Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Selected Polish Cities

Szagała, Piotr; Brzeziński, Andrzej; Dybicz, Tomasz; Olszewski, Piotr; Osińska, Beata

doi:10.3390/su162411003

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceReview

Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Selected Polish Cities

by

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

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 11003; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411003

Submission received: 30 October 2024 / Revised: 4 December 2024 / Accepted: 9 December 2024 / Published: 15 December 2024

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Problems Arising in the Development of Sustainable Transport Systems)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

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

1. Introduction

Travel constitutes a significant portion of the daily life of residents in large cities. Economic development, the expansion of transportation networks, and increased societal wealth create the potential for an increase in the number of trips by individuals and the transport of goods. In Polish cities, the number of private cars is systematically rising. Combined with the developing road network, this phenomenon is leading to urban sprawl, 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 and exacerbating road congestion. Cities are experiencing the effects of such circumstances in the form of climbing transport operational costs, increased energy consumption, and growing negative impacts on the natural environment and climate (including increased 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 failure. The prevailing perspective shifted towards the notion that road capacity (the supply of roads and car parks) should not be adapted to the rising needs resulting from increasing traffic; rather, demand growth should be controlled. This could be achieved through measures such as restricting car use, shortening travel distances, and facilitating alternative modes of transportation. This line of thought led to recommendations first by the United Nations [1], followed by other international organizations and governments (such as the European Commission [2], the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) [3], and the OECD [4]), to apply the principle of sustainable urban development, understood 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 mobility 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 investigating 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 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 environmentally 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]).

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

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 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 significant 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, attractive 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 increased 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 aforementioned trends are confirmed by comprehensive travel surveys conducted in Polish cities. Figure 1 illustrates the results of travel behavior surveys in Kraków. From 1985 to 2023, the share of public transport in non-pedestrian trips decreased from nearly 84% to 54%, while the share of car trips increased from just under 15% to 39% [26,27].

The share of pedestrian trips in Kraków slightly decreased from 30% in 1985 to 28% in 2013 (the 2023 survey did not account for pedestrian traffic). In the case of Warsaw, from 1980 to 2015, the share of public transport in non-pedestrian trips declined from nearly 81% to 57%, concurrent with an increase in car usage from nearly 18% to almost 39%. Compared to Kraków, there has been a significant decline in pedestrian trips, decreasing from 27% to 18% [26]. The results of the modal split in selected Polish cities presented in Table 2 indicate that only in Wrocław does the share of pedestrian trips have a growing trend. It increased from 19% in 2010 to 33% in 2023. That current level of pedestrian trips in Wrocław is the highest in comparison with the other cities. In all selected cities, the share of public transport trips has a decreasing trend while the share of car trips has a growing trend. The lowest share of public transport trips is in Wrocław (21%, decrease from 35% in 2010), while the highest is in Warsaw (47%, decrease from 53% in 1998). The lowest share of car trips is in Warsaw (32%, increase from 26% in 1998), while the highest is in Gdańsk (43%, increase from 28% in 1994).

These alarming trends are corroborated by the results of annual transport surveys conducted among the residents of Warsaw since 2006 as part of the “Warsaw Barometer” [30]. Figure 2 illustrates changes in public transport usage among Warsaw residents. In recent years, the share of daily users has fallen below 50% (most likely comprising individuals holding monthly passes). At the same time, the proportion of less-frequent users has increased. Conversely, the number of individuals declaring they never use these transport modes has decreased.

Figure 3 illustrates the stable proportion of respondents who use cars every day as drivers. The overall increase in car traffic can be attributed to the rise in the share of 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 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 involved substantial capital expenditures. Often, priority was given to high-cost projects that could receive EU funding.

It has proven to be misguided to assume that the execution of development programs, often lacking actions to influence travel behavior, would solve cities’ transportation problems and lead to durable, positive outcomes. There is clear evidence that tools for managing travel demand, encouraging the use of public transport, bicycles, and walking, have been underutilized and inconsistently applied. Additionally, programs _targeted directly at user groups or even individual users within the transport system—actions that directly impact mobility, discourage car usage, and mitigate the negative effects of motorization—have not been adequately addressed [24,31]. Moreover, measures aimed at changing attitudes and behaviors, such as introducing congestion charges or taxes on vehicles, are typically less expensive and would usually allow for transport system transformations faster and on a larger scale, with generally strong public support.

This raises critical questions about whether the adopted approach to achieving sustainable development was appropriate. Did the emphasis on high-cost, long-term projects yield the anticipated benefits? Has there been sufficient consideration of proven, cheaper measures implemented in other countries that effectively promote changes in attitudes and behaviors among transport system users? These questions address whether Polish cities embraced the principles of sustainable development encompassing actions such as the following:

Better utilization of existing infrastructure (e.g., traffic management to control access to selected urban areas and to road routes, real-time traffic information, quick response to emergencies, introducing priority for public transport);
Creation of alternatives to car usage (e.g., improving the attractiveness of public transport, developing cycling infrastructure, facilitating walking);
Integration of transport planning with spatial planning (e.g., densification of development in areas well served by mass public transport, increasing the functional attractiveness of urban centers, mixing land use functions to reduce travel demand);
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 recommend 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 analyses 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 concerns. 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 generating 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 individual 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., educational 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 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 agglomeration 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 Masovian 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 transport 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).

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 renovations 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 infrastructure 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 conditions. 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 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 [40,41,42].
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).

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 suspended 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 boundaries, 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). 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 sustainable 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 (outside 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 are necessary to balance demand and supply. Unfortunately, the new law does not permit such solutions in cities with populations below 100,000.

4.5. Air Pollution

Last year, the Polish Supreme Audit Office conducted an audit in cities most exposed to NO₂ emissions. In all the audited cities, the emissions exceeded the European Union’s annual permissible average value of 40 µg/m³ [60]. In four cities—Warsaw, Kraków, Wrocław, and Katowice—NO₂ emissions in 2022 surpassed the EU threshold by no more than 10 µg/m³ (Figure 4). However, in other cities, the exceedances were two to three times higher [61]. The EU’s NO₂ emission limit has been in effect since 2010, aligning with earlier WHO guidelines from 2005. Since 2021, the WHO has recommended an annual mean NO₂ value not exceeding 10 µg/m³ [62]. The new EU standard, set to take effect in 2030, will lower the permissible value from 40 µg/m³ to 20 µg/m³ [63].

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.

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%) in Poznań [65].

4.6. Spatial Planning and Transport

From the onset of implementing sustainable development policies, inadequate spatial planning and shortcomings in integrating transport system development have been identified as primary threats to Polish cities. Reflecting on the past 30 years, it seems these threats have not been mitigated. Weaknesses in planning, combined with increasing car ownership, have led to progressive urban sprawl and a decrease in the spatial integration of cities and agglomerations, resulting in the emergence of monofunctional areas within cities (e.g., areas dominated by residential or office functions). For example, it was reported [67] that, “since 2016, the building sector in Poland has seen a steady increase in the number of houses constructed per 10,000 people”. The spatial variability of the total number of completed dwellings per 10,000 population reveals “bagels”—areas surrounding the largest metropolises that also surpass urban centers”. This phenomenon is confirmed by results of monitoring directions of internal migration in Poland [68]—as presented 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 spatial and functional structures, which are significantly unbalanced and unfavorable concerning mobility needs, transportation systems, and car ownership characteristics.

The detrimental phenomenon of uncontrolled suburbanization around large cities has unfortunately been a common issue throughout the EU, as described in [70]. According to [71], extensive urban expansion leads to space occupation, including valuable natural areas, excessive emissions and air pollution, and increased costs of functioning in urban areas. This also raises the demand for transport and influences the types of transport used (with an increasing interest in car usage), consequently escalating municipal operating costs. Such a development model does not encourage walking and cycling due to the unacceptable trip lengths.

In Polish cities, spatial planning has not been utilized as a fundamental tool for regulating transport demand. Cities have failed to maintain compact spatial forms, with high densities of origins and destinations in urban centers, district centers, and corridors well served by public transport, and with mixed land use in specific areas. Furthermore, the typical instruments used to achieve spatial order within cities have been poorly applied. Standards for regulating parking and controlling access to specific city areas for cars have hardly been used (these should particularly be applied during the construction permit issuance stage). Where such standards exist (e.g., in Warsaw since 2006), they were maintained at too lenient a level, failing to discourage car use for trips to urban central areas, especially for commuting to work.

Local planning (i.e., local spatial development plans), as formally established in Polish law [72] through the processes of plan creation and approval, does not serve as an instrument for rationalizing urban spatial development or executing sustainable mobility policies. For many years, a major flaw has been that these plans are usually based on unrealistic demographic, social, and developmental assumptions regarding the transport system. They have not protected against fencing off large development complexes (e.g., residential, office), leading to the segregation of public spaces within the city, complicating 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 between 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 [73,74,75]. 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.

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 programs 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 measurement, 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 supporting 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:

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 consistent 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 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 generally 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 proportion 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 functionality 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 decisions, 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 environment, influence the behavior of transport system users, and transform cities into more livable and travel-friendly spaces while maintaining their economic competitiveness. Unfortunately, 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 difficult 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. Numerous 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.

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

WCED. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
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.
ECMT. Urban Travel and Sustainable Development; European Conference of Ministers of Transport and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 1995. [Google Scholar]
OECD. Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Friedberg, J.; Rudnicki, A. Polityka Transportowa w Krakowie (Transport Policy in Kraków); Transport Miejski; Wydawnictwo Komunikacji i Łączności: Sulejówek, Poland, 1993; pp. 16–19. [Google Scholar]
Brzeziński, A. Doświadczenia we wdrażaniu systemów zarządzania ruchem w polskich miastach. In Bezpieczeństwo i Zarządzanie Ruchem—Zadaniem Samorządów 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. [Google Scholar]
Polityka Transportowa m.st. Warszawy (Transport Policy in Warsaw). Załącznik 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).
Brzeziński, A.; Rezwow, M. Zrównoważony transport—Ekologiczne rozwiązania 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. [Google Scholar]
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foltýnová, H.B.; Jordová, R. The contribution of different policy elements to sustainable urban mobility. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 4, 312–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
May, A.D. Encouraging good practice in the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2015, 3, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Holden, E.; Gilpin, G.; Banister, D. Sustainable mobility at thirty. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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. [Google Scholar]
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Walnum, H.J.; Aall, C.; Løkke, S. Can rebound effects explain why sustainable mobility has not been achieved? Sustainability 2014, 6, 9510–9537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zawieska, J.; Pieriegud, J. Smart city as a tool for sustainable mobility and transport decarbonisation. Transp. Policy 2018, 63, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
European Commission. Action Plan on Urban Mobility; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
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 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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).
European Court of Auditors. Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU; Special report 06/2020; European Court of Auditors: Luxemburg, 2020.
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 Urzędu m.st. Warszawy: Warszawa, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Zarząd Dróg Miejskich. Warszawski Raport Rowerowy 2021 (Warsaw Cycling Report 2021); Zarząd Dróg Miejskich w Warszawie: Warszawa, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Janczewski, J.; Janczewska, D. Zrównoważona mobilność miejska—Dobre praktyki (Sustainable urban mobility—Good practice). Zarządzanie Innowacyjne w Gospodarce i Biznesie 2021, 2, 165–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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. [Google Scholar]
Kompleksowe Badania Ruchu w Krakowskim Obszarze Metropolitalnym 2023 (Comprehensive Travel Survey in Kraków Metropolitan Area 2023); Raport Końcowy z Badań Ankietowych Podróży wraz z Syntezą Wyników; Wydział Gospodarki i Klimatu, Urząd 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).
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).
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).
Barometr Warszawski (Warsaw Barometer), Various Years. Available online: https://um.warszawa.pl/waw/warszawa-w-liczbach/barometr-warszawski (accessed on 24 October 2024).
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. [Google Scholar]
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. [Google Scholar]
Wojtaszek, M. Powrót tramwajów na ulice Olsztyna (The return of trams to the streets of Olsztyn). Technol. Transp. Szyn. 2016, 3, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
Oskarbski, J. Struktra funkcjnonalna systemu zarządzania transportem w Trójmieście—TRISTAR (Functional structure of the transport management system in Tri-City—TRISTAR). Przegląd Komun. 2011, 7–8, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
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 Urzędu m.st. Warszawy: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. Available online: https://transport.um.warszawa.pl/documents/62470/8560273/strategia.pdf/a4601234-06db-6ca5-e65c-21942d1faee3?t=1634498738792 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 24 Września 2019 r. Zmieniające Rozporządzenie 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).
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ministerstwo Transportu Budownictwa i Gospodarki Morskiej. Raport Końcowy: Ocena Najważniejszych Problemów Występujących 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.
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).
Ministerstwo Infrastruktury. Wytyczne Projektowania Infrastruktury dla Rowerów Część 1: Planowanie Tras dla Rowerów. (Guidelines for Designing Bicycle Infrastructure Part 1: Planning Bicycle Routes); Ministerstwo Infrastruktury: Warszawa, Poland, 2022.
Ministerstwo Infrastruktury. Wytyczne Projektowania Infrastruktury dla Rowerów Część 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/2a5fc4ea-6b73-483f-b150-5f9923a62062 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
Ministerstwo Infrastruktury. Wytyczne Projektowania Infrastruktury Dla Rowerów Część 3: Projektowanie Przejazdów Dla Rowerów Oraz Infrastruktury Dla Rowerów na Skrzyżowaniach i Węzłach (Guidelines for Designing Bicycle Infrastructure Part 3: Design of Bicycle Crossings); Ministerstwo Infrastruktury: Warszawa, Poland, 2022. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/attachment/9fffdb38-b061-4270-a1bc-97a1b9649587 (accessed on 24 October 2024).
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Olszewski, P.; Suchorzewski, W. Samochód w Śródmieściu (Car in the City Center); Wydawnictwa Komunikacji i Łączności: Warszawa, Poland, 1983. [Google Scholar]
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. [Google Scholar]
Kopias, M. Strefa płatnego parkowania w Łodzi (Paid parking zone in Łódź). Zeszyty Naukowo-Techniczne SITK Polityka Parkingowa w Miastach 2007, 134, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
Polityka Transportowa dla Miasta Łodzi (Transport Policy for the City of Łódź). Załącznik 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).
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. [Google Scholar]
Dybicz, T. 10 dni bezpłatnego parkowania w Warszawie (10 days of free parking in Warsaw). Transport Miejski 2004, 1, 8–10. [Google Scholar]
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).
Uchwała nr LIII/723/12 Rady Miasta Krakowa z dnia 29 Sierpnia 2012 r. w Sprawie Przyjęcia 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%3D19309%26typ%3Du (accessed on 24 October 2024).
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/D20172222Lj.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
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. [Google Scholar]
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).
Lower, A.; Szumilas, A. Parking Policy as a Tool of Sustainable Mobility—Parking Standards in Poland vs. European Experiences. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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).
Rozporządzenie 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/1994/416/text/O/D19940416.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Portal Kierowców Samochodów Elektrycznych (Electric Car Drivers’ Portal). Available online: https://elektromobilni.pl/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
Izba Gospodarczej Komunikacji Miejskiej. Komunikacja Miejska w Liczbach (Public Transport in Numbers). Available online: https://igkm.pl/statystyka/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
Werner, P.A.; Kaleyeva, V.; Mariusz Porczek. Urban Sprawl in Poland (2016–2021): Drivers, Wildcards, and Spatial Externalities. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nowak, M.J.; Śleszyński, P.; Legutko-Kobus, P. Spatial Planning in Poland: Law, Property Market and Planning Practice; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Urban sprawl in Europe. The Ignored Challenge; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Radziejowski, J. Planowanie przestrzenne jako sposób adaptacji do zmian klimatu i przeciwdziałania zjawisku rozlewania się 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. [Google Scholar]
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).
Olszewski, P.; Osińska, B.; Zielińska, A. Pedestrian safety at traffic signals in Warsaw. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 1174–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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).
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
POBR Polskie Obserwatorium Bezpieczeństwa Ruchu Drogowego (Polish Road Safety Observatory). Available online: https://obserwatoriumbrd.pl/ (accessed on 24 October 2024).
Dąbrowska-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. [Google Scholar]
Strategia Zrównoważonego Rozwoju Transportu do 2030 Roku (Sustainable Transport Development Strategy Until 2030); Ministerstwo Infrastruktury: Warszawa, Poland, 2019.
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).
Wołek, M. Sustainable Mobility Planning in Poland. Res. J. Univ. Gdańsk 2018, 76, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

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

Figure 2. Results of annual surveys on public transport (PT) usage (excluding rail) by residents of Warsaw, based on reference [30].

Figure 3. Results of annual surveys on car usage as drivers by residents of Warsaw, based on reference [30].

Figure 4. NO₂ annual mean values for selected Polish cities, based on reference [29].

Figure 5. Bus fleet in Poland by emission class, based on reference [66].

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

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

Table 2. Modal split in urban passenger travel in selected Polish cities, based on references [26,27,28,29].

City	Year	Mobility Rate [Trips/Day]	Modal Split [%]
City	Year	Mobility Rate [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
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
	2003	2.0	25.90	42.60	27.10	1.50	2.90
	2013	2.0	28.40	36.30	33.70	1.20	0.40
Wrocław	2010	1.9	18.69	35.26	41.56	3.56	0.93
	2018	1.7	24.20	27.60	41.40	6.30	0.50
	2024	1.7	33.10	21.60	39.80	4.70	0.80
Gdańsk	1994	2.2	27.90	39.20	27.50	n/a	n/a
	2016	2.1	20.80	32.10	41.20	5.90	n/a
	2022	1.8	24.20	28.70	42.80	4.30	n/a

n/a–not available

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.

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

City	City Land Area [km²]	Length of Cycle Tracks/Lanes [km]
City	City Land Area [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.

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.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szagała, P.; Brzeziński, A.; Dybicz, T.; Olszewski, P.; Osińska, B. Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Selected Polish Cities. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11003. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411003

AMA Style

Szagała P, Brzeziński A, Dybicz T, Olszewski P, Osińska B. Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Selected Polish Cities. Sustainability. 2024; 16(24):11003. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411003

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szagała, Piotr, Andrzej Brzeziński, Tomasz Dybicz, Piotr Olszewski, and Beata Osińska. 2024. "Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Selected Polish Cities" Sustainability 16, no. 24: 11003. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411003

APA Style

Szagała, P., Brzeziński, A., Dybicz, T., Olszewski, P., & Osińska, B. (2024). Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Selected Polish Cities. Sustainability, 16(24), 11003. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411003

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Problems with Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Selected Polish Cities

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Sustainable Mobility—Review of International Experience

3. Changes in Poland over the Last 30 Years

4. Situation in Urban Transportation Subsystems in Poland

4.1. Public Transport

4.2. Road Network and the Role of Cars

4.3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic

4.4. Parking

4.5. Air Pollution

4.6. Spatial Planning and Transport

4.7. Road Safety

5. Planned Actions

6. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI