Mobility in transition - Transnational transport relations in European border regions since 1945

Transcontinental east-west transport has experienced an impressive renaissance in the last 30 years, with development largely focussing on international corridors, which are also reflected in the planning of the Trans-European Networks (TENs). However, these primarily focus on improving the infrastructural links between the major metropolitan areas, from which the European border regions only benefit to a limited extent, as these areas often only serve as transit routes, are remote or are only connected to the TEN corridors via secondary axes. As a result, for the population living in the border regions, who are increasingly crossing Europe's internal borders for work and leisure, there are only a few well-developed public transport connections apart from the car.

This contrasting development can be observed in the two Euroregions Pomerania and Neisse, located on the German internal border with Poland and the Czech Republic, where cross-border rail transport remains limited to a few regularly operated lines. As a result, there are large areas that can only be reached by the population on the other side of the border via detours and at great expense of time. Paradoxically, in many cases there are historically grown infrastructures that are already in use today or could be made usable again with comparatively little effort and thus serve the European goal of economic and territorial cohesion.

The underlying exchange relationships and needs have hardly been investigated on an interdisciplinary basis to date – the doctoral project presented here is intended to contribute to closing this research gap. To this end, the focus is initially on the historical development, with the turning points of 1945 and 1989 still having an impact on the development of cross-border transport relations today. Analysing the cultural, social and economic dimensions of the border is of central importance in order to assess the current situation, identify prospects for further development and derive recommendations for action.

A comparative study in the successor states of Yugoslavia is planned as part of the project, with the analysis focussing on the border region between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, which is now crossed by an EU external border.

Article 3 of the EU Treaty enshrines the European vision of economic, social and territorial cohesion. It is concretised by the goal of creating a trans-European transport network (TEN-T). The railway, which has always been an important integrative factor in the development of cross-border trade relations, has a key role to play in the context of a climate-friendly and sustainable transport policy.

The main focus of European planning is currently on 9 internationally important multimodal corridors, the development of which is supported by high-level coordinators. In addition to this core network, the TENs have been supplemented by a comprehensive network under pressure from the member states and extended geographically to the neighbouring countries associated with the EU. The core network is scheduled for completion by 2030, while the complementary network is expected to be realised by 2050.

In contrast, there is no overarching plan for the development of the remaining, much larger part of the network, which is particularly important for the spatial exchange relationships in the border regions. However, there are also economic, tariff, legal, cultural, linguistic and technical limits for these transport services, which require additional efforts and investment in infrastructure and operations to be overcome.

However, national planning and regulations continue to dominate, focussing on inland transport networks and sometimes differing significantly from country to country. The approaches to action that arise within the framework of European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) appear fragmented in their implementation, not very targeted with regard to transport and often not conceived in a cross-border spatial planning perspective.

This selective European transport policy can be expected to have consequences that counteract fundamental EU guidelines and objectives, such as an increase in regional disparities and a one-sided focus on transport routes and modes of transport, which run counter to the goal of a climate-friendly and sustainable transport policy. Against this backdrop, it makes sense to look at the situation on the ground, in the border regions of the member states and neighbouring countries, in order to understand the actual development.

The negative expectations for rail transport can be clearly illustrated along the Oder-Neisse line: Only one route is currently used by long-distance trains, and of the 20 routes that once crossed the two rivers, 7 are still used by passenger trains. In order to understand this contrasting development, it is necessary not only to look at the current situation, but first to look back: the two turning points of 1945 and 1989 had a decisive influence on the development of mobility relations in the area under investigation and continue to do so today. While the former was accompanied by the almost complete separation of a once homogeneous transport area, the latter could not simply result in the restoration of the status quo ante, because the demarcation of the border after 1945 was accompanied by a fundamental shift in economic, political and cultural orientations, so that the spatial exchange relationships that had developed over centuries no longer existed in form and extent. In this respect, the supposed reintegration after 1989 is more like a new beginning.

A look at the successor states of Yugoslavia offers a revealing comparison: here, the disintegration and dramatic war events of the 1990s were the decisive factor that led to the dissolution of the historically developed, common transport area and to a fundamental change in mobility relations. The railway, which was an important economic factor in Yugoslavia and made an important contribution to the economic, political and cultural integration of the country beyond its internal borders, has not yet recovered from the consequences of war and disintegration in any of the successor states and is currently leading a shadowy existence. While the metropolitan areas and tourist centres of the region were once connected to almost all the main cities in Central Europe by long-distance and night trains, this is now only the case in exceptional cases. Bosnia-Herzegovina no longer has a single cross-border train connection, although the pan-European corridor, which stretches from Budapest via Sarajevo to the Adriatic port of Ploče, runs through the country from north to south.

A second chain of events has strongly characterised the development of mobility relations in Eastern Europe after 1989, which is a distinguishing feature compared to border regions in Western Europe: the diverse effects of the social, political and economic system transformation that directly affected the former socialist states. Economic structural change was accompanied by deindustrialisation, mass unemployment and a significant increase in emigration and labour migration. In addition, the level of motorisation increased at breakneck speed within a few years – the car is regarded as an important symbol of the striving for harmonisation with Western living conditions. The railways, on the other hand, did not have the necessary adaptability and were no longer able to meet the changing mobility needs of the population and companies across the board. The main focus of policy was primarily on being able to meet the desire for individual mobility - which is why modernisation and expansion of the road networks took priority.

While the push to modernise the transport infrastructure in Poland as a whole began later, the priority of reintegrating the entire German transport network was expressed in the German Unity Transport Projects. This national focus continues to this day in federal transport infrastructure planning, whereas in Poland, since joining the EU, greater emphasis has been placed on transnational connections. Despite EU accession or the prospect of accession, only a few approaches to joint transport planning can be discerned in the Western Balkan states to date– policy is primarily characterised by particular and national interests, there are no bilateral agreements, state treaties or even national transport strategies, which are important prerequisites for the planning and financing of infrastructure projects.

There have also been far-reaching changes in rail transport due to the need for reform and renewal of the railways themselves. The orientation of the railway companies towards market economy principles has led to pressure on profitability and rationalisation, which in long-distance transport has led to a concentration on profitable routes and a withdrawal from the sector. As part of market liberalisation, there has also been a shift of competencies and responsibilities to different levels, in some cases with new players, which has significantly increased the coordination effort. These changes have particularly affected cross-border railway operations, as taking different technical and commercial standards into account inherently requires higher expenditure, which makes economic operation more difficult. The EU's simultaneous harmonisation efforts to create a single European railway area tend to create new hurdles for the regional networks under consideration here in the short term due to the effort involved in adapting to new legal regulations and at best lead to simplification in the long term.

In view of the ongoing European integration and increasing economic, cultural and social networking, it can be assumed that mobility in society as a whole will continue to increase. Against the backdrop of changing lifestyles and forms of work as well as demographic developments, a further differentiation of transport needs and requirements is also to be expected.

On the supply side, it will therefore become increasingly difficult for public transport providers to guarantee local and long-distance accessibility in the area. Long planning and investment cycles for new infrastructures are offset by dynamic developments in demand and mobility trends. This development, driven by users and their mobility practices, has given rise to alternative forms of mobility and business models, such as ride-sharing services, bike hire and car-sharing systems. However, the appeal of these models is mostly limited to urban areas; so far, there are only a few examples of this innovative power being transferred to or emanating from neighbouring areas.

In the interests of sensible and resource-conserving regional development, it is therefore advisable to start by utilising existing infrastructures that have already proven their efficiency in the past and can usually be turned into a modern backbone of cross-border mobility with comparatively little effort.