I wanted to check whether this much is really happening.

Why it was built

I had the impression that a lot has been happening in Poland lately — a lot is being built. But that knowledge was scattered: it appeared in one news item after another that I read, and vanished just as fast. It was easy to miss, or to dismiss upfront as propaganda — from one side and the other.

I wanted to check it — to form a hypothesis and verify it, separating hard facts from social-media noise. So I started using my own AI tools to confirm every fact against sources — cost, status, deadlines, what actually stands and works, and what failed.

When I saw how much of it holds up — and how much doesn’t — I thought it was worth sharing these grounded findings with others. Not to convince anyone, but so that everyone can check for themselves. Hence Projektometr.

How we verify

• Overriding rule: no source → no claim. Every fact (cost, status, stage, deadlines, owner, reason for failure) has an attached source quote, URL and retrieval date. Nothing is guessed — if something can’t be confirmed, the field stays empty.
• Inclusion threshold. Cost ≥ PLN 500 million or strategic status (which is why there are also digital, space and defence projects below that amount).
• Success isn’t binary. Instead of a “success/failure” label we show facts across several axes: whether it was delivered, on time, on budget, and in use. Radom was built — but handles 3% of its design capacity. That’s visible in the data, not in our verdict.
• Failures the same as successes. Cancelled and superseded projects are in the database with the same source rigour. We don’t hide them.
• “Value-by-stage”, not “total cost”. Amounts are nominal (prices from various years, no inflation adjustment), at a fixed rate (EUR 4.30 / USD 4.00) — an inventory for comparison, not a ledger of state spending.
• We keep macro data separate. GDP, convergence, road kilometres are “official data” (Eurostat, World Bank, GDDKiA) — context, not proof, and we never mix them with project costs.

Neutrality

We show investments from governments of every stripe, public and private, without pointing to who deserves credit and who deserves blame. We don’t judge politicians or parties — we show facts with a source link and let you judge for yourself. This is not the site of any political camp; neutrality here is a condition, not a decoration.

Sources and corrections

About five sources per project; most link the official page of the investor or institution, and key facts additionally carry a quote and — where possible — a permanent archive copy. Found an error? Report it — we publish corrections. The database is open and machine-readable (see for developers and AI).