SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Bucharest
10 – 13 November 2004

RELATIONS BETWEEN ROMANIA AND BULGARIA

ON BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Anna Dzhaleva-Chonkova1

Abstract. The paper presents the development of the relations between Romania and Bulgaria on the
projects for connecting the Danube banks on their territories. The history of the first bridge was as
dramatic as the past of the Balkans as a whole. It was influenced by political and international factors
much more than by the economic needs in the region. Despite that its significance was recognized as
early as at the end of the 19th century, the bridge was build nearly 70 years later, in 1954.

INTRODUCTION

Transport is one of the economic sections that has always been most influenced by
the condition of international relations. That can be easily traced in the development of
the idea to connect the Romania and Bulgaria by a bridge over the river. That problem
was periodically renewed as an important issue in the region because of its crossroad
position in the southeastern part of Europe.

FIRST PROJECTS OF CONNECTING THE DANUBE BANKS

It is known that in the Roman times the present Romanian and Bulgarian lands were
connected by a bridge near Nikopol. For many centuries later and especially during the
Ottoman Empire reign it was impossible to think of connecting the banks for strategic
reasons: the river provided a reliable defense against the attacks from the north.
The idea of a bridge appeared with the construction of the railway line from Rouse to
Varna, which was designed as a section of the London – Bombay transcontinental
route. Although initiated by England, the plan was firmly supported by the Chamber of

1
Senuor Lecturer, Ph.D., Department of Himanities, University of Transport, Geo Milev Street, Sofia
1574, Bulgaria, adzhaleva@abv.bg
Commerce in Braila in 1867, when the Giurgiu – Buharest line was set in operation. But
neither the interested circles in Romania, nor even the Great Powers could overcome
the fears of the Ottoman Empire, so they left the idea for better times.
The only real attempt to connect the riverbanks was made by the Russian Army during
the war of 1877-1878. Its strategic needs determined the start of the survey and design
of a bridge as well as the choice of the connection point According to the priority
criterion of railways availability in 1877 there were two possibilities: Rousse – Giurgiu
and Svistov – Zimnicea, although the railway lines Franesti – Zimnicea and Svistov –
Veliko Tirnovo had just been put under construction. The Russians chose the second
one because Rousse was a strong fortress and despite the bad atmosphere conditions
in winter, they did a lot of preparation for assembling a railway pontoon bridge. The
construction works were ceased when the fortress of Rousse was taken.

CONTRADICTIONS ON BRIDGE LOCATION

The geopolitical interests of the Great Powers on the Balkans encouraged the
contradictions between the neighboring countries. That hindered any further intentions
to build a bridge between Bulgaria and Romania considering that it would establish a
shorter way to the Northeast, to Russia. After the Liberation the necessity to build a
bridge was often included in the parliament discussions in Bulgaria, especially
whenever the russophiles were the dominating political power. The first Bulgarian law
concerning the railways, which was adopted by the government of Petko Karavelov in
1883, provided to build a railway line from Kyustendil via Sofia to Svishtov. Thus it
presumed that the point of connection would be where the bridge construction had been
started 6 years before. The law was not implemented because of the objections of the
Great Powers made for the fear of the increasing Russian influence in the region.
The next law of 1889 changed the priorities in the railway construction policy in
Bulgaria. One of the main railways to be built had to connect Sofia and Kaspichan (a
station on the Varna – Rousse line), which again raised the question about a bridge
over the Danube.
There was much hope about the future of this project, because Romania had shown a
positive attitude to the idea during the Conference of the Four (the Ottoman and
Habsburg Empires, Serbia, Bulgaria) in 1884 where it participated as an observer. After
some debates about the bridge location, the government of Konstantin Stoulov
announced the proposal for connecting Rousse and Giurgiu to the western European
countries. They approved it but Romania did not. The reason was that Varna would
increase its competitiveness in comparison with the port of Constanta, moreover that
the bridge at Negru Voda had already existed.
So, the Romanian government insisted on displacing the connection point westwards,
to Svishtov. Ferdinand, the Bulgarian King, did not agree and the negations failed. The
situation went even worse for Bulgaria when in 1898 Romania and Serbia signed a
secret convention for a bridge in Turnu Severin. Although being against the interests of
the Romanian manufactures and merchants, the decision was imposed by political
considerations. As Georgi Lazarov (an engineer, the Bulgarian ambassador in Buharest
in the 1940s) wrote, the history of the bridge had always been the history of the
relations between the two countries, both open and hidden.

PROJECTS FOR NORTH-SOUTH TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAYS

A new possibility to implement the idea of connecting the Danube banks appeared with
the intention of some West-European countries for a railway line crossing the Balkans
from the Danube to the Adriatic Sea. Bulgaria made two proposals: about a bridge over
the Danube and a railway line from Kyustendil via Kumanovo to Skopje. The first one
seemed quite possible at that moment because the bridge between Serbia and
Romania had not been built yet. But the negotiations did not result in agreement again
due to the obstinacy of both sides. Although the Bulgarians changed their initial plans of
crossing the river at Rousse or Svistov with a location near Boril, the Romanians
continued to insist for the Corabia – Gigen connection. It meant to build a railway line
through the marshy Karaboaz valley and the Bulgarian engineers objected. When finally
they took the challenge to design such a line and in 1909 the mixed commission started
developing the bilateral convention, the Romanians suddenly offered another place for
the bridge: Bechet – Oriahovo. Their decision was once again grounded on the
assumption that the port of Constanta would decline because of the competition with
Varna.
The question of connecting the Danube banks was put also with signing the Bucharest
Peace Treaty in 1913 and with the peace negotiations with in 1918 but the suspicion
accumulated during the wars blocked any positive decisions on that problem for a long
time. Another reason for putting the plans of any kind of infrastructure over the river
aside was the lack of funds that both countries suffered after the World War I.
The 1930s brought a new impetus to the idea of the bridge construction. This time it
was of “a road connecting the northern and southern seas” and was launched by the
northern countries, especially by Poland, which were interested in the markets
southwards. The project received the support of Greece and Romania and Bulgaria
started the discussion on the Danube Bridge again. This time the diplomatic
negotiations resulted in consensus on the place of spanning the river: between the
towns of Rousse and Giugiu. The commission consisting of the most prominent civil
engineers and other specialists from the both countries began designing a bridge but
the shortage of money made them change the plan. In 1937 Romania and Bulgaria
signed Convention on Arrangement of the Ferryboat Equipment and soon after gave a
start of establishing the structures necessary for the ferry operation. The main elements
as well as the two boats were delivered from Germany, which was interested of the
works because of its strategy on the Balkans.
The ferry was opened in 1940 but after the Hitler’s army began advancing eastwards
could not satisfy its needs of transport completely. To improve the North-South
communications, Germany forced the establishment of another ferry in 1942: between
the towns of Vidin and Calafat.

TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS AFTER THE WORLD WAR II

The political interests of the countries from the Soviet Block and the intensive
commercial contacts within its economic organization imposed the necessity of a more
stable connection over the Danube. With the financial and technical aid of the USSR,
the long-dreamed bridge was finally built in 1954. However, soon its transport capacity
become insufficient but the two countries did not have enough money to build another
bridge. That is why they continued to use the Vidin – Calafat ferry and developed some
other connections of that type as well: Silistra – Calarasi and Oriahovo – BecHet (1993).
The situation changed radically after the collapse of the Soviet system. The concept of
Pan-European corridors set new tasks in the field of transport to Roumania and
Bulgaria. On of them concerned the Rousse – Giurgiu bridge, which was included in
Corridor 9. Although it was entirely rehabilited (both the road and the railway line) in
1997, the needs of one more infrastructure connection still remained.
The EU transport policy related to Corridor 4 accelerated the decision for building
another bridge on the Danube between Vidin and Calafat. The design has already been
finished: it is of a combined road and railroad bridge. The expected costs for Bulgaria
and Rumania are about 180 million EURO and will be provided mainly by the ISPA
program and the republican budgets. It is expected that the technical tests of the bridge
will begin in 2005 and the whole transport complex will be ready in 2006.

CONCLUSION

The project of the second bridge between Romanian Bulgarian illustrates how the new
processes in Europe have influenced the international relations and transport
development in the region. The program of pan-European corridors and the funds for
the two countries during the accession period will help them to improve their transport
systems according to the EU requirements.
Comparing the present situation with the other periods in the history of Europe, it is
evident that the favorable international relations are of great importance for the
development of transport as well as of the economy in the region.
The infrastructure projects are an inseparable part of the European integration
processes. The concept of an integrated transport system is not a new one but for the
first time, since the Roman ages, it seems possible to implement thanks to the new
political realities in Europe.

REFERENCES

[1] Crampton, R. A Short History of Bulgaria, Sofia, 1994 (in Bulgarian).

[2] Dimitrov, C., K. Manchev. History of the Balkan Peoples 1879-1918, Sofia, 1975 (in
Bulgarian).
[3] Convention on Arrangement of the Ferryboat Equipment between the Kingdom of
Bulgaria and the Kingdom of Romania through the Points of Rousse - port and Giurgiu
– port and back, State Gazette, N 11, 1938 (in Bulgarian).
[4] Dzhaleva, A. and co-authors. History of Railways in Bulgaria, Sofia, 1997 (in
Bulgarian).
[5] Dzhaleva-Chonkova. International Projects for Transport Border-Crossing through
the Balkan Peninsular, Proceedings of the Scientific Conference on the Transport
Corridors, Sofia, 1996 (in Bulgarian).
[6] Dzhaleva-Chonkova. To the History of the International Transport Corridors through
Bulgaria, Proceedings of the 9th International Scientific Conference TEMPT’96, Part 1,
Sofia, 1996 (in Bulgarian).
[7] Dzhaleva-Chonkova, A., M. Filipova. The Idea of a Bridge over the Danube in the
Second Half of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th Century, Proceedings of the
Jubilee International Scientific Conference of the Land Forces Academy, V. Tirnovo,
1998 (in Bulgarian).
[8] Popov, R. Bulgaria and the Railway Projects on the Balkans in the first half of 1908,
Historical Review, N 3, 1972 (in Bulgarian).
[9] Statelova, E., R. Popov, V. Tankova. History of the Bulgarian Diplomacy (1879-
1913), Sofia, 1994 (in Bulgarian).
[10] Sofronov, S. The Rousse – Giurgiu Railway Ferry, Proceedings of the Scientific
Conference of the Higher School of Civil Engineering, Sofia, 2001 (in Bulgarian).
[11] Central State Historical Archive, Fund 157 (Bulgarian Railways).