Spending On Transport Infrastructure 1995-2011

Spending on Transport
Infrastructure 1995-2011
Trends, Policies, Data
Transport infrastructure is a vital social and economic asset. Its
construction and maintenance absorb signicant resources while
decisions on infrastructure have impacts that last for decades.
The International Transport Forum has collected statistics on
investment and maintenance expenditure in transport infrastructure
since the late 1970s. This report presents aggregate trends in inland
transport infrastructure investment and maintenance since 1995 and
provides data on road, rail, inland waterway, sea port and airport
spending for the International Transport Forum member countries for
the period 1995-2011.
In preparation for the International Transport Forums 2013 Summit
on Funding Transport, a survey was carried out to collect information
on transport policies in member countries. The report presents
broad conclusions on these policies, as well as on infrastructure
performance, funding and strategic plans.
Infrastructure
1995-2011
International Transport Forum

2 rue Andr Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
T +33 (0)1 45 24 97 10
F +33 (0)1 45 24 13 22
Email : itf.contact@oecd.org
Web: www.internationaltransportforum.org
2013-05-20_Spendingintransport_cover.indd 1
2013-05/Photo credits: echo3005 /Shutterstock
2013
14/05/2013 10:13:45
Spending on Transport Infrastructure

1995-2011
May 2013
THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM

The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with
54 member countries. It acts as a strategic think-tank, with the objective of helping shape
the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic
growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life and
well-being. The International Transport Forum organises an annual summit of Ministers
along with leading representatives from industry, civil society and academia.
The International Transport Forum was created under a Declaration issued by the Council
of Ministers of the ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) at its Ministerial
Session in May 2006 under the legal authority of the Protocol of the ECMT, signed in
Brussels on 17 October 1953, and legal instruments of the OECD.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, FYROM, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,
the United Kingdom and the United States.
The International Transport Forums Research Centre gathers statistics and conducts
co-operative research programmes addressing all modes of transport. Its findings are
widely disseminated and support policymaking in Member countries as well as contributing
to the annual summit.
SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 5
2. TRENDS IN INLAND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING........................ 6
2.1.
2.2.
2.2.
2.3.
Trends in the GDP share ........................................................................ 6

Volume of investment in inland transport infrastructure ............................. 9
Modal split of investment ..................................................................... 10
Road maintenance .............................................................................. 11
3. SUMMARY OF POLICY PRIORITIES ............................................................. 13

3.1. Infrastructure and performance ............................................................ 13
3.2. Strategic plans and major projects ........................................................ 15
Strategic plans ....................................................................................... 15
Major projects ........................................................................................ 21
3.3. Funding ............................................................................................. 23
ANNEX: STATISTICAL TABLES 1995-2011 ....................................................... 24
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE .............................................................................. 54
OECD/ITF 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
The International Transport Forum statistics on investment and maintenance expenditure in

transport infrastructure are based on a survey sent to 52 member countries 1. The survey
covers total investment (defined as new construction, extensions, reconstruction, renewal
and major repair) in road, rail, inland waterways, maritime ports and airports, including all
sources of financing. For maintenance, the questionnaire covers only expenditures financed
by public administrations.
The lack of common definitions and practices to measure transport infrastructure spending
hinders comparisons between countries and spending options. Data for road and rail
infrastructure are the most comprehensive while data on sea port and airport spending are
less detailed in coverage and definition. While our survey covers all sources of financing a
number of countries exclude private spending, including Japan and India. Around 65% of
countries report data on urban spending while for the remaining countries data on spending
in this area are missing. Caution is therefore required when comparing investment data
between countries. However, data for individual countries and country groups are
consistent over time and useful for identifying underlying trends and changes in levels of
spending, especially for inland transport infrastructure. These issues of definitions and
methods are addressed in a companion report Understanding the Value of Transport
Infrastructure Guidelines for macro-level measurement of spending and assets (ITF/OECD
2013) that aims to improve the international collection of related statistics.
The ITF has collected and published data on this topic since the late 1970s. The latest
survey covers years 1995-2011. In order to draw up a summary of aggregate trends for
selected countries, data has been calculated in Euro values at both constant (2005) and
current prices. In preparation for the International Transport Forums 2013 Summit on
Funding Transport a survey was carried out to collect information on transport policies in
ITF member countries and the information obtained is also summarised in the current
report. The topics covered in the questionnaire include infrastructure performance
indicators, major projects, funding and strategic plans. Over 30 countries responded to the
survey.The present report presents aggregate trends in inland transport infrastructure
investment and maintenance since 1995 in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents some broad
conclusions from the survey on transport policies. The Annex presents statistical tables on
transport infrastructure investment and maintenance in International Transport Forum
member countries for the period 1995-2011. Detailed country data, coverage, country
responses from the survey as well as a detailed note on the methodology followed are
available on the International Transport Forum website at:
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/statistics/investment/invindex.html
1.
Data contacts for new ITF states Chile and China were not yet available at the time of data collection.
OECD/ITF 2013
2. TRENDS IN INLAND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING
2.1. Trends in the GDP share

The most recent data on gross fixed capital formation (investment) in inland transport
infrastructure (road, rail and inland waterways) as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) shows a slowly declining trend for the OECD as a whole over the period since 1995.
The investment share of GDP declined steadily from 1.0% in 1995 to 0.85% in 2004 after
which it levelled off for few years. The level of investment rose temporarily between 2008
and 2009, likely driven by economic stimulus spending and declining GDP. After 2009, the
investment share has declined back to 0.85% in the OECD area (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Investment in inland transport infrastructure in the OECD 1995-2011
(as a percentage of GDP, at current prices and exchange rates)
1.2
0.8
% 0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD estimate.
Note: OECD includes 31 countries; excludes non-ITF states Israel and Chile (at the time of data collection); no
data for Korea. See methodological note on page 54 for details on data and coverage.
The International Transport Forum (and the former ECMT) has collected data on investment
and maintenance expenditure on transport infrastructure since the late 1970s. In Western
Europe, the investment share of GDP declined steadily from 1.5% in 1975 to 1.2 % in 1980
and further to 1.0% in 1982 after which it levelled off. Our latest data show that since 1995
the GDP share of investment in inland transport infrastructure has remained between 0.8%
and 0.9% in Western European countries (WEC). There are only few exceptions from this
trend, notably Greece, Spain, Switzerland and Portugal which show significantly higher GDP
shares over the period (reaching 1.6% 2.0%). Since 2007, however, Greece and Portugal
have converged closer to the WEC average, investments declining to around 1.0% of GDP.
Data for North America also show a constant GDP share (0.6%) below the OECD average.
6
OECD/ITF 2013
The latest estimates indicate a slight growth in investment as a share of GDP, reaching
0.7% since 2009. These changes are, however, marginal and the investment share of GDP
has remained relatively constant both in Western European countries and North America
(see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Investment in inland transport infrastructure by region 1995-2010
(as a percentage of GDP, at current prices and exchange rates)
2.5
1.5
%
OECD average 2011

1
0.5
WEC
CEEC
North America
Australasia
Japan
Russian Federation
Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

Note: WECs include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. CEECs
include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, FYROM, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro,
Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia. North America include Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Australasia include Australia and New Zealand. Data for Japan exclude private investment.
Trends for developing and transition economies differ markedly from those described
above. The share of investment in inland transport infrastructure in Central and Eastern
European countries (CEECs), which until 2002 had remained at around 1.0% of GDP, has
grown sharply, reaching 2.0% in 2009 the highest figure ever reported by these
countries. Rising levels of investment in transition economies reflect efforts to meet rising
needs especially for road network capital. Investment share of GDP fell to 1.7% in 2010,
likely affected by the economic crisis. Data for 2011 show again increase, investment share
reaching 1.8%. In the Russian Federation, investment share of GDP has also been high
compared with Western European countries but more volatile. Investment in inland
transport infrastructure as a percentage of GDP reached 1.9% in 2000 after which it has
varied between 1.2% and 1.7%. For the last two years the share has remained at 1.4% of
GDP.
Historically, transport infrastructure investment in Japan was relatively high in relation to
GDP but has been in decline since the 1990s. Expenditures were affected by general budget
cuts towards the end of the 1990s. Subsequently, modification of the allocation of
revenues from gasoline tax, earlier earmarked for highway development and maintenance,
has further reduced the level of investment in roads in Japan.
OECD/ITF 2013
An investment level of 1% per GDP became a de facto political benchmark in Western

European countries in the 1980s, though with no theoretical basis behind it. The investment
needs for transport infrastructure depend on a number of factors, such as the quality and
age of the existing infrastructure, geography of the country and transport-intensity of the
countrys productive sector, among other things. The fact that the share of GDP dedicated
to transport infrastructure has tended to remain constant in many countries suggests that
investment levels may be affected by factors other than real investment needs. Level of
transport spending may be guided by historical budget levels, institutional budget allocation
procedures or budgetary constraints taking into account also needs in the other sectors of
the economy (e.g. education, health care). The impact of government policy can also be
identified, as for example in Japan and in the data for Australasia. Here, the share of
infrastructure investment in GDP grew 50% partly as a result of the last five-year
investment plan in Australia. Australia added 10% of route-kilometres of railway track
mainly to support the development of their mining industry in 20092012. New Zealand
has invested in state highway network, rebuilding the land transport system in Christchurch
and the surrounding Canterbury region following major earthquakes.
The difference between Western European countries and developing economies suggests
there is a relationship between transport infrastructure spending and the level of income.
Figure 3 plots total spending (investment and maintenance) on road infrastructure as a
percentage of GDP against GDP per capita using data for over 40 countries between 1995
and 2011. This panel of over 600 observations gives strong support to the conclusion that
the level of (road) spending generally declines with the level of GDP per capita.
There are several potential reasons for this declining trend. Further, as efficiency and
productivity increase production becomes less transport intensive, potentially weakening
the link between the GDP growth and transport demand and therefore infrastructure
investments.
Figure 3. Relationship between road spending and level of income
6
Road spending per GDP (in constant 2005 Euors, %)
4
ASIA
AUSNZ
CIS
NAMER
WEC
CEEC
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
GDP per capita (constant 2005 Euros)
60000
70000
80000
90000
OECD/ITF 2013
2.2. Volume of investment in inland transport infrastructure

The volume of investment (expenditure in real terms) in the OECD total (excluding Japan)
has grown around 30% in the last 15 years. Japan has followed a different trajectory
(volume nearly halving in the same period) and its economy is large enough to affect the
overall volume for the OECD significantly. If data for Japan are included, the volume of
investment in the OECD peaked in 2003 after which it has remained fairly stable slightly
above the 1995 level. The latest data show a 6% fall in investment since 2009 as volume
declines close to the 1995 level (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Volume of investment in inland transport infrastructure 1995-2010
(at constant 2005 prices, 1995=100)
OECD
OECD excl Japan
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
In Western European countries, the volume of investment started growing in 2002, and
was nearly 30% above the 1995 level in 2006 after which the volume declined. The latest
data for 2011 show volume only 10% higher than the 1995 level. The volume of inland
infrastructure investment in North America grew by around 30% from 1995 to 2001. Our
estimate suggests a slow decline in investment volume that continued all the way through
2008. Recent data indicate growth in the volume of investment in North America, returning
to the 2001 level in real terms in 2011 (Figure 5).
The volume of infrastructure investment has accelerated strongly in developing and
transition economies, notably in Central and Eastern European countries since 2003. This
growth turned negative after reaching a record level in 2009. Investment in inland
transport infrastructure declined 11% in real terms from 2009 to 2010. Data for 2011 show
a renewed growth as volume of investment grew again by 10% (Figure 5).
OECD/ITF 2013
Figure 5. Volume of investment in inland transport infrastructure by region 19952010

(at constant 2005 prices, 1995=100)
WEC
CEEC
North America
Japan
Russia
Australasia
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2.2. Modal split of investment

The share of rail investment of total inland transport infrastructure investment has
increased from 17% to 23% for the OECD total from 1995 to 2011, according to our
estimates. This trend is mainly determined by developments in Japan and Europe. Data
presented in Figure 6 show long-run trends in the modal share of investment in Western
European and Central and Eastern European countries. In the Western European countries,
the share of investment in rail infrastructure has increased steadily from around 20% of
total investment in inland transport infrastructure in 1975 to 30% in 1995 and further to
40% in 2011. The trend observed in our data for Western Europe is partly a reflection of
political commitment to development of railways and the most recent data does not seem
to indicate any change in this respect.
Whereas Western European countries have increasingly directed their investment toward
rail, Central and Eastern European countries are investing more heavily in roads. The share
of roads in inland transport infrastructure investment increased from 66% in 1995 to 84%
in 2005 in this region. The last few years, however, suggest a stabilisation of the trend and
the modal split of investment has remained at 2005 level in 2011 (Figure 5). Russian
Federation differs from the above trends. The share of road has declined from 60% in 1995
to around 45% in 2011 of the total inland transport infrastructure investment. Rail share, in
turn has increased from 37% to account for over half (53%) in the same period, according
to our data.
10
OECD/ITF 2013
Figure 6. Distribution of infrastructure investment between modes

(Euros, current prices, current exchange rates)
Western European countries

Rail
Road
IWW
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
100%
Rail
Road
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
IWW
Central and Eastern European countries
2.3. Road maintenance

In many countries observers have raised concerns about underfunding of road assets and
the state of existing road infrastructure and its impacts on the competitiveness of the
economy. Funding for road maintenance, particularly, may be postponed on the
expectation that a lack of maintenance will not result imminent asset failure. This concern
is, however, difficult to verify due to lack of data on the condition of road assets.
The available data on road spending suggest that the balance between road maintenance
and investment has been relatively constant over time in many regions. The share of public
expenditure on maintenance in total road expenditure has remained between 25% and
35%. In the 28 OECD countries for which comparable data are available through 2009, the
share of maintenance in total road spending grew overall from 27% in 1995 to 33% in
2005 after which it gradually declined, to 30% in 2009. This declining trend is reinforced by
data on 18 OECD countries up until 2011 which suggest further decline to 27% in 2011.
Data further suggest that funds allocated for road maintenance have declined especially in
Central and Eastern European countries over the last few years, falling from above 35% in
early 2000 to 26% of total road spending in 2011. In the eleven Western European
countries for which comparable data are available, data suggest a surge in maintenance
spending in 2005 after which the maintenance share has gradually fallen back to previous
levels (27% of total spending). Similarly, the road maintenance share in North America has
gradually declined from 35% in 1995 to around 30% in 2009 after which lack of
comparable data hinders further analysis.
OECD/ITF 2013
11
Although these conclusions are affected by the quality and coverage of data, they do
suggest an overall declining share of maintenance on total road spending especially over
the last few years (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Public road maintenance share of total road expenditure 2010
(Euros, current prices, current exchange rates)
OECD 28
OECD 18
WEC
CEEC
North America
38
36
34
32
%
30
28
26
24
22
20
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Note: OECD 18 include Austria,Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. WECs include
Austria, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the United
Kingdom. CEECs include Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, FYROM, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia,
Slovakia and Slovenia.
12
OECD/ITF 2013
3. SUMMARY OF POLICY PRIORITIES
A survey was carried out in 2012/2013 to collect information on transport investment

policies in ITF member countries. The topics in the questionnaire include infrastructure
performance, major projects, funding and strategic plans.
3.1. Infrastructure and performance
All 31 countries participating in the survey emphasise that transport plays a vital role in
economic and social development. Regardless of country, it facilitates trade, stimulates
economic growth and connects different communities. All countries, both advanced and
emerging economies, cite the importance of an efficient and reliable transportation system.
Efficient transport infrastructure is seen as important in providing economic and social
benefits by improving market accessibility and productivity, ensuring balanced regional
economic development, creating employment and promoting labour mobility. Deficiencies in
the transport infrastructure and related performance (e.g. reliability, vulnerability), are
considered a cost to the economy and society.
The results of the survey show that advanced economies and emerging economies have
different priorities for the infrastructure development. Infrastructure construction, network
improvement and rolling stock renewal are keywords for many Central and Eastern
European countries. Advanced economies, where extensive transport networks are already
well developed, stress the importance of improving the performance and safety of
infrastructure while minimizing environmental impacts.
Middle income countries focus mainly on construction and rehabilitation of inland transport
infrastructure because a network of sufficient quality is either incomplete or the
infrastructure is in poor condition. Railways and roads are priorities for construction and
rehabilitation. The examples below from the survey reveal an urgent need to construct new
infrastructure and improve the quality of existing infrastructure. This is reflected in rising
levels of investment in developing economies (see Figure 1) reflecting efforts to
compensate for the earlier underinvestment in capital stock, reinforced by growing traffic in
growing economies.
One third or 2 400 km of road in Montenegro is unpaved. There are no motorways.
Despite Serbias geographical location on important transport corridors the cross

road of 8 countries in Southeast Europe its motorway network density is only
4.8 km/1 000 km2, compared with Austria (20.97 km/1 000 km2) or the Czech
Republic (13.3 km/1 000 km2).
Although the rail network density in Serbia is comparable to the EU average,

Serbian railway lines are affected by extensive speed restrictions. About 50% of the
rail network allows maximum speed of only up to 60 km/h.
OECD/ITF 2013
13
Rail transport delays in Slovakia occur due to obsolescence and depreciation of

materials and equipment, bridges and culverts which are at the end of their
technical lifetime.
The survey shows that advanced economies focus on the quality of transport service and its
impact on social well-being in their transport strategies. Seamlessness, efficiency and
safety are important considerations in strategic plans. Environment and noise reduction are
also important elements of national transport policies, incorporating environmental
protection to tackle climate change, with ambitious CO2 reduction goals. To illustrate the
point, Germany and France aim to reduce CO2 emissions by 40% and 20% respectively by
2020, and 80% and 75% respectively by 2050.
Although the transportation system in many developed economies is generally of high
quality and efficient, road congestion (and related unreliability) is still a major issue in
many countries - particularly in and around major cities. The survey indicates that
countries expect to see significant growth in the levels of congestion in the longer term as
economies recover from recession. These challenges are different from many Central and
Eastern European countries which report bottlenecks due to dilapidated, inadequate road
networks which are in urgent need of rehabilitation or complete reconstruction.
Punctuality is perceived as a major rail performance issue and rail capacity faces
infrastructure bottlenecks in many regions. For example, punctuality for both passenger
and freight trains has been decreasing in Sweden due to infrastructure capacity constraints,
especially in the busy StockholmGutenberg and StockholmMalm corridors. Similar
capacity problems, including not only infrastructure but also frequency of service, are
echoed by the United Kingdom and Austria, reporting passenger crowding during peak
hours. The developing economies also cite obsolete equipment and dilapidated and
insufficient infrastructure as a cause for delays.
Several responses suggested increasing usage of network intelligence and better
coordination as a measure to improve railway performance. The following examples
illustrate these measures:
To alleviate congestion in the corridor through the Rocky Mountains, Canadas two
major railways operate in co-production double tracking mode, meaning that one
railways single track line will be used for travel in one direction and the other
railways track will be used in the other direction.
In Sweden, the combination of traffic with different speeds entails in itself a

limitation of capacity a limitation that can be reduced with more intelligent
systems for prioritising and separating different types of traffic.
Many countries believe that inland waterways could potentially play a bigger role in freight
transport to relieve road and rail congestion. It is considered an environmentally
sustainable mode of transport. Inland waterways are part of the Trans-European Transport
Network (TEN-T) planning. It is also a vital mode of transport in North America, connecting
the Great Lakes through St Lawrence Seaway to the Atlantic Ocean.
Overall, there is still capacity reserve for inland waterways despite aging infrastructure in
general. In the transition economies, the performance of inland waterways is affected by
missing links, such as missing E20E30 connection (Danube-Oder-Elbe) and E51 (VahOdra) sections in Slovakia. Serbia reported 24 critical sections on the Serbian part of
Danube which require dredging of riverbed and/or special training on navigation.
14
OECD/ITF 2013
In general, central governments play less direct role in the development and financing in
aviation and maritime sectors. However, government agencies do normally create a
regulatory environment to oversee the commercial activities of airports and seaports,
ensuring a certain level of service quality in line with national interests. In many countries,
airports and seaports are privatised legal entities and thus investment and maintenance
figures may not be publicly available (see Annex tables). Countries covered in the survey
reported continuous investment to improve the performance of aviation and maritime
infrastructure. Major construction projects are mainly reported in middle income countries
where existing infrastructure is in need of upgrade.
Airport punctuality is a concern shared by several countries. To illustrate this, the ten major
airports in the United Kingdom recorded more delays than the EU average. London
Heathrow runway and passenger terminals operate at full capacity as does Gatwicks
runway. Tokyo, with the 3rd busiest city airports system, also experiences air-side traffic
congestion. To enhance airport capacity, Japan has implemented a range of projects at
Narita and Haneda, constructing new runways and terminals. Efforts are also made to
improve air traffic control system as part of the projects.
Environmental and social factors may also impact aviation sector performance. For
example, Stockholm Arlanda Airports emissions ceiling and noise pollution requirements
lead to considerable limitations of the accessibility of air traffic to the airport and the scope
of overall air traffic.
Sea ports are integral to the freight transportation system. Both coastal and landlocked
countries acknowledge the importance of multimodal transportation to connect the
hinterland to maritime ports. Port capacity and efficiency are critical to economic
performance and new tools for performance measurement that better reflect efficiency and
reliability are under development in several countries. For example, Canada has introduced
new port utilization indicators and supply chain fluidity indicators.
Some seaports are close to capacity, such as Felixtowe container port in the UK and are
being expanded coupled with new port development in less constrained conditions
elsewhere (London gateway). Even where seaports have additional capacity to handle
more cargo, there are often major projects to improve land-side accessibility. Examples
include the Port of Antwerp and Port of Zeebrugge in Belgium.
3.2. Strategic plans and major projects
Strategic plans
A number of broad conclusions may be drawn from the responses to the survey despite the
very diverse economic and social development among member countries. Most countries
formulate their strategic plans around three main themes:
Economic performance;
Environment; and
Safety.
All strategic transport policies aim to deliver an effective, efficient, safe and accessible
transport system that supports economic growth with minimum adverse environmental
impact.
OECD/ITF 2013
15
Economic performance
All countries emphasise the vital role of transportation in facilitating trade movement and
economic growth, employment and social inclusion. Economic competitiveness is
unanimously cited as the first and foremost objective of national transport strategy.
With global supply chains evolving, trade movement on the rise and new markets
emerging, governments and private stakeholders emphasise the urgent need to establish
or improve both the capacity and efficiency of logistics network. For example, freight
transport and logistics are now the 3rd largest sector of the German economy with an
annual turnover of more than 220 billion Euros and 3 million employees. With its central
geographical location in Europe, one of the main objectives of Germanys transport policy is
to enhance the competitiveness of Germany as a centre for logistics.
Many responses highlighted the importance of trade corridors and a need to further
improve connectivity to ensure efficient and seamless flows of cargo. Maritime transport
remains the backbone of international trade, with over 80% of world cargo by volume
transported by sea. Ports are therefore critical links in global supply chains. Hinterland
connections are increasingly central to the competitiveness of ports and the overall
efficiency of the supply chain. High quality road, rail and inland shipping links greatly
extend the reach of ports and high volume connections offer the possibility of locating key
services warehousing and even customs processing away from constrained waterfronts.
16
OECD/ITF 2013
Canadas gateways and trade corridors: a system-wide approach

To strengten Canadas economic competitiveness and facilitating more international trade,
the Canadian government released the National Policy Framework identifying three
strategic gateways and corridors:
- Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative;
- Ontario-Qubec Continental Gateway;
- Atlantic Gateway and Trade Corridor.
Canadas gateways and trade corrdiors
Each gateway/corridor focuses on Canadas external trade with particular regions. Strategic
transportation infrastrcuture projects have been laid out to develop a sustainable, secure
and efficient multimodal transportation system that supports businesses. Since 2007,
substantial information gathering, analysis and consultation with private stakeholders has
allowed Transport Canada to identify real issues and challenges which impact the efficiency
of the corridors.
A fluidity indicator was developed in 2008 in order to evaluate how gateways and strategic
trade corridors interact together operationally. This indicator examines end-to-end supply
chain performance by focusing on the time component measuring the total transit time of
inbound containers from overseas markets to strategic North American inland destinations
via various Canadian gateways. Initial phases of this indicator project targeted inbound
container movements for Pacific Gateway markets (British Columbia ports) with future
phases to cover inbound movements and outbound movements at other gateways.
OECD/ITF 2013
17
Several major transport infrastructure projects initiated in Central and Eastern European
Countries (CEEC) aim to complete the core network within the Trans-European Transport
Network (TEN-T) corridor. Establishing an efficient trans-European transport network
constitutes a key element in the re-launched Lisbon Strategy for competitiveness and
employment in Europe and plays an equally central role in the attainment of the objectives
of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The European Union is supporting implementation of Europes
strategic TEN-T transport network through several financial instruments the TEN-T
programme, the European Cohesion Funds, the European Regional Development Fund and
the European Investment Banks loans and credit guarantees, including its new Project
Bond.
Major transport infrastructure projects in the Czech Republic
The basic core network to support development of the TEN-T corridors is scheduled to be
completed by 2030 and with the comprehensive network to be completed by 2050. A list of
selected transport infrastructure projects in the Czech Republic follows:
Modernisation of Class 1 roads with a focus on building expressways and by-passes for
towns and in sections with sufficiently dense traffic flows, with the reconstruction of
selected Class 1 roads into motorways (by 2050);
Completion of railway transit corridors (by 2018) and modernisation of the other routes
within the TEN-T network and tracks of national importance (connection of all regions to
high-capacity railway infrastructure by 2050);
Modernisation of railway junctions on the TEN-T network (by 2018, the Prague and Brno
junctions by 2030);
Modernisation of routes which are important for servicing large industrial zones (e.g.
Mlad Boleslav, Kvasiny, Noovice and others);
Ensure interoperability of the railway network, introduction of GSM-R (Global System for
Mobile Communications Railway), ensure interoperability of the railway network,
introduction of European Train Control System;
Construction and modernisation of inland water routes within the core TEN-T network;
Development of the logistics of freight transport, building a network of multimodal
transport terminals to parameters based on the AGTC agreement (European Agreement on
Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations) ;
Support for the introduction of intelligent transport system in all modes of transport
including on-board applications (on an ongoing basis).
18
OECD/ITF 2013
Environment
Countries participating in the survey acknowledge environmental protection as one of the
main elements in their strategic transport policies. Many advanced economies have set
ambitious targets for achieving environmentally sustainable transport systems, aiming for
an efficient transport system which is also highly resilient towards climate change and
contributes to achieving a low carbon economy to ensure long term sustainable
development. For example, South Korea, emphasised strategies for green transportation
addressing climate change in its 2nd Revised National Intermodal Transport Plan in 2011.
Transport policy will play an even greater role in protecting the environment and tackling
climate change. Emerging economies also stress the importance of minimizing
environmental impacts although the transport policies are more directed towards physical
construction of infrastructure.
Achieving environmental sustainability does not necessarily require extensive investments
and countries proposed a number of measures for improving the carbon footprint of the
transport system. These include:
Improve local public transport in urban and rural areas individual trips account for
the largest percentage of energy consumption and increase avoidable congestions.
Shift more traffic to railways and waterways where this is viable and appropriate truck transportation uses significantly more fuel per tonne-kilometre of freight
moved than does freight transport on waterways and railways.
Make smarter use of existing infrastructure and bring it to optimum level of use by
creating an integrated network and developing electronic traffic management
systems and other technological solutions.
Emission reduction strategies and targets in Germany
Across all sectors, the German Government is committed to reducing CO2-emissions by

40% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. As a consequence, besides expanding the use of
alternative fuel options, the Government is keen on mainstreaming battery-electric and
Hydrogen-powered drive trains as a major component towards reducing transportations
dependency on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, especially in connection with a shift of the
energy system towards renewable sources.
In May 2011, the German Federal Government adopted a comprehensive Electric Mobility
Programme as part of an overall strategy towards turning mobility into a more
environmentally and climate-friendly direction. The Federal Government has joined forces
with the private sector, academia, the Federal States, municipalities and other stakeholders
and is providing substantial funding for a wide range of research and demonstration
projects for advancing vehicle technology and establishing the corresponding infrastructure.
To achieve a more sustainable transport system, the Governments policy approach is
based on a triangle of knowledge provision, research and innovation and investment in
modern infrastructure. Taking care of social inclusion and aiming for an optimized share
between alternative transport modes based on their specific qualities is an integral part of
the approach.
OECD/ITF 2013
19
Safety
Several countries identify road safety as a priority and have set quantitative targets to
reduce road fatalities. Indeed, road deaths continue to decrease in most of the countries,
carrying forward the significant reductions in the number of road deaths accomplished
already. The average annual reduction in the number of deaths between 2001 and 2010
has been higher than in the three preceding decades. Increasingly effective road safety
policies have contributed to this development.
Figure 8. Road fatalities 1995-2010 (1995=100)
North America
Australasia
Western European countries
Central and Eastern European countries
Japan
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Countries have different policies and implement various measurements to ensure safe and
secure transport. The examples below illustrate projects to improve traffic safety:
20
Projects in Iceland to improve traffic safety include widening sections of three major
roads connecting to the capital area to separate opposing traffic flows, replacing old
mountain roads by a tunnel project in Drarfjrurt and constructing a network of
bicycle infrastructure with over and underpasses to connect all the municipalities in
the capital area.
Establishment of a disaster resistant regional network in Japan by developing high

standard arterial highways that connect major cities and developing ring roads to
secure routes for evacuation, rescue and logistics in case of a large scale earthquake
in Tokyo, in addition this will alleviate congestion.
OECD/ITF 2013
Major projects
Major transport projects mentioned in the survey reflect the three strategic themes above.
The majority of transport infrastructure investments are directed on roads (see also
Chapter 2.2). Major projects include investment in national roads and motorways, by
means of new construction, expansion of existing infrastructure and improvement of
infrastructure quality.
Other common projects involve building bypasses or city tunnels to relieve bottlenecks
around urban areas (e.g. Sweden) and the development of ring roads in major
metropolitan areas to alleviate traffic congestion (e.g. Japan). Many projects are also
related to the construction and rehabilitation of tunnels and bridges (e.g. Gotthard road
tunnel and Belchen road tunnel in Switzerland, new bridges connecting Ontario to Michigan
and the island of Montral to the South Shore in Canada).
Railways have in recent years received increasing attention in all regions. Electrification and
modernisation of tracks to accommodate higher speed trains are priorities for several
Central and Eastern European countries, including Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia, Czech
Republic and Moldova. Railways have an important role in Russian transport policy
connecting western Russia to its Eastern territories. Western European countries, including
Germany, France and the United Kingdom as well as Japan and South Korea all have
current and future projects to expand their high speed rail networks. In Switzerland, the
new Ltschberg rail tunnel was opened to traffic in June 2007 and the new Gotthard Base
tunnel will be operational at the end of 2016.
Current and future railway projects in Turkey
Turkey has an extensive rail infrastructure investment program, including High Speed Rail
projects, construction of new lines and double-tracking, renewal and rehabilitation of
existing tracks as well as electrification and signalization projects. The High Speed Rail
projects will significantly reduce the journey time between major cities. Construction of new
conventional lines and double-tracking projects involve nearly 200 kilometres of new tracks
with overall future length of the second tracks extending more than 330 kilometres. More
than 6 400 kilometres of tracks have been renewed in the last nine years while the plans
for 2012 include more than 100 kilometres of tracks to be renewed.
High Speed Rail Projects
OECD/ITF 2013
21
Major projects on inland waterways focus mainly on building new locks, upgrading canals
systems and connecting the missing sections within the TEN-T corridor in Europe. Parallel
to the trend in Europe, where the transport policy increasingly emphasises the use of inland
waterways, the United States Transportation Secretary launched the America Marine
Highway program in 2010 to improve the use of inland waterways and coastal shipping.
America Marine Highway program
The America Marine Highway program consists of 11 corridors, 4 connectors and 3
crossings. This is the first step of efforts to gradually use waterways and coast lines to
relieve congestion along surface corridors; the vast majority of American freight
movements are transported by truck. It will also achieve reduced greenhouse gas
emissions and energy savings. The project can potentially create new employment for
skilled mariners and shipbuilders, and help start businesses along the corridors, with
federal grants made available to support the initiatives. There are specific initiatives in
upgrading aging locks and other infrastructure along the St Lawrence and Great Lakes
seaways.
USA Marine Highway Corridors
Projects for upgrading and modernizing airports and seaport facilities are underway in all
countries. As with airports, the performance of a seaport relies heavily on its accessibility.
First rate facilities and efficient operations in the port are not sufficient, intermodal
accessibility with to a reliable logistics network is required. Inland transport, especially road
and rail usually forms the bacbone network, facilitating the fluidity of freight cargo
transported to/from the ports. Several countries report major investment projects both in
airport and seaport capacity. Examples of these include:
22
BAA (now Heathrow) is investing over GBP 5 billion between 2008-2014 period in
various upgrades, which include GBP1 billion for the construction of a new Terminal
2 to accommodate 20 million passengers per year.
OECD/ITF 2013
Zurich Airport has several current and future projects including upgrading its
passenger terminal, renovating facilities and replacing its obsolete noise baffles to a
new fully enclosed noise protection hangar.
In December 2008, the EBRD and European Investment Bank signed a loan
agreement worth 45.25 million Euros with Chisinau Airport (Moldova) for its
modernization project.
One of the major projects in Mexico is the expansion of the Port of Lazaro Cardenas,
one of the largest deep-water ports. Over USD 400 million will be invested to triple
the port container handling capacity, build a new terminal for mineral bulk cargo and
to construct 180 metres of dock and other dredging works for 15 new berths. In
addition, 53 million USD has been set aside for bridge construction to better connect
the port to the highway network.
3.3. Funding
Public budgets remain the principal source of funding for transport infrastructure
investment. However, the survey indicates that countries are increasingly looking for
alternative ways for funding transport infrastructure. Nearly all countries indicated the use
of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in transport infrastructure projects. The level of private
participation differs widely by type of asset. Other sources of funding, mainly for CEECs,
include financial arrangements under various EU programmes, the European Investment
Bank, and EBRD and World Bank loans.
Road investments are generally publicly financed. Investment funds, used in some
countries, are usually financed through a combination of contributions from the general
state budget and gasoline and diesel tax revenues. Other revenues include automobile
import tariffs (e.g. South Korea), driver license fees (e.g. Canadian provinces and American
states) or motorway charges (e.g. Switzerland).
Significant private finance is raised for local road investment funds and airports through the
sales of state and municipal bonds (e.g. in the USA). With the tightening of limits on
spending under state budgets, private investment through public-private partnerships are
increasing solicited for the development and investment of road transport projects, mainly
on motorways, bridges and tunnels. The regulatory framework for public-private
partnerships has recently been reformed in a number of countries to create standard model
contracts (e.g. India) and limit contingent liabilities (e.g. UK) (see Better Regulation of
Private-Public Partnerships for Transport Infrastructure, International Transport Forum
2013). Some countries that have so far seen relatively little use of private-public
partnerships for transport infrastructure, such as the USA, may see a significant increase in
the volume of transactions in the future. More generally, transactions are suppressed by a
shortage of debt finance as a result of the financial crisis. Some countries have made very
limited, or no use of PPPs for road infrastructure, including Sweden, New Zealand, Iceland
and the Swiss Confederation.
In the railway sector, infrastructure investments are most often financed by the
government. The USA and Canada are notable exceptions. In most European countries,
railway operators are state owned enterprises. In Germany, for example, the Federal
government is responsible for funding new construction and upgrading the infrastructure.
However, railway infrastructure companies have to bear the maintenance cost of the rail
network through a charge for the use of the network according to the European Union
regulation on track access charges. In Japan, the construction costs of high speed rail lines
OECD/ITF 2013
23
are shared by the national and local government. Whilst maintenance and renewal of the
trunk lines is the responsibility of the privatised railways, for extensions and new lines that
are not able to generate a commercial return, funds are given to JRTT (Japan Railway
Construction, Transport and Technology Agency) to construct the lines. On completion,
JRTT leases the tracks to operators. In the United States, the major party responsible for
investment, maintenance and capacity enhancement are the Class 1 freight railroads. On
projects where a major public benefit is possible, local/state/federal governments may
share funding of improvements.
Investment in inland waterways in Europe and North America (e.g. St Lawrence and the
Great Lakes seaways system) are funded mainly by public money.
Funding for airports and seaports depends very much on their legal ownership but usually
large hub-airports are financially independently through (usually regulated) landing charges
while small aerodromes receive public funding. Depending on the country, major airports
and seaports are either privately owned (e.g. UK) or state own enterprises or entities with
a public-private partnership status (e.g. most continental European countries) while minor
aerodromes and ports are usually owned by local municipalities. Airport costs are covered
by user charges, i.e. passengers and airline, and increasingly by non-aviation related
revenues, i.e. parking, retail, advertising, food and beverages, rents for the use of airport
property hotels, warehousing etc. Other sources of funding include public funds or bonds
(e.g. USA).
Seaport revenues come generally either from fixed or variable port tariffs and other
dockage or wharf charges. In Mexico, ports operate under a public-private association
scheme, which is adapted from the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model. Ports are often
self-sufficient and make their own investments. Private investments are normally geared to
the construction or upgrade of operation facilities (e.g. cargo terminals, warehouses) while
long term port investment like entrance channels, coastal protection and breakwaters are
entirely financed by public money.
The recent economic crisis has had an impact on funding on transport infrastructure in
most of the countries examined. In addition to increased interest in public-private
partnerships, the reported impact general falls under one of three categories:
24
A certain level of austerity is in place, with a budget squeeze on transport funding;
Transport infrastructure spending has increase because of economic stimulus

packages;
Following the crisis and slow-down in the construction sector, costs fell below
anticipated levels and this lead to the acceleration of some infrastructure
development projects.
OECD/ITF 2013
ANNEX: STATISTICAL TABLES 1995-2011
Table A1. Investment in road infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table A2. Investment in rail infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table A3. Investment in inland waterway infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table A4. Investment in sea port infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table A5. Investment in airport infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table B1. Maintenance expenditure in road infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table B2. Maintenance expenditure in rail infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table B3. Maintenance expenditure in inland waterway infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table B4. Maintenance expenditure in sea port infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table B5. Maintenance expenditure in airport infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table C1. Gross Domestic Product, 1000 billion Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Table C2. Population
Table C3. Deflators
Table C4. Euro conversion rates
X = Data not applicable
OECD/ITF 2013
25
Table A1. Investment in road infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
26
1995
1996
15
1997
14
1998
28
1999
73
2000
108
2001
108
2002
65
2 424
457
2 926
426
3 332
365
3 536
430
3 930
391
1
3 697
475
30
3 259
640
48
3 429
532
47
1 069
987
954
1 134
1 253
1 300
1 173
995
3 576
71
283
352
8
457
10 439
36
3 335
135
306
404
12
429
10 504
35
3 478
185
382
400
10
436
10 390
31
3 155
341
374
388
17
443
10 164
29
3 210
340
323
419
21
458
9 924
29
10 216
11 126
10 916
10 850
11 146
131
75
123
69
299
81
281
140
209
110
3 728
304
309
455
22
488
10 545
29
18
11 967
1 402
177
129
4 396
305
303
497
22
508
10 376
29
33
11 558
1 604
237
109
3 981
616
518
399
47
520
10 160
37
42
11 100
1 692
283
123
283
4 980
71 561
281
5 052
62 572
375
5 144
60 876
446
6 258
60 366
606
6 365
69 806
780
6 930
79 260
3
14
15
114
3
579
1
4
28
24
107
7
540
10
2
26
40
101
10
1 287
14
2
27
96
113
8
806
8
6
23
130
146
7
1 112
2
13
24
109
166
11
1 283
2
908
4 582
67 594
72
16
30
70
186
8
1 150
1
1 122
1 350
1 500
1 727
1 084
5 071
59 979
69
12
30
112
213
16
1 447
2
1
2 279
181
1 161
1 035
1 620
634
2 078
139
260
337
6 874
1 295
2 847
348
6 247
63 701
826
638
737
356
1 883
28
53
186
4 263
912
2 520
157
782
180
748
394
2 452
75
79
284
4 010
1 014
2 419
281
869
227
970
456
3 108
148
315
293
3 977
891
2 336
503
952
299
905
487
2 348
75
300
263
4 787
1 046
2 298
401
1 002
297
552
441
1 665
33
204
352
4 328
926
2 603
361
909
1 019
961
631
2 579
57
227
372
4 792
912
2 716
408
1 847
169
1 018
1 094
1 685
736
2 345
80
201
284
5 558
1 007
2 765
331
5 224
30 335
4 864
32 522
5 082
40 438
4 783
42 780
4 758
49 231
5 564
61 267
5 930
69 359
OECD/ITF 2013
Table A1. Investment in road infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
61
2004
91
2005
68
2006
175
2007
253
2008
500
2009
487
2010
2011
11 200
390
1 545
13 792
303
1 562
344
15 061
466
1 294
242
210
4 086
650
34
5 194
720
48
6 736
687
82
6 973
802
260
8 025
870
374
9 263
875
1 327
9 196
665
1 272
1 118
1 432
1 562
1 508
1 281
1 432
1 432
3 938
1 047
627
587
48
533
10 448
42
41
10 790
1 636
243
171
272
5 497
750
1 415
928
102
595
11 355
23
62
10 200
1 592
1 704
152
3 832
1 153
9 169
40 103
60
161
27
165
128
8
2 854
2
3
1 636
347
1 463
1 875
2 112
1 331
3 790
174
360
450
8 580
1 298
2 766
921
166
6 780
875
1 491
1 191
130
650
12 099
23
91
10 730
1 845
584
211
4 606
1 495
14 280
36 585
61
181
134
7 810
1 066
1 493
1 029
126
802
12 489
39
122
10 845
1 946
646
186
5 403
1 425
13 664
31 560
58
241
169
8 751
1 101
2 041
936
142
973
12 623
45
124
11 410
101
10 891
909
1 985
714
119
922
12 648
43
219
12 160
281
15 394
515
1 721
937
137
890
11 942
32
232
11 710
976
242
5 817
1 319
13 051
31 861
19
265
1 564
121
6 235
1 173
5 641
37 207
841
79
1 169
6 874
49 862
67
58
25
142
188
13
1 683
2
1
2 328
200
1 074
1 010
1 537
707
2 113
169
210
470
7 321
1 399
2 734
377
4 174
877
1 031
728
56
599
11 271
28
40
10 710
1 507
1 427
143
2 332
1 190
7 572
43 290
57
63
26
137
135
10
1 999
4
4
2 334
269
1 138
1 237
1 933
1 095
3 182
185
240
496
7 244
1 443
2 730
634
841
3 389
35 774
463
135
140
224
242
176
312
157
437
138
448
148
422
183
343
220
2 542
6
37
1 654
396
1 474
2 605
1 940
1 950
4 872
351
411
573
8 411
1 407
2 711
1 967
2 164
28
51
1 680
487
1 718
3 443
1 453
2 806
7 299
406
520
666
8 077
1 423
2 674
1 947
2 545
26
11
2 194
512
1 985
4 508
1 366
3 891
9 899
379
567
694
8 522
1 604
2 840
2 233
3 023
13
23
2 363
579
2 396
5 340
951
3 105
6 240
252
662
406
8 588
1 574
2 997
2 918
3 938
14
18
2 300
732
2 622
6 510
1 511
2 850
6 210
229
342
221
7 818
1 653
3 388
5 419
3 912
5 195
53 075
4 949
48 959
5 632
52 890
6 341
58 538
6 202
54 360
6 043
53 576
6 583
56 711
6 472
59 893
5 147
55 532
OECD/ITF 2013
158
932
11 876
38
216
11 610
39
15
2 287
840
2724
8 319
3 283
8 414
339
432
128
5 911
1 871
5 181
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
27
Table A2. Investment in rail infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
28
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
571
521
803
590
748
710
648
979
10
565
1 120
6
411
1 199
5
367
1 071
9
663
1 191
25
668
537
635
637
764
1 012
856
1 049
44
291
7
112
726
4
226
2 766
8
27
276
13
160
1 034
0
192
2 963
8
14
411
29
280
872
0
224
3 024
7
23
480
25
302
818
15
254
2 879
7
22
512
25
269
635
24
264
2 891
9
78
608
19
371
564
19
233
2 955
9
78
474
21
394
460
15
204
2 444
7
5 747
5 200
4 745
4 423
7 350
85
X
103
X
80
X
136
X
188
X
29
1 950
8 456
2
2 013
7 520
9
2 078
6 198
4
2 170
6 187
5
3 681
8 309
5 305
591
197
X
789
85
4 549
10 139
7
X
4
23
X
168
5
10
X
17
168
X
157
4
21
X
22
29
X
234
5
27
X
29
36
X
282
3
26
X
20
30
X
382
1
38
X
18
39
X
430
1
5 481
304
228
X
2 408
141
4 856
9 590
31
30
X
25
72
X
365
2
51
452
36
473
478
18
225
3 045
9
42
7 437
983
278
X
2 490
237
5 525
9 095
35
36
X
58
69
X
338
8
487
503
488
710
816
1 348
199
113
418
57
3 271
4
170
15
2 456
557
1 644
58
189
108
523
106
2 053
6
241
20
3 652
666
2 012
72
5 876
6 891
6 749
6 097
324
248
196
72
1 161
13
59
489
282
260
51
1 482
17
107
390
307
476
43
1 722
20
121
349
337
536
46
982
32
64
197
237
342
30
1 180
16
37
767
1 141
1 079
45
816
1 049
1 170
48
686
701
1 232
61
944
763
1 290
68
1 391
683
1 343
81
363
198
401
43
2 612
3
53
16
1 840
590
1 463
73
2 414
3 301
2 734
4 111
3 363
5 169
3 909
6 058
4 820
5 668
4 874
7 021
OECD/ITF 2013
Table A2. Investment in rail infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
749
1 145
5
1 106
1 335
7
1 493
1 330
19
1 252
1 489
12
1 962
1 505
4
1 727
1 683
11
2 285
2 062
2
959
976
916
1 012
1 009
1 223
1 223
26
490
104
417
338
16
275
3 634
3
19
7 228
1 699
280
X
1 314
247
7 403
7 523
34
41
X
85
88
X
201
10
31
356
128
411
342
20
328
3 680
0
11
6 404
1 786
155
X
1 504
184
8 809
6 217
30
33
X
70
107
X
192
6
46
572
94
485
241
20
281
4 118
1
14
3 411
278
171
X
1 425
184
10 175
6 057
38
40
X
68
127
X
223
9
39
599
122
465
178
21
234
4 214
1
62
3 971
239
91
X
1 328
172
8 970
6 736
38
33
X
50
104
X
370
6
44
646
92
612
232
30
211
4 505
1
212
3 836
253
376
X
1 437
244
7 702
6 883
37
37
X
76
138
X
563
10
72
617
126
1 217
373
23
327
5 119
2
48
3 816
1 298
1 051
1 100
703
200
194
704
99
3 231
5
91
21
3 791
652
2 004
116
222
220
484
58
3 648
4
91
59
4 368
943
2 116
222
193
236
415
109
4 021
4
160
42
5 764
1 124
2 191
226
7 493
6 042
5 450
5 758
OECD/ITF 2013
2010
2011
3 612
1 936
3
5 492
2 143
3
50
493
98
740
357
37
361
5 047
4
80
3 412
130
699
83
564
396
35
288
4 915
2
78
3 807
90
842
81
447
863
94
355
5 148
0
249
3 920
298
X
1 501
317
X
2 515
275
X
2 994
X
3 080
7 109
7 367
5 687
9 602
4 773
11 308
10 198
61
X
85
150
X
498
25
64
X
67
172
X
438
8
78
X
107
157
X
435
7
54
X
116
150
X
649
7
845
820
778
1 097
1 136
258
353
307
102
4 168
4
225
13
6 336
1 061
2 351
451
310
647
329
311
5 436
2
287
53
8 345
1 253
2 329
499
286
904
392
316
9 507
2
215
129
8 981
1 319
2 622
672
358
650
360
177
6 575
6
175
100
9 780
1 319
2 888
756
479
690
403
169
9 066
12
273
131
8 255
1 434
3 036
1 493
528
925
333
161
9 861
7
293
106
7 581
1 400
3 414
1 470
7 940
7 733
7 562
6 342
6 387
6 652
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
29
Table A3. Investment in inland waterway infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
30
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
X
3
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
1
151
125
181
129
139
152
153
153
1
X
X
2
107
X
X
711
X
1
X
0
X
X
2
59
X
X
757
X
1
X
2
X
X
1
69
X
X
741
X
0
X
6
1
6
X
X
0
85
X
X
828
X
0
X
1
3
X
X
1
104
X
X
849
X
0
X
2
11
X
X
0
114
X
X
828
X
0
X
2
9
X
X
3
114
X
X
844
X
7
X
2
17
X
X
4
115
X
X
810
X
6
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
0
3
X
X
X
22
X
X
X
X
0
1
X
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
X
30
X
X
X
X
0
1
X
X
X
26
X
X
X
X
0
1
X
X
X
16
X
X
X
X
0
2
X
X
X
X
10
1
244
73
12
21
X
X
X
8
X
X
X
X
6
150
66
14
19
X
X
X
7
X
203
X
X
X
9
110
87
15
19
X
X
X
39
X
261
X
X
X
1
107
62
12
10
X
X
X
39
X
319
X
X
X
0
96
28
4
3
X
X
X
17
X
402
X
X
X
1
105
48
5
1
X
X
X
17
X
379
X
X
X
1
169
91
6
1
X
X
X
0
X
X
512
X
X
X
9
104
62
14
1
X
X
X
4
X
1 176
1 329
1 475
1 691
1 926
4 427
4 088
3 893
463
OECD/ITF 2013
Table A3. Investment in inland waterway infrastructure, Million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
X
3
X
12
X
7
X
7
X
4
X
3
X
5
153
153
156
162
178
188
188
38
26
85
197
405
2
12
X
X
2
132
X
X
825
X
7
X
3
12
X
X
4
109
X
X
790
X
1
X
2
10
X
X
1
108
X
X
790
X
2
X
1
19
X
X
2
162
X
X
800
X
4
X
2
14
X
X
5
168
X
X
820
X
4
X
X
35
X
X
X
X
0
1
X
X
X
51
X
X
X
X
0
1
X
X
X
53
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
X
56
X
X
X
X
2
1
X
X
X
479
X
X
X
6
164
87
12
1
X
X
X
0
X
X
486
X
X
14
8
191
140
19
1
X
X
X
1
X
X
284
X
X
7
20
140
73
15
1
X
X
X
0
X
X
312
X
X
7
13
213
51
30
1
X
X
X
0
X
2 349
OECD/ITF 2013
2010
2011
X
11
X
8
2
22
X
X
2
141
X
X
905
X
0
X
4
59
X
X
2
182
X
X
1 180
X
3
X
3
58
X
X
2
188
X
X
1 100
X
1
X
3
22
X
X
1
197
X
X
1 040
X
X
29
X
X
X
X
3
0
X
X
X
34
X
X
X
X
4
0
X
X
X
27
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
X
42
X
X
X
X
1
1
X
X
X
263
X
X
13
10
359
58
24
0
X
X
X
0
X
X
270
X
X
21
7
490
102
36
1
X
X
X
0
X
X
361
X
X
25
5
536
59
19
2
X
X
X
0
X
X
252
X
X
25
1
423
68
21
3
X
X
X
0
X
X
263
X
X
29
1
519
301
26
1
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
2
1
X
X
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
31
Table A4. Investment in sea port infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
32
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
13
60
X
101
X
185
X
215
X
135
X
96
X
169
X
180
X
X
152
X
129
X
139
X
164
X
167
X
186
X
157
X
189
62
1
X
61
19
41
235
X
109
0
X
54
21
51
195
X
54
1
X
31
12
43
178
X
66
6
X
57
22
56
189
X
60
10
X
52
10
70
174
X
166
7
X
57
17
59
197
X
5
179
24
X
96
27
72
296
X
4
115
28
X
10
21
55
320
X
506
491
562
450
409
X
18
X
17
X
17
X
22
X
31
562
166
X
20
506
178
X
19
1 020
98
X
28
30
212
199
221
250
247
231
272
494
5 136
14
46
X
29
X
11
X
6
X
X
8
X
X
21
X
X
19
X
X
11
X
X
13
X
X
33
X
133
X
123
X
170
X
165
X
238
X
315
X
757
X
68
30
62
6
146
X
X
0
481
76
1
51
78
3
72
82
7
86
106
10
86
123
11
93
12
31
139
X
X
0
460
156
X
X
0
479
92
X
X
1
533
220
X
X
5
605
243
X
X
2
891
270
X
X
6
1 175
X
7
X
14
X
13
X
13
X
14
X
9
X
2
375
X
X
4
1 403
31
X
3
199
184
289
355
380
336
375
375
456
X
0
36
11
22
OECD/ITF 2013
Table A4. Investment in sea port infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
11
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
10
194
X
419
X
577
X
701
X
702
X
1 057
X
1 171
X
1 765
X
X
233
X
260
X
184
X
159
X
203
X
219
X
219
3
104
10
X
40
59
89
483
X
1
119
9
X
102
66
118
377
X
5
108
17
X
68
24
136
283
X
8
160
14
X
105
31
195
261
X
46
175
17
X
67
57
221
226
X
430
86
X
34
17
570
61
X
23
28
580
75
X
34
56
640
60
X
37
66
8
299
77
X
66
75
100
394
X
24
685
5
320
51
X
49
39
69
229
X
24
965
5
249
63
X
440
105
X
15
7
184
52
X
71
41
238
410
X
30
630
X
23
55
X
20
65
X
14
74
X
17
98
1 817
3 839
14
45
X
23
X
2 447
3 601
16
98
X
16
X
2 062
3 208
21
62
X
30
X
848
2 800
24
90
X
30
X
1 179
2 506
23
149
X
26
X
940
2 849
2
262
X
42
X
1 278
4 656
1 345
2 169
2 423
X
16
X
X
21
X
X
27
X
228
X
1
527
X
0
565
X
1
513
X
1
438
X
2
579
X
3
383
X
2
487
X
3
542
X
3
24
21
22
72
14
84
100
9
44
73
14
114
123
17
157
9
30
128
81
4
100
19
27
112
64
83
275
X
X
6
1 680
65
X
5
300
X
X
4
1 942
76
X
7
279
X
X
2
2 258
37
X
10
236
X
X
3
2 432
43
X
14
197
X
X
7
2 573
81
X
23
413
X
X
10
2 871
60
X
30
183
X
X
54
2 508
72
X
20
115
X
X
13
2 247
107
X
16
448
298
336
OECD/ITF 2013
3 256
X
59
X
18
76
218
X
13
925
326
X
X
6
1 902
X
34
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
33
Table A5. Investment in airport infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
34
1995
1996
1997
15
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
92
86
79
62
39
96
43
82
11
81
4
102
1
88
38
35
37
125
127
127
73
6
777
5
28
118
1
65
783
14
1
1 243
7
50
62
1
63
821
4
4
1 152
9
39
106
0
51
951
8
1 329
51
17
10
1 010
64
47
5
75
558
2 178
3
12
X
1
1
163
2
0
7
73
48
2
51
570
49
16
80
21
0
49
572
11
12
71
34
0
43
643
3
11
22
293
4
78
731
1
18
17
136
0
97
628
11
1 156
895
977
1 115
1 314
33
30
46
27
4
18
6
1 411
52
27
12
276
248
2 526
298
1 845
299
1 672
387
2 029
355
2 795
X
19
0
X
5
0
X
3
1
X
6
1
X
2
1
18
X
1
3
107
415
2 570
3
25
X
1
4
21
0
140
0
59
0
88
1
176
1
185
7
156
2
70
27
67
12
263
0
4
7
496
76
131
53
62
33
95
21
378
0
5
1
415
95
149
101
81
50
128
5
348
0
6
1
513
88
125
184
77
43
185
3
184
0
5
2
518
99
131
290
72
45
135
3
131
0
5
6
506
199
193
177
73
70
150
7
240
0
4
3
556
315
411
420
89
172
7
243
0
4
2
992
348
500
125
111
58
112
14
498
0
3
1
1 387
227
422
78
703
4 761
779
5 923
1 128
6 776
991
8 938
1 022
10 904
1 196
13 212
1 105
15 048
1 358
14 090
OECD/ITF 2013
Table A5. Investment in airport infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
158
28
240
9
362
100
217
96
187
71
306
82
221
28
69
47
68
88
135
116
116
3
1 009
31
52
19
0
43
837
0
3
777
12
150
27
6
48
838
0
2
786
19
237
35
4
48
860
0
2
829
24
71
37
10
60
978
2
1 130
91
46
4
700
68
115
7
63
105
806
2 154
3
17
X
4
26
720
52
9
5
4
147
234
2 548
3
20
X
18
71
4
810
21
325
20
56
108
820
1
0
1 140
1
731
28
92
92
19
76
739
0
0
1 510
48
386
2 003
3
5
X
5
18
540
94
20
3
4
80
307
2 027
3
5
X
3
23
2
741
20
77
64
31
74
1 052
0
27
1 620
34
2
5
17
271
124
2 278
3
17
X
53
64
11
5
133
509
117
2 538
50
2
213
243
634
2 362
1 327
3
X
29
19
3
X
8
7
6
X
15
12
85
1
0
167
1
4
602
1
3
345
2
1
191
4
4
326
12
0
179
4
2
271
0
28
226
2
4
76
38
89
3
576
1
6
2
2 212
149
250
104
104
49
170
2
684
1
11
3
2 020
81
159
93
21
131
134
2
268
0
32
1
1 512
85
104
218
154
133
103
15
398
1
14
11
1 829
88
238
85
82
42
436
0
16
24
2 164
118
205
79
135
9
441
0
30
5
2 132
108
632
175
138
251
63
151
6
269
1
56
13
1 773
87
169
569
203
132
127
1
471
1
70
7
1 744
79
211
520
206
102
2
434
0
33
3
1 235
126
327
426
2 085
11 328
2 203
2 602
OECD/ITF 2013
12
21
403
126
2 265
1
19
X
11
47
174
201
164
2
608
28
81
2
613
19
40
3
45
777
0
0
1 480
6
44
999
102
1
1 815
2
213
83
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
35
Table B1. Maintenance expenditure in road infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
36
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1 457
532
1 823
478
2 036
463
1 765
533
1 871
527
1 852
508
2 158
520
16
2 320
294
16
381
403
396
351
390
406
410
464
3 293
22
133
555
23
599
178
3 404
78
188
574
21
526
180
4 121
62
178
505
26
564
186
4 020
84
173
557
25
549
185
4 607
120
186
582
14
527
210
5 887
316
202
586
14
534
228
8
5 294
132
272
648
15
543
221
15
9
5 304
171
280
674
16
634
233
18
7
23
24
52
5 896
17 788
14
38
4
107
33
2
565
8
97
14
91
16
135
16
158
16
128
21
107
25
4 856
18 757
4 927
16 773
123
5 016
15 979
130
5 799
15 914
143
8 258
18 488
102
9 720
22 269
10
3
11
23
3
196
14
24
4
27
23
4
261
16
36
4
60
22
2
309
18
58
4
60
19
4
365
11
75
4
67
28
5
475
5
45
4
61
26
5
474
7
51
5 506
19 848
14
39
4
74
31
4
511
6
475
494
521
524
549
475
287
125
105
473
98
152
475
134
126
467
111
197
477
136
210
554
449
128
608
666
229
341
639
370
936
791
181
234
19
25
53
48
45
96
49
56
101
49
51
93
24
54
101
25
67
79
61
68
66
107
69
68
502
1 209
18
558
1 180
30
545
1 103
66
735
1 152
61
702
1 307
98
747
765
99
755
1 410
82
805
1 453
51
3 837
14 515
3 670
15 393
4 080
17 937
4 077
18 850
4 447
21 097
5 119
25 958
5 150
26 549
5 164
26 347
OECD/ITF 2013
Table B1. Maintenance expenditure in road infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2 359
388
17
2 624
458
35
2 893
443
33
2 239
495
55
2 720
486
31
3 237
467
35
3 192
516
25
482
491
470
492
458
499
523
5 251
209
265
704
21
627
239
17
7
5 403
244
296
737
23
587
239
7
6
5 246
242
351
767
25
600
2 189
6
6
108
5 413
155
544
705
28
612
2 235
4
10
215
6 879
158
589
729
32
611
2 294
14
11
203
6 948
168
611
716
38
673
2 286
13
12
69
6 551
144
578
866
39
684
2 601
12
11
100
8 703
195
670
1 058
38
667
2 431
16
9
71
5 816
212
570
53
11 596
15 466
17
64
4
122
43
5
396
8
254
26
2 379
51
11 241
14 630
11
71
4
122
32
2
377
10
283
34
3 774
53
12 549
14 030
14
80
4
125
35
3
478
8
1 256
32
5 156
54
13 452
11 773
18
129
1 367
35
5 382
50
9 764
11 373
15
211
444
52
5 296
55
10 756
10 875
454
30
6 255
45
6 008
13 529
29
9 312
42
6 437
13 966
29
8 831
35
225
133
120
126
161
24
125
23
134
27
125
30
160
34
153
36
472
11
465
11
690
18
672
17
802
37
821
676
587
417
843
721
221
268
611
482
906
1 055
233
379
725
570
993
1 263
177
426
1 040
543
1 054
1 670
203
1 041
1 091
616
1 109
1 515
192
1 337
1 231
579
1 149
2 006
141
827
607
1 223
2 341
124
1 209
720
1 499
2 636
102
323
787
1 670
2 678
100
72
75
184
82
77
259
100
99
260
130
140
300
156
139
331
161
148
259
192
151
229
175
137
205
160
122
756
1 492
84
758
1 476
71
788
1 520
89
809
1 534
157
836
1 410
278
859
1 611
309
787
1 817
411
983
2 036
360
925
4 832
22 822
5 450
21 037
5 662
23 569
5 857
25 004
5 639
22 513
5 057
22 642
4 409
23 088
3 989
3 719
26
OECD/ITF 2013
4 471
559
23
2011
494
26
39
658
2 746
15
13
674
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
37
Table B2. Maintenance expenditure in rail infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
38
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
384
378
2
364
1
347
2
338
2
339
12
292
0
14
11
43
207
47
217
46
212
57
226
71
240
48
257
83
292
93
385
119
114
117
2 561
13
113
2 531
15
113
2 622
14
115
2 617
13
125
2 642
12
135
2 914
13
101
138
X
64
X
10
2 155
38
2 225
36
2 297
42
2 210
63
3 531
79
X
8 436
115
5 363
X
8 588
187
5 234
X
8 494
128
5 619
25
X
28
81
X
23
X
35
87
X
27
X
39
65
X
27
X
39
64
X
27
X
41
67
X
48
X
48
88
X
50
X
49
110
X
53
X
75
100
X
635
607
599
604
594
655
220
585
49
203
249
406
43
295
249
44
300
118
40
316
83
41
336
59
52
382
45
56
13
418
39
54
64
4
6
10
5
12
4
10
6
9
4
9
8
7
10
5
5
15
9
3
258
350
80
264
327
78
271
305
95
229
381
101
242
444
115
305
468
150
301
563
109
372
889
111
OECD/ITF 2013
Table B2. Maintenance expenditure in rail infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
335
13
341
12
302
6
362
8
325
12
356
21
348
30
344
22
451
19
31
29
30
58
38
36
33
103
225
113
213
107
236
108
256
112
253
106
353
76
372
90
359
87
365
137
3 411
10
103
155
3 592
11
91
156
3 568
10
101
156
3 225
10
94
167
3 377
0
133
180
3 672
5
133
196
3 730
3
132
195
3 770
2
138
197
3 804
2
23
X
7 683
126
7 324
211
X
7 774
121
7 807
234
X
8 814
127
8 919
1 237
X
8 851
135
9 492
1 288
X
9 707
144
8 282
457
X
11 396
398
X
12 444
X
14 916
8 036
7 832
7 829
42
X
93
95
X
1
56
X
96
115
X
8
60
X
105
112
X
9
70
X
105
127
X
15
89
X
115
108
X
125
X
166
115
X
136
X
132
126
X
104
X
143
120
X
110
X
151
124
X
912
1 037
1 118
1 547
1 367
1 175
1 410
1 690
1 798
389
68
56
19
353
77
91
20
360
82
100
58
404
67
115
38
422
100
122
96
447
36
122
534
157
127
676
213
135
729
239
24
8
3
22
9
3
22
10
7
18
10
8
20
15
8
21
14
9
16
15
1
13
12
1
17
6
8
455
580
123
467
862
137
490
683
164
509
702
180
540
847
192
598
475
207
590
534
178
724
588
223
701
671
195
OECD/ITF 2013
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
39
Table B3. Maintenance expenditure in inland waterway infra, mill. Euros, current prices and exch. rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
40
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
X
17
X
17
25
27
35
30
31
48
51
51
470
4
X
X
14
24
X
X
5
X
X
21
26
X
X
4
X
X
21
33
X
X
1
4
X
X
23
33
X
X
1
4
X
X
23
37
X
X
2
4
X
X
27
46
X
X
2
3
X
X
19
40
X
X
6
4
X
X
17
41
X
X
X
48
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
9
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
9
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
24
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
29
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
38
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
41
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
X
15
X
X
414
X
X
357
X
X
222
X
X
362
X
X
334
X
X
X
27
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
441
X
X
13
1
4
X
X
X
4
5
X
X
X
5
5
X
X
X
4
10
X
X
X
1
5
X
X
X
1
7
X
X
X
2
4
X
X
X
4
4
X
X
X
OECD/ITF 2013
Table B3. Maintenance expenditure in inland waterway infra, mill. Euros, current prices and exch. rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
X
17
61
61
66
67
76
87
131
544
293
507
619
788
7
26
X
X
13
48
X
X
4
10
X
X
14
43
X
X
4
2
X
X
15
55
X
X
1
1
X
X
15
61
X
X
2
3
X
X
16
58
X
X
X
1
X
X
1
X
X
25
X
X
108
X
X
X
X
1
1
X
X
0
X
410
X
X
X
121
X
X
X
X
1
1
X
X
0
X
289
X
X
9
X
481
X
X
X
X
2
0
X
X
0
X
604
X
X
14
13
4
3
X
X
X
X
2011
X
3
2
X
X
17
60
X
X
1
2
X
X
26
61
X
X
1
2
X
X
17
60
X
X
1
2
X
X
14
61
X
X
X
33
X
X
2
X
X
1
X
X
498
X
X
X
X
2
1
X
X
0
X
377
X
X
8
X
98
X
X
X
X
2
0
X
X
0
X
492
X
X
2
X
83
X
X
X
X
3
0
X
X
4
X
583
X
X
2
X
82
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
1
X
693
X
X
3
X
81
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
0
X
544
X
X
8
X
343
X
X
17
17
28
6
2
X
X
X
6
2
X
X
X
7
1
X
X
X
11
1
X
X
X
13
4
X
X
X
11
2
X
X
X
13
2
X
X
X
23
2
X
X
X
OECD/ITF 2013
X
X
X
X
1
0
X
X
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
41
Table B4. Maintenance expenditure in sea port infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
42
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
X
44
X
102
X
103
X
103
X
101
X
129
X
130
X
130
39
0
X
54
0
X
64
0
X
58
3
X
64
1
X
78
2
X
5
78
3
X
4
77
4
X
66
X
75
51
X
82
51
X
90
53
X
92
56
X
94
56
X
80
53
X
91
51
X
1 173
1 101
1 226
1 186
880
1 151
1 470
1 078
2
X
1
X
X
2
X
X
1
X
X
3
X
X
2
X
X
4
X
X
5
X
3
14
X
4
X
25
26
1
11
26
6
1
27
1
3
27
11
3
28
11
1
30
16
3
13
1
12
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
OECD/ITF 2013
Table B4. Maintenance expenditure in sea port infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exch. rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
X
130
X
130
X
130
X
130
X
130
X
130
X
135
3
75
4
X
1
73
5
X
5
92
4
X
0
110
5
X
27
114
8
X
0
128
5
X
5
138
4
X
1
151
3
X
1
26
3
X
88
51
X
88
50
X
93
50
X
88
50
X
89
44
X
82
48
X
0
107
48
X
0
106
53
X
1
134
53
X
2
105
116
135
171
158
132
194
168
1 379
1 244
3 074
2 469
1 394
1 163
1 287
1 098
2
6
X
5
X
2
8
X
3
X
3
29
X
5
X
3
34
X
3
X
3
54
X
4
X
58
X
6
X
X
2
X
X
7
X
X
2
X
8
1
5
2
9
2
3
1
6
1
6
1
10
1
10
1
15
4
X
X
1
X
X
1
X
X
1
X
X
2
X
X
1
X
X
1
X
X
2
X
X
2
X
X
3
7
X
12
X
13
X
21
X
28
X
1
X
23
X
27
X
OECD/ITF 2013
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
43
Table B5. Maintenance expenditure in airport infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
44
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
10
1
441
0
14
4
418
0
12
26
5
1
7
1
4
1
6
0
8
1
9
6
408
1
13
86
95
127
127
135
143
149
151
194
175
210
197
94
221
29
510
29
1 321
X
5
2
X
1
2
X
1
3
X
1
3
X
1
3
X
1
3
X
3
3
X
3
3
26
149
29
0
32
4
33
0
32
1
4
34
1
6
2
7
0
2
5
9
37
30
22
10
28
23
17
33
40
38
62
OECD/ITF 2013
Table B5. Maintenance expenditure in airport infrastructure, million Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
44
11
10
11
3
477
0
11
3
491
1
14
2
548
1
14
2
603
2
8
2
630
2
13
0
630
2
12
1
600
3
13
2
707
2
14
2
699
3
7
162
181
181
203
218
232
230
240
267
646
659
117
37
98
168
33
100
231
34
102
167
29
64
30
190
77
33
178
85
35
197
211
37
113
X
3
3
X
3
3
X
3
4
X
3
4
X
4
6
X
12
3
X
2
5
X
1
8
X
1
7
1
4
1
1
4
1
2
4
0
4
5
1
6
5
2
20
18
4
14
5
9
21
16
0
2
0
1
0
2
31
37
34
36
32
34
31
26
17
11
30
223
OECD/ITF 2013
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
45
Table C1. Gross Domestic product, 1000 billion Euros, current prices and exchange rates
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
46
1995
2
1
300
175
2
8
208
1
10
452
17
44
139
3
96
1 196
3
3
1 849
89
35
5
282
54
952
4 080
406
4
2
5
15
6
240
1
305
48
114
106
88
29
236
8
19
10
447
194
248
174
28
885
5 626
1996
3
1
344
181
3
11
212
2
8
483
18
51
145
4
99
1 227
4
2
1 875
98
36
6
307
59
1 009
3 706
451
4
2
7
16
7
287
1
320
54
126
123
93
29
306
14
22
12
474
218
246
192
35
961
6 130
1997
2
1
386
184
3
12
221
3
9
563
21
52
150
4
107
1 265
3
3
1 913
108
41
7
373
68
1 054
3 815
470
6
2
9
16
7
388
2
342
61
140
139
101
31
354
18
24
14
504
223
240
226
44
1 207
7 301
1998
2
2
349
192
4
13
230
4
12
550
23
57
155
5
117
1 321
3
3
1 960
117
43
7
380
79
1 098
3 500
320
6
2
10
17
8
412
2
362
51
135
153
110
37
242
14
26
15
539
227
249
239
37
1 305
7 797
1999
3
2
401
199
4
11
239
4
12
620
22
58
163
5
122
1 367
3
3
2 000
125
45
8
426
91
1 134
4 161
434
7
3
10
20
9
495
1
386
56
149
157
119
34
184
9
28
17
580
243
257
234
30
1 411
8 727
2000
2001
418
58
183
186
127
41
282
8
31
19
630
268
278
290
34
1 600
10 718
448
60
191
212
134
45
342
13
34
21
680
254
293
218
42
1 640
11 427
4
2
444
208
6
11
253
6
14
785
23
64
174
6
132
1 440
4
3
2 048
135
50
9
508
106
1 198
5 130
579
8
3
12
22
10
691
1
5
2
436
214
6
14
260
6
16
799
26
72
179
7
139
1 496
4
4
2 102
145
59
9
539
118
1 256
4 647
564
9
3
14
23
10
761
2
2002
5
3
462
221
7
15
269
7
17
777
28
83
185
8
144
1 543
4
4
2 132
155
70
9
536
131
1 302
4 228
611
10
3
15
24
11
754
2
1
465
66
204
210
141
49
366
16
37
23
729
267
305
243
45
1 699
11 199
OECD/ITF 2013
Table C1. Gross Domestic product, 1000 billion Euros, current prices and exchange rates (cont.)
2003
5
2
494
225
6
16
276
8
18
767
30
85
189
9
146
1 588
4
4
2 148
171
74
10
523
141
1 342
3 809
570
10
3
17
26
11
620
2
2
477
74
199
192
143
53
381
17
41
25
783
279
296
268
44
1 642
9 803
2004
6
3
545
235
7
19
291
8
20
798
33
92
197
10
152
1 656
4
4
2 196
184
82
11
576
150
1 398
3 749
581
11
3
18
27
11
611
2
2
491
82
209
204
149
61
476
19
45
27
841
292
301
315
52
1 768
9 485
OECD/ITF 2013
2005
7
4
610
245
11
24
303
9
23
911
36
105
207
11
157
1 718
5
5
2 224
193
89
13
674
163
1 436
3 683
680
13
3
21
30
11
681
2
2
513
92
245
244
154
80
615
20
49
29
909
298
309
387
69
1 847
10 099
2006
7
5
650
259
17
29
319
10
26
1 019
40
118
219
13
166
1 798
5
6
2 314
209
90
13
755
178
1 493
3 469
761
16
3
24
34
12
756
3
2
540
88
271
272
161
98
789
23
55
31
986
318
323
419
86
1 956
10 604
2007
8
7
719
274
24
33
336
11
31
1 042
43
132
228
16
180
1 887
6
7
2 429
223
99
15
881
189
1 554
3 182
766
21
3
29
37
13
755
3
3
572
99
288
311
169
125
949
28
61
35
1 053
338
329
472
104
2 064
10 187
2008
9
8
715
283
33
41
346
13
35
1 028
48
154
235
16
186
1 933
7
9
2 474
233
105
12
885
179
1 575
3 316
638
23
3
32
39
6
745
4
3
594
89
310
363
172
140
1 136
33
67
37
1 088
333
358
499
123
1 810
9 668
2009
9
6
726
276
32
35
341
12
35
965
45
142
224
14
172
1 886
7
8
2 375
232
91
9
960
161
1 520
3 624
601
19
3
27
37
6
634
4
3
573
85
270
311
169
118
880
29
63
36
1 048
292
367
440
84
1 574
9 964
2010
9
7
969
286
40
42
356
13
36
1 190
45
150
236
14
179
1 937
7
9
2 496
227
97
9
1 267
156
1 553
4 145
767
18
4
28
40
6
779
4
3
589
108
315
355
173
124
1 123
28
66
36
1 049
350
416
550
103
1 710
10 877
2011
9
7
1 089
301
46
40
370
13
38
1 249
45
156
239
16
189
1 997
7
10
2 593
215
100
10
1 364
159
1 580
4 217
803
20
4
31
43
6
830
5
3
602
117
349
370
171
136
1 335
31
69
36
1 063
388
476
555
119
1 747
10 770
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
47
Table C2. Population, thousand

Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
48
1995
3141
3223
18072
7948
7685
10194
10137
3332
8406
29354
4669
10327
5233
1437
5108
59555
1963
4734
81678
10634
10329
267
964486
3609
56844
125439
45093
2485
31
3629
409
370
92273
3675
643
15459
3673
4359
38595
10030
22684
148141
7739
5362
1990
39387
8827
7041
58865
51512
58019
266278
1996
3113
3172
18311
7959
7763
10160
10157
3306
8363
29672
4494
10315
5263
1416
5125
59799
1973
4616
81915
10709
10311
269
982553
3638
56860
125761
45525
2457
31
3602
414
373
93858
3668
644
15530
3732
4381
38624
10058
22619
147739
7709
5373
1989
39478
8841
7072
59822
51057
58167
269394
1997
3092
3135
18517
7968
7838
10117
10181
3366
8312
29987
4572
10304
5285
1400
5140
60042
1983
4532
82035
10777
10290
271
1000558
3674
56890
126091
45954
2433
32
3575
419
375
95441
3660
643
15611
3781
4405
38650
10091
22554
147304
7650
5383
1986
39582
8846
7089
60783
50594
58317
272657
1998
3079
3109
18711
7977
7913
10069
10203
3480
8257
30248
4501
10294
5304
1386
5153
60299
1992
4487
82047
10835
10267
274
1018471
3713
56907
126410
46287
2410
32
3549
425
378
97002
3653
639
15707
3815
4431
38663
10129
22507
146899
7568
5391
1982
39721
8851
7110
61743
50144
58487
275854
1999
3073
3091
18926
7992
7983
10035
10226
3601
8211
30499
4554
10284
5322
1376
5165
60495
2001
4453
82100
10883
10238
277
1036259
3755
56916
126650
46617
2390
32
3524
430
379
98514
3647
636
15812
3835
4462
38660
10172
22472
146309
7540
5396
1983
39926
8858
7144
62693
49673
58682
279040
2000
3072
3076
19153
8012
8049
10005
10251
3694
8170
30770
4426
10272
5340
1370
5176
60911
2009
4418
82212
10917
10211
281
1053898
3805
56942
126870
47008
2373
33
3500
436
381
99960
3640
633
15926
3858
4491
38454
10226
22443
146303
7516
5389
1989
40263
8872
7184
63628
49176
58893
282162
2001
3077
3066
19413
8042
8111
9970
10287
3748
8020
31082
4440
10236
5359
1364
5188
61356
2016
4386
82350
10950
10188
285
1071374
3866
56977
127149
47357
2355
33
3481
442
393
101330
3631
630
16046
3881
4514
38248
10293
22132
145950
7503
5379
1992
40720
8896
7230
64545
48684
59108
284969
2002
3090
3061
19651
8082
8172
9925
10333
3776
7868
31362
4440
10205
5376
1359
5201
61803
2022
4357
82488
10988
10159
288
1088694
3932
57157
127445
47622
2339
34
3469
446
396
102634
3623
629
16149
3949
4538
38230
10368
21803
145300
7500
5379
1995
41314
8925
7285
65446
48203
59326
287625
OECD/ITF 2013
Table C2. Population, thousand (cont.)

2003
3107
3061
19895
8121
8234
9874
10376
3783
7824
31676
4440
10207
5391
1354
5213
62242
2028
4329
82534
11024
10130
290
1105886
3997
57605
127718
47859
2325
34
3454
452
399
103903
3613
628
16225
4027
4565
38205
10441
21742
144599
7481
5380
1996
42005
8958
7339
66339
47813
59566
290108
2004
3125
3063
20127
8172
8307
9824
10421
3781
7781
31995
4439
10216
5405
1349
5228
62702
2033
4318
82516
11062
10107
292
1122991
4070
58175
127761
48039
2313
34
3436
458
401
105176
3604
627
16282
4088
4592
38182
10502
21685
143850
7463
5382
1997
42692
8994
7390
67236
47452
59868
292805
OECD/ITF 2013
2005
3142
3066
20395
8228
8392
9776
10479
3781
7740
32312
4442
10236
5419
1346
5246
63176
2038
4361
82469
11104
10087
297
1140043
4160
58607
127773
48138
2301
35
3414
465
404
106484
3595
627
16320
4134
4623
38165
10549
21634
143150
7441
5387
2000
43398
9030
7437
68143
47105
60224
295517
2006
3157
3070
20698
8269
8485
9733
10548
3782
7699
32576
4440
10269
5437
1344
5266
63618
2043
4398
82376
11148
10071
304
1157039
4260
58941
127756
48372
2288
35
3394
473
406
107835
3586
627
16346
4185
4661
38141
10584
21588
142500
7412
5391
2007
44116
9081
7484
69064
46788
60596
298380
2007
3170
3074
21073
8301
8581
9702
10626
3779
7660
32930
4436
10334
5461
1342
5289
64012
2048
4388
82266
11193
10056
312
1173972
4357
59375
127771
48598
2276
35
3376
480
409
109221
3577
628
16382
4228
4709
38121
10608
21547
142100
7382
5397
2018
44879
9148
7551
69993
46509
60987
301231
2008
3181
3079
21499
8337
8763
9602
10710
3774
7623
33319
4434
10424
5494
1341
5313
64371
2053
4384
82110
11237
10038
317
1190864
4426
59832
127704
48949
2266
36
3358
489
412
110627
3570
629
16446
4269
4768
38126
10622
21514
141950
7350
5407
2021
45556
9220
7648
70924
46258
61394
304094
2009
3193
3085
21952
8365
8947
9507
10796
3768
7585
33730
4429
10487
5523
1340
5339
64720
2057
4411
81902
11283
10023
318
1207740
4459
60193
127558
49182
2255
36
3339
498
414
112033
3566
630
16530
4316
4829
38152
10632
21480
141910
7321
5419
2040
45909
9299
7744
71846
46053
61811
306772
2010
3204
3092
22300
8390
9054
9490
10896
3760
7534
34126
4418
10520
5548
1340
5363
65076
2061
4453
81777
11316
10000
318
1224614
4474
60483
127450
49410
2239
36
3287
507
416
113423
3562
631
16615
4368
4889
38184
10637
21438
141920
7291
5430
2049
46071
9378
7826
72752
45871
62231
309350
2011
3216
3100
22621
8419
9168
9473
11008
3752
7476
34483
4407
10546
5574
1340
5387
65437
2064
4486
81726
11304
9971
319
1241492
4487
60770
127817
49779
2220
36
3203
517
419
114793
3559
632
16696
4405
4952
38216
10637
21390
141930
7261
5440
2052
46235
9453
7907
73640
45706
62641
311592
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
49
Table C3. Deflators

Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
50
1995
61.3
54.1
76.5
75.1
23.5
0.4
85.4
60.4
1.6
81.9
63.7
56.9
70.4
59.6
76.2
97.7
71.9
60.1
93.9
66.4
37.6
64.8
60.2
72.6
76.5
101.3
75.9
63.1
92.4
111.6
80.1
80.6
31.3
21.4
84.1
77.4
76.0
74.7
52.0
73.5
3.3
9.6
4.2
44.6
53.3
67.5
77.4
83.9
2.4
16.2
65.4
71.0
1996
62.7
64.6
76.4
77.5
46.0
0.6
85.7
56.5
3.5
83.2
66.0
63.5
73.1
69.8
76.1
92.5
73.9
56.6
94.5
71.3
46.9
67.8
64.5
72.9
80.2
101.2
79.7
69.2
93.1
104.2
82.5
81.4
40.9
27.3
49.8
78.4
77.7
76.0
61.3
77.8
4.8
14.0
7.2
51.3
59.3
69.2
78.2
84.1
4.2
27.0
66.7
73.2
1997
72.7
76.1
77.1
79.4
59.8
1.0
86.4
65.8
36.7
84.2
70.8
70.8
75.9
75.9
77.8
89.4
76.9
60.3
94.7
76.1
56.2
71.0
68.7
74.1
82.2
102.0
82.8
77.5
93.6
99.7
81.0
82.0
48.1
30.8
52.2
80.5
77.0
77.2
69.8
80.1
11.3
16.2
8.8
56.2
64.3
70.4
78.9
84.0
8.0
31.8
68.6
74.7
1998
77.7
84.2
77.8
79.0
52.3
1.7
88.1
64.0
45.3
83.9
76.6
77.2
77.2
80.4
79.1
86.3
77.9
64.5
95.3
80.0
62.2
73.5
74.1
74.9
84.4
100.2
86.9
86.7
93.6
95.5
80.7
82.3
55.5
33.7
51.4
82.0
78.2
78.8
77.5
76.4
16.7
19.2
11.7
61.1
68.9
68.8
81.0
86.4
13.8
35.7
70.6
74.0
1999
79.9
84.3
78.4
80.5
49.0
7.1
88.3
67.5
47.0
85.3
79.4
81.0
79.7
82.0
80.2
88.9
80.1
70.8
95.5
82.5
68.7
75.2
77.0
75.4
85.9
99.2
86.0
92.1
94.4
91.9
85.0
82.8
63.9
47.1
56.9
83.5
79.2
81.2
82.2
79.1
25.0
33.0
16.7
67.9
73.4
70.9
81.7
91.4
21.5
45.4
71.9
75.9
2000
90.5
83.1
81.8
87.2
62.4
20.1
90.1
87.8
50.1
88.9
83.1
84.6
85.8
83.6
86.1
92.5
86.6
74.1
94.8
85.3
76.3
77.4
79.7
79.3
87.6
99.6
86.8
89.0
95.9
95.5
86.7
87.7
71.7
59.9
67.4
86.9
82.2
85.1
88.1
90.2
35.8
45.5
29.6
72.5
77.2
83.1
85.1
96.3
30.7
55.9
75.8
81.8
2001
93.3
86.5
84.4
88.4
64.5
36.2
91.9
91.9
66.2
89.8
86.5
88.7
88.1
87.3
88.3
96.0
89.7
78.0
95.9
87.9
83.1
81.9
82.1
86.3
90.1
97.8
90.2
85.3
96.8
90.6
86.7
90.5
75.9
67.1
81.1
91.4
86.2
87.7
91.2
93.0
50.3
53.0
55.8
78.9
83.9
82.3
88.4
98.3
48.2
61.5
77.8
82.1
2002
92.1
87.1
87.9
89.2
64.1
52.4
93.8
96.5
68.1
90.8
89.6
91.6
89.7
89.0
89.9
94.8
92.8
82.7
97.3
90.9
86.8
88.1
85.2
90.6
93.0
96.9
93.1
82.3
97.4
93.2
88.6
93.0
81.1
73.7
83.6
94.9
88.4
89.7
93.2
93.4
61.4
61.2
68.2
83.4
90.3
82.2
91.1
95.3
65.4
64.6
82.4
80.2
OECD/ITF 2013
Table C3. Deflators (cont.)

2003
94.7
91.1
95.1
91.3
75.1
68.5
95.6
97.9
55.8
93.8
93.2
93.6
91.8
90.1
91.9
94.4
95.6
85.5
98.3
94.5
91.7
91.1
88.3
92.3
95.9
97.5
96.4
80.9
98.1
94.3
93.9
96.3
88.1
84.7
90.5
96.9
89.8
92.7
93.6
94.3
71.5
69.7
77.1
89.1
95.3
83.2
93.4
95.4
79.3
69.8
86.9
81.9
2004
98.4
96.9
97.1
95.0
85.3
84.1
97.7
100.0
74.1
96.8
96.8
96.9
94.8
94.8
95.2
97.3
96.4
92.6
99.4
97.3
95.9
94.8
95.9
96.7
98.2
98.6
99.3
85.7
98.8
98.8
95.6
97.5
95.9
91.5
95.8
97.6
94.3
96.2
97.4
96.8
87.7
83.8
86.4
95.4
98.4
89.9
96.3
98.0
91.2
80.3
93.5
88.8
OECD/ITF 2013
2005
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2006
101.8
104.6
106.2
108.1
110.1
110.8
102.3
106.0
127.1
102.7
104.0
102.8
105.2
106.1
105.7
103.4
103.3
108.5
100.3
102.5
107.4
107.9
106.4
105.0
101.7
101.7
99.9
120.2
101.1
101.7
106.7
102.0
106.8
113.4
109.1
101.8
104.8
104.1
101.5
104.4
110.6
115.2
112.5
104.1
102.1
108.7
105.4
104.9
116.2
114.8
105.9
110.8
2007
106.8
109.0
108.9
111.5
129.5
125.0
104.8
112.8
160.7
105.9
108.3
106.8
109.7
114.9
110.8
111.0
111.0
119.0
101.9
106.2
113.6
118.3
112.5
109.5
104.1
103.7
101.9
149.6
101.8
105.8
110.6
105.2
112.8
131.5
122.9
103.6
107.9
110.7
105.5
107.3
119.2
131.1
123.9
107.5
106.4
116.5
111.9
108.4
126.1
140.9
111.8
117.2
2008
108.0
115.5
118.0
121.7
159.8
151.5
107.0
121.1
167.0
110.3
114.4
111.7
118.3
118.3
119.5
106.4
119.3
130.6
102.7
111.2
120.3
135.3
122.3
112.8
106.8
106.8
104.9
170.3
104.3
94.4
115.5
108.3
119.9
143.6
132.3
105.9
112.6
119.8
108.8
112.9
139.4
154.6
139.5
113.4
110.8
123.5
117.4
110.2
142.6
181.2
123.5
133.3
2009
106.8
118.5
123.0
119.6
128.8
160.2
108.3
121.2
161.5
108.2
117.7
113.8
114.0
111.8
117.1
96.7
120.1
127.9
103.9
114.3
124.3
155.9
129.6
111.4
109.0
103.9
108.5
149.6
103.8
83.1
115.6
111.0
124.8
146.7
135.5
106.0
120.2
120.9
112.8
108.6
143.6
157.7
147.8
117.5
114.8
124.4
118.4
107.2
135.6
204.7
123.5
123.1
2010
107.2
127.7
125.2
124.4
168.1
177.9
110.5
123.0
177.7
111.4
118.8
114.1
118.6
109.8
120.3
92.0
124.7
138.9
104.9
116.2
126.6
162.2
140.6
112.2
109.4
101.7
112.4
146.6
104.5
92.2
121.2
114.3
129.8
162.9
137.7
107.1
124.9
124.7
114.4
112.7
148.1
175.9
155.0
119.9
113.5
126.9
121.5
107.8
143.9
233.0
130.1
129.7
2011
108.6
133.1
142.0
131.4
224.4
281.8
112.7
124.8
142.2
115.0
121.3
113.3
124.6
111.4
127.6
94.0
125.4
151.7
105.8
118.1
129.7
171.3
151.8
112.4
110.8
99.7
114.4
150.9
104.7
97.1
127.0
116.9
137.6
175.0
141.7
108.4
131.1
132.1
118.0
119.2
160.0
203.7
168.0
121.7
114.6
134.3
125.6
111.2
161.9
269.5
137.9
131.1
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
51
Table C4. Euro conversion rates (NC per Euro)

Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
52
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
121.24
531.05
1.76
1.00
1.16
15.07
1.00
1.96
0.09
1.79
6.84
34.69
7.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
49.16
1.26
1.00
1.00
164.35
84.67
42.39
1.00
1.00
122.97
1008.42
0.69
1.55
5.23
1.00
0.46
8.39
5.88
132.61
525.57
1.62
1.00
1.09
16.79
1.00
1.96
0.22
1.73
6.90
34.46
7.36
1.00
1.00
1.00
50.09
1.60
1.00
1.00
193.72
84.66
44.98
1.00
1.00
138.13
1021.11
0.70
1.57
5.08
1.00
0.46
9.65
5.85
168.53
556.28
1.53
1.00
0.90
29.42
1.00
1.96
1.89
1.57
6.98
35.93
7.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
56.34
1.47
1.00
1.00
211.51
80.43
41.15
1.00
1.00
137.13
1077.21
0.66
1.64
4.54
1.00
0.44
8.98
5.25
168.57
565.93
1.78
1.00
0.87
52.22
1.00
1.97
1.97
1.67
7.13
36.10
7.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.06
1.56
1.00
1.00
239.63
79.60
46.15
1.00
1.00
146.39
1566.31
0.66
1.62
4.48
1.00
0.43
10.24
6.05
146.96
570.87
1.65
1.00
0.88
263.95
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.58
7.58
36.85
7.44
1.00
1.00
1.00
60.62
2.16
1.00
1.00
252.58
77.17
45.87
1.00
1.00
121.34
1264.39
0.63
1.60
4.26
1.00
0.43
10.18
11.18
132.57
498.10
1.59
1.00
0.83
802.38
1.00
1.96
1.95
1.37
7.64
35.61
7.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
60.73
1.83
1.00
1.00
260.15
72.66
41.42
1.00
1.00
99.38
1041.98
0.56
1.56
3.70
1.00
0.40
8.71
11.49
128.44
497.03
1.73
1.00
0.83
1243.72
1.00
1.96
1.95
1.39
7.48
34.05
7.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
60.91
1.86
1.00
1.00
256.57
87.47
42.26
1.00
1.00
108.80
1155.63
0.56
1.51
3.58
1.00
0.40
8.37
11.52
1.00
1.99
8.28
3.17
1.00
0.27
6.05
6.20
38.88
1.00
1.00
9.33
1.55
0.06
1.93
0.83
1.31
1.00
1.85
8.20
3.42
1.00
0.39
6.56
6.52
38.91
1.00
1.00
8.51
1.57
0.10
2.32
0.81
1.27
1.00
1.71
8.02
3.72
1.00
0.81
6.62
6.70
38.10
1.00
1.00
8.65
1.64
0.17
2.11
0.69
1.13
1.00
2.09
8.44
3.92
1.00
1.00
10.85
11.25
39.41
1.00
1.00
8.92
1.62
0.29
2.77
0.68
1.12
1.00
2.02
8.31
4.23
1.00
1.63
26.23
22.81
44.07
1.00
1.00
8.81
1.60
0.45
4.39
0.66
1.07
1.00
2.03
8.11
4.01
1.00
1.99
25.92
50.41
42.61
1.00
1.00
8.45
1.56
0.57
5.03
0.61
0.92
1.00
2.13
8.05
3.67
1.00
2.60
26.12
60.12
43.30
1.00
1.00
9.26
1.51
1.10
4.81
0.62
0.90
2002
132.19
541.35
1.74
1.00
0.92
1695.03
1.00
1.96
1.95
1.48
7.41
30.85
7.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
60.98
2.07
1.00
1.00
243.04
86.31
45.81
1.00
1.00
118.05
1179.04
0.58
1.47
3.46
1.00
0.41
9.10
12.82
1.00
1.00
2.04
7.53
3.86
1.00
3.13
29.54
60.63
42.69
1.00
1.00
9.16
1.47
1.44
5.03
0.63
0.95
OECD/ITF 2013
Table C4. Euro conversion rates (NC per Euro) (cont.)

2003
137.47
654.05
1.74
1.00
1.11
2321.92
1.00
1.96
1.95
1.58
7.57
31.78
7.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.26
2.43
1.00
1.00
253.40
86.64
52.63
1.00
1.00
130.98
1345.48
0.64
1.52
3.45
1.00
0.43
12.19
15.75
1.00
1.00
1.95
8.00
4.40
1.00
3.76
34.67
65.06
41.53
1.00
1.00
9.12
1.52
1.69
6.03
0.69
1.13
2004
127.64
662.48
1.69
1.00
1.22
2685.27
1.00
1.96
1.95
1.62
7.50
31.92
7.44
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.34
2.38
1.00
1.00
251.73
87.21
56.30
1.00
1.00
134.37
1422.86
0.67
1.54
3.45
1.00
0.43
14.02
15.33
1.00
1.00
1.87
8.37
4.53
1.00
4.05
35.80
72.55
40.04
1.00
1.00
9.12
1.54
1.78
6.61
0.68
1.24
OECD/ITF 2013
2005
124.27
570.55
1.63
1.00
1.18
2683.14
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.51
7.40
29.77
7.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.30
2.26
1.00
1.00
247.97
78.14
54.81
1.00
1.00
136.83
1272.92
0.70
1.55
3.45
1.00
0.43
13.53
15.69
1.00
1.00
1.77
8.01
4.02
1.00
3.62
35.15
82.89
38.58
1.00
1.00
9.28
1.55
1.68
6.39
0.68
1.24
2006
123.08
521.40
1.67
1.00
1.12
2692.56
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.42
7.32
28.35
7.46
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.19
2.23
1.00
1.00
264.09
87.74
56.87
1.00
1.00
146.05
1194.70
0.70
1.57
3.45
1.00
0.43
13.69
16.49
1.00
1.00
1.94
8.05
3.90
1.00
3.53
34.13
84.16
37.22
1.00
1.00
9.25
1.57
1.81
6.34
0.68
1.26
2007
123.72
468.01
1.64
1.00
1.18
2941.69
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.47
7.34
27.77
7.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.17
2.29
1.00
1.00
251.33
87.72
56.60
1.00
1.00
161.20
1272.38
0.70
1.64
3.45
1.00
0.43
14.96
16.61
1.00
1.00
1.86
8.02
3.78
1.00
3.34
35.02
79.99
33.79
1.00
1.00
9.25
1.64
1.79
6.92
0.68
1.37
2008
122.87
450.31
1.75
1.00
1.21
3143.87
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.56
7.22
24.97
7.46
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.52
2.19
1.00
1.00
252.15
128.66
63.61
1.00
1.00
151.16
1609.51
0.70
1.59
3.45
1.00
1.00
16.31
15.29
1.00
1.00
2.08
8.26
3.51
1.00
3.68
36.34
81.51
31.25
1.00
1.00
9.62
1.59
1.91
7.71
0.80
1.47
2009
132.09
507.34
1.78
1.00
1.12
3889.68
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.59
7.34
26.47
7.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.28
2.33
1.00
1.00
280.72
171.80
67.25
1.00
1.00
130.00
1771.23
0.71
1.51
3.45
1.00
1.00
18.76
15.49
1.00
1.00
2.22
8.74
4.33
1.00
4.24
44.10
93.89
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.62
1.51
2.16
10.86
0.89
1.39
2010
137.69
495.84
1.44
1.00
1.07
3950.53
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.37
7.29
25.27
7.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.52
2.36
1.00
1.00
275.17
161.90
60.56
1.00
1.00
116.23
1530.29
0.71
1.38
3.45
1.00
1.00
16.73
16.40
1.00
1.00
1.84
8.01
3.99
1.00
4.21
40.22
102.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.54
1.38
2.00
10.53
0.86
1.33
2011
140.28
518.23
1.35
1.00
1.10
6884.47
1.00
1.96
1.96
1.38
7.44
24.57
7.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
61.48
2.35
1.00
1.00
279.07
161.37
64.94
1.00
1.00
111.09
1541.39
0.71
1.23
3.45
1.00
1.00
17.29
16.33
1.00
1.00
1.76
7.79
4.12
1.00
4.24
40.88
101.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.03
1.23
2.34
11.09
0.87
1.39
Country
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
53
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE
About the statistics

The International Transport Forum statistics on investment and maintenance expenditure
on transport infrastructure for 1995-2010 are based on a survey sent to 52 member
countries. The survey covers total gross investment (defined as new construction,
extensions, reconstruction, renewal and major repair) in road, rail, inland waterways,
maritime ports and airports, including all sources of financing. It also covers maintenance
expenditures financed by public administrations.
The Secretariat has collected and published data on this topic since the late 1970s. The
latest survey covers the years 1995-2010. Member countries supply data in current prices.
In order to draw up a summary of aggregate trends for selected countries, data has been
calculated in Euro values at both constant (2005) and current prices. In order to ensure
comparability, the Secretariat has devoted a significant amount of effort to collecting
relevant price indices in order to make calculations at constant prices. Where available, a
cost index for construction on land and water is used. Where these indices are not
available, a manufacturing cost index or a GDP deflator is used.
The lack of common definitions and practice to measure transport infrastructure spending
hinders comparisons between countries and between sources of finance. Data for road and
rail infrastructure are the most comprehensive while data on sea port and airport spending
are less detailed in coverage and definition. While our survey covers all sources of finance,
a number of countries exclude private spending from the data reported, including Japan
and India. Around 65% of countries report data on urban spending while for the remaining
countries these data are missing. Indicators such as the share of GDP needed for
investment in transport infrastructure, depend on a number of factors, such as the quality
and age of existing infrastructure, maturity of the transport system, geography of the
country and transport-intensity of its productive sector. Caution is therefore called for when
comparing investment data between countries. However, data for individual countries and
country groups are consistent over time and useful for identifying underlying trends and
changes in levels of spending, especially for inland transport infrastructure.
Aggregates
OECD: Excludes non-ITF states Israel and Chile (at the time of data collection). Data are
not available for Korea.
WECs: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom.
CEECs: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, FYROM, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
North America: Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Australasia: Australia and New Zealand.
54
OECD/ITF 2013
Estimations for missing data

In order to arrive at aggregates, the following investment data are estimated based on
other available data: Austria inland waterways 2011, Belgium 2011, Denmark road 2011,
Greece 1995-1999 and 2008-2011, Hungary 2011, Ireland rail 2008-2011, Italy 2011,
Japan road 2011, Netherlands 1995-1996, New Zealand road 1995-2000, Norway 2011,
Portugal road 2011, Switzerland road 2011, United States 2004-2011 private rail
investment based on U.S. Census Bureau data on Construction Spending. Public rail
investment estimated based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data on Investment in
Government Fixed Assets (transportation). Inland waterways investment estimated based
on data from U.S. Census Bureau data on Construction Spending. Japan does not include
private investments. New Zealand does not include rail.
This summary covers only aggregate trends in inland transport infrastructure (road, rail,
inland waterways). Detailed country data together with more detailed data descriptions and
a note on the methodology are available on the International transport Forum website at:
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/statistics/investment/invindex.html
OECD/ITF 2013
55
Infrastructure 1995-2011
Transport infrastructure is a vital social and economic asset. Its
construction and maintenance absorb signicant resources while
decisions on infrastructure have impacts that last for decades.
The International Transport Forum has collected statistics on
investment and maintenance expenditure in transport infrastructure
since the late 1970s. This report presents aggregate trends in inland
transport infrastructure investment and maintenance since 1995 and
provides data on road, rail, inland waterway, sea port and airport
spending for the International Transport Forum member countries for
the period 1995-2011.
In preparation for the International Transport Forums 2013 Summit
on Funding Transport, a survey was carried out to collect information
on transport policies in member countries. The report presents
broad conclusions on these policies, as well as on infrastructure
performance, funding and strategic plans.
Infrastructure
1995-2011
International Transport Forum

2 rue Andr Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
T +33 (0)1 45 24 97 10
F +33 (0)1 45 24 13 22
Email : itf.contact@oecd.org
Web: www.internationaltransportforum.org
2013-05-20_Spendingintransport_cover.indd 1
2013-05/Photo credits: echo3005 /Shutterstock
2013
14/05/2013 10:13:45

Spending On Transport Infrastructure 1995-2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spending On Transport Infrastructure 1995-2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spending on Transport

International Transport Forum

2013-05/Photo credits: echo3005 /Shutterstock

Trends, Policies, Data

Spending on Transport Infrastructure

THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Trends in the GDP share ........................................................................ 6

3. SUMMARY OF POLICY PRIORITIES ............................................................. 13

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

The International Transport Forum statistics on investment and maintenance expenditure in

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

2. TRENDS IN INLAND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING

2.1. Trends in the GDP share

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

OECD average 2011

Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

An investment level of 1% per GDP became a de facto political benchmark in Western

Road spending per GDP (in constant 2005 Euors, %)

GDP per capita (constant 2005 Euros)

Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

2.2. Volume of investment in inland transport infrastructure

OECD excl Japan

Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Figure 5. Volume of investment in inland transport infrastructure by region 19952010

Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

2.2. Modal split of investment

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Figure 6. Distribution of infrastructure investment between modes

Western European countries

Central and Eastern European countries

Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

2.3. Road maintenance

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

3. SUMMARY OF POLICY PRIORITIES

A survey was carried out in 2012/2013 to collect information on transport investment

One third or 2 400 km of road in Montenegro is unpaved. There are no motorways.

Despite Serbias geographical location on important transport corridors the cross

Although the rail network density in Serbia is comparable to the EU average,

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Rail transport delays in Slovakia occur due to obsolescence and depreciation of

In Sweden, the combination of traffic with different speeds entails in itself a

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Canadas gateways and trade corridors: a system-wide approach

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Across all sectors, the German Government is committed to reducing CO2-emissions by

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

Western European countries

Central and Eastern European countries

Source: International Transport Forum at the OECD.

Establishment of a disaster resistant regional network in Japan by developing high

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011

SPENDING ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2011