; ISBN 978-83-917679-6-2.
72. Ustawa z Dnia 27 Marca 2003 r. o Planowaniu i Zagospodarowaniu Przestrzennym (Act on Spatial Planning and Management).
Dz.U. 2003 nr 80 poz. 717, 2003. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20030800717
(accessed on 24 October 2024).
73. Olszewski, P.; Osińska, B.; Zielińska, A. Pedestrian safety at traffic signals in Warsaw. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 1174–1182.
[CrossRef]
74. Olszewski, P.; Zielinska, A. Factors contributing to high pedestrian accident rates in Polish cities. In Proceedings of the 24th
ICTCT Workshop, Warsaw, Poland, 27–28 October 2011. Available online: https://www.ictct.net/wp-content/uploads/24
-Warsaw-2011/24-Olszewski-Full-paper.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2024).
75. Budzyński, M.; Jamroz, K.; Kustra, W.; Michalski, L.; Gaca, S. Road infrastructure safety management in Poland. IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 042066. [CrossRef]
76. POBR Polskie Obserwatorium Bezpieczeństwa Ruchu Drogowego (Polish Road Safety Observatory). Available online: https:
//obserwatoriumbrd.pl/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
77. Dabrowska-Loranc,
˛ M.; Skoczyński, P.; Zielińska, A. Bezpieczeństwo w Ruchu Drogowym. Badania Obserwatorium Polityki Miejskiej
(Safety in Road Traffic. Studies of the Urban Policy Observatory); Instytut Rozwoju Miast i Regionów: Warszawa, Poland, 2023.
78. Strategia Zrównoważonego Rozwoju Transportu do 2030 Roku (Sustainable Transport Development Strategy Until 2030); Ministerstwo
Infrastruktury: Warszawa, Poland, 2019.
79. Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy. National Urban Policy 2030. 2022; ISBN 978-83-7610-724-0. Available online:
https://www.gov.pl/attachment/f7475007-15f5-4b08-8eef-ff6342ad38dc (accessed on 24 October 2024).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003 25 of 25

80. Wołek, M. Sustainable Mobility Planning in Poland. Res. J. Univ. Gdańsk 2018, 76, 13–22. [CrossRef]
81. Okraszewska, R.; Romanowska, A.; Wołek, M.; Oskarbski, J.; Birr, K.; Jamroz, K. Integration of a Multilevel Transport System
Model into Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning. Sustainability 2018, 10, 16. [CrossRef]
82. Bielińska-Dusza, E.; Hamerska, M.; Żak, A. Sustainable Mobility and the Smart City: A Vision of the City of the Future. The Case
Study of Cracow (Poland). Energies 2021, 14, 7936. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.