Trends in the Transport sector

1970 20 0 8

TRENDS in the Transport Sector

1970 20 0 8

.

Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 3 . Sweden. the Netherlands. as well as the conventions.ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic. Finland. the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. Switzerland. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. Denmark. Portugal. Mexico. Luxembourg. Iceland. guidelines and standards agreed by its members. New Zealand. Germany. Greece. social and environmental issues. Canada. seek answers to common problems. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns. Ireland. identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. Norway. Austria. Spain. France. the United Kingdom and the United States. The OECD member countries are: Australia. Turkey. Belgium. Poland. social and environmental challenges of globalisation. Japan. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic. the Czech Republic. Korea. Italy. the Slovak Republic. such as corporate governance. Hungary. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences.

oecd. websites and teaching materials. presentations. databases and multimedia products in your own documents. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 4 .org/publishing/corrigenda. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.Also available in French under the title: Évolution des transports 1970-2008 This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. download or print OECD content for your own use. blogs. provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies. © OECD/ITF 2010 may be found on line at: You can copy. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.org. and you can include excerpts from OECD publications.com. ISBN 978-92-821-0271-8 (print) ISBN 978-92-821-0272-5 (PDF) Corrigenda to OECD publications www.

Turkey. Australia. Its objective is to serve political leaders and a larger public in developing a better understanding of the role of transport in economic growth and the role of transport policy in addressing the social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. New Zealand. France. Ukraine. Lithuania. India. Poland. The members of the Forum are: Albania.INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM The International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental body within the OECD family. Liechtenstein. Finland. 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. Mexico. Ireland. Korea. Slovakia. Georgia. Latvia. the United Kingdom and the United States. Luxembourg. Romania. Bosnia-Herzegovina. Greece. Denmark. Spain. Italy. Belgium. The Forum’s Secretariat is located in Paris. Sweden. Austria. Switzerland. Germany. Canada. Slovenia. Belarus. Croatia. Hungary. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010 5 . Armenia. Japan. Moldova. The Forum is a global platform for transport policy makers and stakeholders. Montenegro. Malta. Iceland. Portugal. Azerbaijan. Norway. The Forum organises a Conference for Ministers and leading figures from civil society each May in Leipzig. FYROM. and legal instruments of the OECD. Russia. the Czech Republic. Serbia. Netherlands. Germany. Estonia. Bulgaria. signed in Brussels on 17 October 1953.

The Centre conducts co-operative research programmes addressing all modes of transport to support policymaking in member countries and contribute to the Ministerial sessions of the International Transport Forum.org Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 6 . Further information about the International Transport Forum is available on Internet at the following address: www.The OECD and the International Transport Forum established a Joint Transport Research Centre in 2004.internationaltransportforum.

..1.......... 5........ 47 5........2..... References ................... Globally synchronised collapse of trade....... 3.... 40 4............5................................. 31 Investment and maintenance in inland transport infrastructure 1995-2008 ............... 43 4..................................... Data sources.............1. definitions and country notes .. 10 1.............. Introduction to data ...................................................2. The world economy in the Aftermath of the crisis ...6......... 4.......... 16 2.......................... Transport tables and graphs ....................................... 56 2....................................1....... Passenger transport ......................... Volume of investment ............... 35 4....... 35 4...... 16 2...........1................................. Trends in inland transport infrastructure maintenance ............ 47 5... 14 Global trends in transport ..............4............2........... Goods transport ............................2.. Trends in relation to GDP ................... Conclusions . 45 Statistical information ..... 27 The road safety record in ITF countries in 2008....... 9 1........ 86 Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 7 ...... Modal split of investment ....TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ....3....... 10 1............... 36 4........... 39 4. The economic outlook .........

.

the recent economic crisis is of core interest here. Section 1 provides a brief analysis of the macroeconomic situation and of trends in international trade. Section 3 focuses on road safety performance in ITF countries in 2008. indicators include estimates for certain countries for which recent data are not available. Road. and establishes some links to the transport sector. Maritime and air transport data are taken from a variety of sources. In order to provide context for the discussion of transport trends. but not in the detailed tables at the end. Section 2 introduces global transport trends for freight and passenger transport. The data in the detailed tables at the end of this publication relate to the last year for which comprehensive and uniform data provided by member countries were available at the time this brochure was compiled. data for 2009 or 2010 are included in the text. rail and inland waterway transport data for the ITF area are provided to us by the 52 countries that were members of the ITF in 2009. namely 2008. In some cases. Where possible. and section 4 summarises and discusses aggregate trends in investment in transport infrastructure in ITF countries. The last section presents detailed statistical data in the form of tables. For the member countries of the International Transport Forum it illustrates changes that have taken place in the sector since 1970. Naturally. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 9 .INTRODUCTION This publication describes global trends in the transport sector.

8 5.1 1.4 2.4 World North America United States South and Central America Europe CIS Africa Middle East Asia China Japan India Source: WTO (2010).0 2.1 8. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 10 . THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 1. global economic growth declined from 3.6% in 2008.4 2.3 4. 2007-2009 (Annual % change at constant 2005 prices) 2007 3. with marked differences between regions (Table 1). world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated to have fallen 2.7 9.4 -0.0 -7. South and Central America includes the Caribbean.0 5. In the wake of the dramatic escalation and spread of the financial crisis that originated in the United States in September 2008.8 -4.0 13.8 5.2 2.1.4 2008 1.5 0.8 2. In 2009. GDP by region. The world economy in the aftermath of the crisis The global economy is recovering slowly from the most severe recession since the Great Depression.0 0.3 2009 -2.0 0.6 1.9 8.5 -5.8% in 2007 to 1. Table 1.2 7.4 5.3 -2.7 5.1 6.6 0.1.7 -2.3 5.0 -1.5 6.3 9.3% (WTO 2010).

spilling over from the financial sector and severely affecting the rest of the economy. overtaking the United States. especially of durables like cars. while new vehicle registrations fell by over 30% from 2008 (Ward’s Automotive Group). The automobile sector sheds light on the changed face of the global economy One of the sectors hit hard by the crisis was the automobile industry. falling stock markets and property prices drained disposable wealth. China became the world’s leading automobile market in 2009. Chinese household expenditure on new cars grew massively.5 million unit mark. creating serious difficulties for manufacturers. Moreover. The financial crisis disrupted the normal operation of the banking system and deprived numerous firms and members of the public of access to credit. 2009 saw automobile sales slump by more than 20% in the United States. Taking advantage of tax cuts and aided by government support programmes for the automobile industry. hitting the 13. The total number of cars taken off the roads and scrapped was higher than the number of new car deliveries. Vehicle sales in China surged by 45% in 2009. Although dominant in the Chinese market.The United States’ economy had entered recession already in December 2007. indicating a contraction of the US vehicle stock in 2009. The crisis then escalated abruptly following the collapse of the Wall Street investment bank Lehman Brothers in September 2008 and the subsequent bail out of a number of other banks. foreign car Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 11 . not just in the United States. The result was that many households postponed purchases. The credit crunch took hold. Box 1. A group of national champions in the automobile market is emerging to take on foreign manufacturers both at home and abroad.

it was particularly generous in some countries. While the amount of aid generally varied between EUR 1 000 and EUR 2 000 per car. subsidised credit. Austria. Italy. the credit allocated to these programmes was exhausted before the planned expire date.1 to 0. Some Indian car makers have also entered international markets. The scope and terms. with Tata acquiring Jaguar from Ford in 2009 and REVA marketing electric cars in Europe. The Chinese Geely group recently bought Volvo from Ford. However. France and the Slovak Republic and. The impact in terms of increased GDP growth ranged from 0. sometimes in return for sales of lowemission cars to replace older vehicles. purchase incentive measures appeared to have some success in slowing or cushioning the downturn in OECD economies at the end of 2008 and into the early months of 2009. Subsequent to these measures substantial rises in sales figures were recorded in Germany. A brief review of the automobile industry shows that in terms of added value and jobs. at the macroeconomic level. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 12 . loan guarantees and temporary financial assistance.companies are currently required to build vehicles in joint ventures with local firms. there are large differences between countries: the automobile industry accounts for almost 4% of total output in the Germany and the Czech Republic. it represents a relatively small share of the economy in OECD Member countries. particularly the duration. of these programmes varied a great deal from one country to another: in Germany and the United States.4% of the annual GDP of the countries concerned (OECD 2009a). Stimulus packages included scrapping bonuses. The strategic nature of this sector for such countries prompted the governments of several major economies to include support for car purchase in measures to counter the economic crisis.

Forecasts for global economic growth in 2010 are positive.That said.6% (World Bank 2010). varying between 2. while for Europe and Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 13 . At the time of publication. although quite moderate in some places. Seasonally adjusted growth in GDP has remained positive for three consecutive quarters in the OECD as a whole. with real interest rates approaching zero. Most of the stimulus packages have significant transport components. but the prospects differ greatly across countries. where growth is expected to be strong in 2010. Furthermore. In the United States alone. including China. including major public spending programs as well as bailouts for major banks and mortgage assistance in the United States. The OECD forecast for the G7 countries suggest that the growth in the United States will continue expand faster than in Japan and the largest euro-area countries (OECD 2010). The OECD countries benefit from their trade linkages with emerging-market economies. a potential crowding-out effect cannot be ruled out: consumers were certainly able to buy new cars but to the detriment of other consumer spending. which makes it difficult to estimate the net effect. the Recovery Act provides USD 35 billion for highway infrastructure projects and public transportation. India and Brazil. signs are that the global economy has returned to growth. experience shows that sales decline as soon as the measures come to an end and that they may simply have brought sales forward (ECMT 1999). Many countries were quick to respond to the crisis with fiscal stimulus programmes. GDP in the East Asia and Pacific region is expected to grow by more than 8% in 2010. Central banks kept interest rates low.1% (OECD 2010) and 3.

all with economies badly hit by the economic downturn.Central Asia growth projections suggest less than 3% growth for the year (World Bank 2010). is unclear as stimulus effects have temporarily provided relief. The share of developing economies in world trade reached a record high in 2008 when their exports accounted for 38% of total world exports in value terms. accounting for almost 10% of world exports. showed a very significant decline in imports. the United States and Japan. the volume of global trade is estimated to have contracted by 12%.2. Transport services recorded the largest drop among service categories (WTO 2010). down from over 6% in 2007. Germany. Real growth in trade in goods was 2% in 2008. The European Union. 1. the largest decline since the Second World War. The United States kept its position as the world’s Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 14 . Globally synchronised collapse of trade The recession has had a strong impact on world trade. China saw its exports falter at the end of 2008 and finally decline by over 10% in 2009. In 2009. Uncertainties remain on what will happen once these packages come to an end and if private spending will be strong enough to carry forward the government stimulus for growth. was overtaken by China in 2009. the world’s leading goods exporter in 2008. Tables 1 and 2 highlight the weak economic performance of some of the most important economic areas in 2008 and 2009. Precisely how strong the recovery is. China’s exports to its six main partners (counting the EU as a single partner) accounted for more than 70% of its total exports in 2007. Despite a good overall performance in this difficult economic context.

9 -16. facilitated by improvements in transportation technologies. while China passed Germany as the second largest importer in the world in 2009 (WTO 2010).0 2.9 -5.7 2007 6.1 17.leading importer of goods.9 2.1 2.6 -7. Table 2.2 7.3 14.3 -16.1 5.8 9. as exports of manufactured goods involve multiple border crossings of intermediate goods. South and Central America includes Caribbean. The fall in world trade was much greater than in previous recessions.4 -14.8 4.6 2.3 Exports 2008 2.9 -11.3 2009 -12.8 -4. International Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010 15 .5 8.1 -10.4 19.7 -0.3 17.4 Source: WTO.2 -14.5 -5.7 19.7 13.2 4.6 -10.8 1. 2007-2009 (Annual % change at constant 2005 prices) 2007 6.8 0.1 14. The fragmentation of production and the global nature of supply chains mean that any impact on value added in each production stage is multiplied.6 4.8 -1.2 0.7 2.4 -3.6 Imports 2008 2.2 13.9 -6.7 3.8 -12. A number of reasons have been suggested to explain such a steep decline in trade volume. The globalisation of production processes.6 -4.6 16.2 -5.2 -2.4 14.3 -14.8 14.5 -16.5 -20.4 -13.3 14.4 4.0 1.4 -9. Contraction in demand has been put forward as a main factor.5 -24. has likely increased trade elasticities over time. A specific feature of the decline is the globally-synchronised nature of the trade collapse.6 8.9 13.8 6.7 3.3 18. Merchandise trade by region.8 2009 -12.3 5.5 11.5 4.4 0.3 World North America United States South and Central America Europe CIS Africa Middle East Asia China Japan India 4.1 2.

with over 80% of world merchandise trade by volume being carried by sea. though the growth rate. coal. GLOBAL TRENDS IN TRANSPORT 2.8%.5%). the volume of international seaborne trade was estimated by UNCTAD at 32 746 tonnemiles. Due to the interconnected nature of the global economy. with preliminary data for 2009. it is not surprising that the crisis has had an extremely strong impact on the transport sector. especially during the last quarter of 2008. slowed in comparison to 2007 (4. Growth in global transport of goods was recorded for 2008 as a whole but with the economic downturn.6%. at slower rate than previously.supply chains and advanced information technologies allow for producers in different regions also to react to market conditions in another market rapidly (OECD 2009b. WTO 2010). In terms of tonnes loaded. reflecting the full impact of the crisis. world seaborne trade also continued to grow and was estimated at 8. 2. Maritime transport remains the backbone of international trade.17 billion tonnes. alumina Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010 16 .1. Goods transport The economic crisis at the end of 2008 and the collapse of world trade in 2009 have had a major impact on the transport sector. at the onset of the crisis. We now turn our focus to global transport trends in 2008. representing an increase of 4. grain. right around the world. at 3. Tonne-miles for major dry bulks (iron ore. In 2008.

compared with a 7% increase the year before. selected years (billions of tonne-miles) 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Oil Source: UNCTAD (2009). 1 Container traffic measured as all containers handled. In 2008. world seaborne trade of oil grew less than 2% compared with 3. Figure 1. empty and transhipped containers. Main dry bulks Other The impact of crisis in container traffic was 1 obvious already in 2008. Over 60% of goods loaded in the world originate in developing regions while developed economies account for nearly 34% of goods loaded. For other dry cargo. tonne-miles grew by 6%. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 17 . The remaining 6% originate in transition economies (UNCTAD 2009). reflecting growth in volumes rather than distance travelled. World seaborne trade. including full.2% growth in 2007. World container traffic increased only by 4% in 2008 while the growth in TEUs had exceeded 30% the year before. Oil trade was affected by developments in energy prices.and phosphate) increased 5% in 2008.

The ten biggest ports. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 18 . world’s leading container ports are located mainly in Asia. This is illustrated in the following Figure 2. showing the size of world container movements by region of origin. World container traffic (TEU) Year 2007 2008 2009 TEU (000) 481 980 501 479 370 656 % 30. As Table 4 also illustrates.0 -26. accounted for more than 30% of all container transport in the world.Table 3. Figure 2. in terms of TEUs.1 Source: Containerization International.4 4. The main container movements in 2008 originated from Asia to Europe and North America. World container movements by region of origin Source: ITF Secretariat based on Containerization International. Asia’s weight in world merchandise trade remains strong.

1 Port Singapore Shanghai Hong Kong Shenzhen Busan Guangzhou Dubai Ningbo Qingdao Rotterdam 2009 25 866 25 002 20 983 18 250 11 955 11 190 11 124 10 503 10 260 9 743 Source: Containerization International.7 11 001 -5.5 29 918 -10. Estimates by AXS Alphaliner put the cumulative operating losses of the world’s largest specialist container shipping companies at Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010 19 . The very high losses reported by maritime companies in 2009 are a further indication of the widespread decline in the volume of merchandise traded within and between the major economic centres. the 10 leading world ports in terms of container traffic remained the same as in 2008. Impact of crisis on container transport in 2009 The impact of the economic crisis on container traffic in 2009 was drastic. Shanghai can lay claim to second place with a throughput of TEU 25 million in 2009.1 13 453 1.4 19. Box 2. Singapore retained its ranking as the world’s top container port.1 1. These declines were the result of falling exports from Asia: the volume of container flows between North East Asia and North America fell by over 14% in the third quarter of 2009.6 27 980 -14. In world trade.8 10 800 % 08/07 7. with a throughput of almost 26 million TEU.8 21 414 -11.6 10 320 -9. Overall.9 9. The 10 leading world ports in terms of container traffic (TEU) World ranking 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (8) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (10) 10 (9) Total TEU (000) % 2008 09/08 -13.5 1.Table 4.0 2.6 11.0 19.5% in Singapore and by nearly 11% in Shanghai.3 24 494 -14. World container traffic fell by over 26% in 2009.1 0.1 7.4 11 226 -0.9 11 827 -6. Volumes were down by 13. Both ports saw their performance decline in 2009.

Airlines in the Asia/Pacific region also suffered.with cumulative turnover to 30 September 2009 plummeting by 40% to USD 56 billion.5% decline in 2008. Only airlines in the Middle East continued to generate freight growth through 2008.6%. Latin America suffered the largest drop in annual freight volumes. with 13. the decline from the middle of year resulted in a total for 2008 4% lower than 2007. An unprecedented 22. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 20 .6% fall on the same month of the previous year was recorded in December 2008. The figures for 16 of the leading maritime companies to publish their results on 30 September 2009 show an operating loss of USD 9 billion compared with a profit of USD 5.3 billion from January to September 2008 -. when terrorist attacks grounded capacity. declining 6. While the year began with a rate of growth around 4% in international freight tonne-kilometres. Until then the largest monthly fall recorded in the past 30 years (-14%) was in September 2001. This is comparable to air transport deficits and illustrates the extent of the crisis that hit the transport sector. Air freight volumes collapsed in 2008.USD 11 billion over the first 9 months of 2009. The collapse in the volume of merchandise carried and the hefty reduction in prices on offer to clients cost these 16 firms USD 38 billion in lost revenue in 2009 (AXS Alphaliner). providing an exception to the general industry experience (IATA 2008).

1 -4. Air freight growth by region 2008 and 2009 (freight tonne-kilometres) Region Africa Asia/Pacific Europe Latin America Middle East North America Total Source: IATA (2008 and 2009).0 Box 3.9 -4. the level of air freight volume was 8% lower than in early 2008.9 -10.1 % 08/07 -2.6 -10.2 -9.Table 5. Air freight carried by Asia/Pacific airlines accounted for over 60% of the increase during 2009. At the end of 2009. Impact of crisis on air freight Air freight experienced an extreme down and up during 2009.3 -1. Again. airlines in the Middle East provided the only exception to the overall picture with nearly 4% growth in freight tonne-kilometres in 2009 (IATA 2009). Still.2 -16. Recovery in Asia has been far faster with China’s economy growing nearly 9% in 2009.0 3. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 21 . The low point in terms of freight tonne kilometres was in December 2008 as already noted.5 6.8 -13. At the end of 2009.6 -2. There are marked differences between regions. % 09/08 -11. Still. The total for 2009 was over 10% down on 2008 which was the largest post-war decline for the international airline industry. the drop at the end of 2008 was so drastic that markets had not yet fully recovered by the end of 2009. freight volumes carried by European airlines were only 5% up from the December 2008 low and still 20% below the early 2008 levels.5 -6. air freight volumes were 24% higher than they were the year before.

-10.5% in 2008 (UIC 2009).Rail freight transport was also hit by the global economic crisis in the last quarter of 2008.4% in the European Union and there were very substantial drops in new member states (-29.1% in Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 22 . In the European Union. In India freight traffic increased by 8. Rail freight T-km in the EU25. Figure 3.5% in Estonia. The decline in tonne-kilometres by rail was of the order of 2. a growth rate very close to that of 2007 (+9.4%.4%) according to UIC figures. -4. The United States and Russia account for around 90% of overall rail freight in ITF member countries excluding India (which joined the organisation in 2009).6%. Russian Federation and the United States. rail freight volumes fell by 8.7% respectively. compared to the same period of the previous year. China’s rate of rail freight growth fell from 7% in 2007 to 3.5% in Bulgaria.7% and 5. Russian Federation and United States (growth compared to the same period of the previous year) 15 10 5 EU United States Q1/08 -5 Q2/08 Q3/08 Q4/08 Russia % 0 -10 -15 Source: ITF Quarterly Transport Statistics The performance in the last quarter of 2008 affected the overall results for the year 2008. 10.

18% in Korea. 24% in Germany. These figures give an idea of the full force of the economic crisis that struck in the early months of 2009.). performance in tonne-kilometres was down by 18% in the United States. ITF data from its quarterly transport statistics showed that.3% (see Table A1 in section 5. Rail freight traffic (billion tonne-kilometres) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 USA China Russia India Europe without CIS 2007 2008 Source: ITF and UIC.Poland). Equally clear is the decline of over 11% recorded in France and of just less than 6% in Italy. 17% in Russia. in the United States the increase was a mere 0.2% and +0. Although Russia and Germany did see a slight increase in rail freight transport (+1. respectively). Figure 4. Box 4.9%. 35% in Poland and 40% in Bulgaria. Impact of crisis on rail freight in 2009 In the second quarter of 2009.2. Analysis of seasonally adjusted data suggests the decline was already slowing down during the second quarter of 2009 and the latest data from the third quarter 2009 confirms that the decline has come to an end in a number of countries around Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010 23 . compared with the second quarter of 2008.

rail freight volumes were still 5% and 14% respectively below the levels of a year before.the world. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 24 . the overall rail freight volume in Q3/2009 in the EU is still 21% below the level of the same quarter in 2008.5% during the third quarter. the second consecutive quarter with an increase since the start of the economic crisis. The decline seems to have come to a halt in Germany and Poland (4. rail freight volumes remain depressed compared to their pre-crisis levels.1% increase respectively). there are marked differences between countries. In the United States.0%. while data for Italy and France suggests further decline since the previous quarter. rail freight volume grew by 3. Figure 5. Rail freight traffic in Russian Federation and the USA (million tonne-km. seasonally adjusted) 700000 600000 United States 500000 Russia 400000 Q3/04 Q3/05 Q3/06 Q3/07 Q3/08 Q3/09 Source: ITF Quarterly Briefing Q3/2009 Within the EU. and only 4% above its lowest level. In the Russian Federation and the United States. In the United Kingdom. rail freight volume rose by 7. However. In the Russian Federation. However. the first quarter of growth since the beginning of 2008. recorded in the second quarter of 2009.2%. tonnekilometres by rail increased slightly by 0.3% and 2.

Impact of economic crisis on road freight The ITF figures for early 2009 reveal a decline in road haulage within the European area.2).Figure 6. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 25 . respectively). +8. The quarterly statistics for the second quarter of 2009 showed a year-on-year decline of over 12% in the tonne-kilometre figures for Spain and 16% for France. while for Russia the figure was down 23%. like Poland and Bulgaria. Nevertheless. +9.1%. Russia and Moldova. was of the order of 1.2% in the EU in 2008 with declines of the order of 6% in freight moved in France and Spain and over 8% in Belgium and Portugal (see Table A2 in section 5. all recorded increases (+5. Hungary 7% and Finland 22%. +21%.2%. Rail freight traffic in the EU (million tonne-km.1%. Box 5. expressed in tonnekilometres. The decline in activity. There is accordingly evidence of a widespread and substantial decline in road haulage in early 2009. seasonally adjusted) 110000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 Q3/97 Q3/98 Q3/99 Q3/00 Q3/01 Q3/02 Q3/03 Q3/04 Q3/05 Q3/06 Q3/07 Q3/08 Q3/09 Source: ITF Quarterly Briefing Q3/2009 Road freight transport suffered in 2008 but data show marked differences between regions.

although substantial declines were seen in 2008 in Croatia (-27. Poland. percentage change on the previous quarter.2% for Finland. Also in the Czech Republic.4 5.5 1.7 1. while estimates show an increase of 4.3 -0. Among the countries with road freight volumes that continued to decline were Spain.5% in France.6%) and Romania (-7. Figure 7.9% for Latvia and 4. a significant increase was noted in the Netherlands (close to +10%).3 -2. Serbia (-13.5 4.5%). and Hungary. compared to the previous quarter. Seasonally adjusted estimates for road tonne-kilometres increased by 5. Latest seasonally adjusted data for the third quarter 2009 show varying trends for countries where data is available.5%). Russia (-26%). seasonally adjusted data for a number of countries show growth. In the inland waterway sector. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 26 . Sweden.8 -0.which is likely to have undermined the financial situation of hauliers.9 4. Russia and Lithuania road freight volume grew compared with the previous quarter. While freight volumes were still at a depressed level compared with the same quarter the previous year. Road freight in selected countries Q3/2009 (tonne-km).2 Source: ITF Quarterly Briefing Q3/2009. seasonally adjusted 6 5 4 3 2 % 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 France Latvia Finland Czech Republic Russia Lithuania Spain Sweden Poland Hungary -2.5 1.

0 2. Airlines around the world started cutting capacity as the crisis hit the industry but they were still not able to respond sufficiently to the crisis in 2008 and.5 1. load factors fell sharply in December (IATA 2008). Table 6. international passenger volumes measured as revenue passenger kilometres fell 4.6 -5.6% in December compared to the same month in the previous year.2.3 11.6 Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 27 .6% compared with 7.5 % 08/07 -4. % 09/08 -6. Air travel growth by region in 2008 and 2009 (Revenue pass-km) Region Africa Asia/Pacific Europe Latin America Middle East North America Total Source: IATA (2008 and 2009). Although air travel did not fall as dramatically as air freight at the end of 2008. Air passenger traffic carried by IATA members in 2008 grew 1.8 -5. as a result. we still observe a decline in growth for the year as a whole.9 1. A similar decline had already taken place in November.4% growth in 2007.0 -1.6 -3.2. Revenue passenger kilometres for the year 2008 as a whole.5% respectively) while other regions experienced weak growth in 2008.2 7. However.8 10.2 -5. affecting the overall numbers for the year. recorded net falls for airlines in Africa and the Asia/Pacific region (-4. Passenger transport Passenger transport was not affected by the global crisis as significantly as the freight sector in 2008.0% and -1.0 0.

Throughout 2009. 7. 6. rail passenger transport turned in a positive performance in 2008 (see Table B1 in section 5.3% in Finland and close to 6% in France. Europe and North America) experienced a 5-6 % decline in 2009 overall. Airlines in all three of the largest regions (Asia/Pacific. passenger-kilometres increased by more than 3.2).8% in the United States and 6% in Australia.4% from the February low point to the end of 2009.Box 6. India recorded growth in passengerTrends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010 28 . The Asia/Pacific region seems to have recovered better towards the end of the year with growth boosted by the economic recovery in the region. month-by-month trends were volatile but IATA data show an upturn from February 2009. while European and North American airlines showed a much weaker recovery. Impact of crisis on air travel The world air passenger transport sector has been showing signs of improvement since mid 2009. with Asia/Pacific airlines contributing 35% of this growth. While provisional data showed that passenger-kilometres levelled off in Japan (-0.7% in Spain. Air passenger volumes grew 8.5% in 2009. 2008 seems to have been a good year for rail passenger transport overall. they nevertheless increased by 8. despite the second half upturn international passenger transport by air fell 3. However.6%).5% and rose by 13% in Austria.7% in Canada. In the EU. With the global crisis affecting most transport sectors. Traffic in Europe and North America and between these two markets remained the core of the world air passenger transport business despite a decline of over 3% between November 2009 and November 2008 (IATA 2009). despite the economic climate of recession. In both the OECD and the ITF overall. 9.

Figure 8.7%) compared with the previous quarter. In the EU area. our new estimate for the third quarter suggests a fall in the EU as a whole (-0. Sweden and Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010 29 . While the ITF Quarterly Briefing for the second quarter 2009 recorded signs of recovery for rail passenger transport. Impact of crisis on rail passenger transport in 2009 The decline in rail passenger transport has not been as significant as for rail freight.4% in the second quarter 2009 compared with the year before. This masks positive developments in a number of countries. There are nevertheless great variations between countries. down from 13% in 2007.kilometres of 11% in 2008. and China saw growth in traffic of 7% in 2008 slightly down on 2007 according to the UIC (UIC 2009). Box 7. Seasonally adjusted estimates show that this fall had already come to an at least temporary end in the second quarter. Passenger-kilometres increased around one percent in Germany. rail passenger volume declined only by 1. Rail passenger traffic (billion pass-km) 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 China India Europe without CIS Japan Russia 2007 2008 Source: ITF and UIC.

5 -2 -2.the United Kingdom. Data on passenger kilometres travelled in private cars are less detailed but overall indicate a decline in travel in 2008.5 1.7 -0. this decline was slightly over 1% (-1.8 -1.9 Q3/09 -1.1 1 0. Figure 9.2%.8% and Japan saw passenger- Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 30 .2 1.5 Germany United Kingdom Sweden EU United States France Spain Poland Italy Russia -3. 1.0 0.5 0 -0. Canada recorded a decline of 1.7 Source: ITF Quarterly Briefing Q3/2009.5 -3 -3. 1. while the volume fell in Spain.5 -2. Rail passenger transport in the EU (million pass-km) 100000 95000 90000 85000 Original series 80000 75000 70000 65000 Seasonally adjusted Trend Q3/98 Q3/99 Q3/00 Q3/01 Q3/02 Q3/03 Q3/04 Q3/05 Q3/06 Q3/07 Q3/08 -1.2% in Spain and 1% in France. Within the EU.3 Source: ITF Quarterly Briefing Q3/2009.8 in Germany. Italy and France as well as in Russia and the United States. Figure 10. Rail passenger transport in the EU (million pass-km) 1.0 -0. to be exact) with a fall of over 6% in Italy.5 % -1 -1.

kilometres fall section 5.2).

by

0.7%

(see

Table

B2

in

Passenger transport by bus and coach saw a mix of trends: an appreciable decline in some of the new member states of the EU (-15.1% in the Slovak Republic, -2.8% in Slovenia and -2.1% in Poland) but increases in France (+3.2%) and Spain (+2.9%) as well as Italy (+0.9%). The overall figures for the EU are positive, showing a small increase in bus and coach transport of around 0.5%. It would seem that one of the outcomes of the economic crisis felt from the start of the third quarter of 2008 was that public passenger transport was less affected than transport by private car (see Table B3 in section 5.2).

3. THE ROAD SAFETY RECORD IN ITF COUNTRIES IN 2008

For the first time ever the number of people killed in road accidents fell below 150 000 in the 2 ITF member countries in 2008 (excluding India) . Road fatalities recorded the biggest decrease since 1990 with a drop of 8.9% in 2008 compared to 2007. During the same period, despite a drop of 5.7%, the number of injured in road accidents remains above 6 million. While 2008 figures represent a significant decline of the number of casualties from the previous year, they still show that road travel is taking a terrible toll. Within ITF countries, it compares to wiping out the entire
2

ITF data does not yet cover India which joined the organisation in 2009.

Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 -

OECD/ITF 2010

31

population of the city of Luxembourg, and sending all the residents of Lisbon to hospital.

Box 8. First indications on road safety in 2009 First indications concerning road fatality figures for 2009, from the ITF and IRTAD databases, reveal a continuing significant reduction in the number of road deaths for most countries. For example, improvement in Poland of 16%, Sweden 10% and Russia 9%. Lithuania recorded almost a 25% reduction and Greece a drop of 7%. Australia is one of the very few countries showing an increase (+4%) in road fatalities in 2009 when compared to the previous year. Despite the degree of precaution required when dealing with provisional figures, the trend for 2009 seems to present results as favourable as 2008, at least where mortality figures are concerned. This would appear to be due in part to the moderating effects on road traffic growth of the economic crisis in all developed countries that started at the end of 2008 and continued until mid 2009 although the generally 1-3% declines in traffic in no way account for all of the 10% improvement in fatalities recorded on average for 2009 in the countries that have submitted data so far.

The overall picture for road safety for 2008 shows the largest improvement since 1990. In the European Union, the number of crashes fell by 5% in 2008. The total number of casualties (injured + killed) fell 5.5% and fatalities were 8% lower, the best results for all three indicators since 1974. These positive results can be credited to countries including Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy and France which recorded significant drops in their number of fatalities of 10, 19, 14, 8 and 7% respectively in 2008 compared to 2007. Romania
Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010

32

is one of the few countries that saw an increase in the number of road fatalities in 2008 with a 10% increase over 2007. In the CIS, the three indicators also show large improvements in 2008, -8% for crashes, -9% for casualties and -11% for killed. These results mainly reflect the road safety trend in Russia which recorded drops of 7, 8 and 10% respectively during the same period. The weight of Russia affects strongly the overall trends for the region and hides divergences at the country level. In Moldova and Georgia, for example, the number of road fatalities increased by 8 and 18% respectively in 2008. Many of the non-European ITF member countries also recorded significant improvements in road safety in 2008. The United States saw a strong improvement in all 3 indicators, -5% in injury accidents, -6% in casualties and -9% in fatalities, compared to 2007. Japan also recorded significant declines for those indicators with -8, -9 and -9% respectively. Although not as significant, New Zealand also reported an improvement of the 3 road safety indicators in 2008 compared to the previous year. The figures given above describe trends in a few key indicators. However, the degree of risk on the roads in any given country cannot be assessed simply by looking at road fatality trends. The number of killed has to be related to both population and the number of motor vehicles in order to gain a clearer picture of the status of road safety. These indicators vary greatly from one country to another. In Western European countries, deaths per million population ranged from 83 for Portugal to 36 for Malta with Greece and Belgium outliers with 138 and 100 road fatalities per million inhabitants respectively. In Central European countries deaths

Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 -

OECD/ITF 2010

33

per million population reach higher levels ranking from 150 for Croatia to 96 for Albania. Only FYROM with a ratio of 79 lies outside this range. In CIS countries deaths per million population remains relatively high, ranging from 211 for Russia to 121 for Azerbaijan. For non European countries the indicator varies across a wide range, from 123 for the United States to 47 for Japan. Expressed in terms of the stock of motor vehicles, the number of fatalities per million motor vehicles must be used with caution as a result of uncertainties surrounding the estimation of the number of vehicles in service. Nevertheless, analysis reveals fairly divergent levels of road safety between Central and Western Europe. In Western Europe this indicator varied from 201 in Greece to 74 in Sweden in 2008, whereas in Central Europe, it ranged from 921 deaths per million motor vehicles in Albania to 169 in Slovenia. By way of comparison, in countries presenting sharply differing characteristics from Europe, the number of fatalities per million motor vehicles in 2008 was 293 in Korea but only 73 in Japan. The IRTAD database gives statistics for certain countries on the number of road accident deaths according to billion vehicle kilometres travelled. The following Table shows these figures for 2008.

Table 7. Number of road accident deaths in 2008 by billion vehicle-kilometres
Country Rate Country Rate AUS 6.5 GRB 5 CHE 5.6 IRL 5.7 CZE 19.5 ISL 3.9 DNK 8.2 KOR 20.1 DEU 6.5 NZE 9.1 FRA 7.7 SWE 5.1

Source: IRTAD.

Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 -

OECD/ITF 2010

34

4. INVESTMENT AND MAINTENANCE IN INLAND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 1995-2008

4.1. Introduction to data The International Transport Forum statistics on investment and maintenance expenditure on transport infrastructure for 1995-2008 are based on a survey sent to 51 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, as well as maintenance expenditures financed by public administrations. Based on the responses received before th 17 March 2010, data for 39 countries is analysed here. The ITF has collected and published data on this topic since the late 1970s. Member countries supply data in current prices. In order to draw up a summary of aggregate trends data has been calculated in Euro values at both constant (2005) and current prices. In order to ensure comparability, relevant price indices are required. The Secretariat has devoted a significant amount of effort collecting relevant price indices in order to make calculations at constant prices. Where available, a cost index for land and water construction is used. Where these indices are not available, a manufacturing cost index or a GDP deflator is used.
Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 OECD/ITF 2010

35

org/statistic s/investment/invindex. geography of the country and transport-intensity of the country’s productive sector.internationaltransportforum.Despite the relatively long time series. these data are often dogged by problems of definition and coverage. We therefore call for caution when comparing investment data between countries. the investment share of GDP dedicated to transport infrastructure depends on a number of factors.html. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 36 .0% in 1982 after which it levelled off. Detailed country data on other items (maritime ports and airports) together with more detailed data descriptions and a note on the methodology are available at http://www. This summary covers only aggregate trends in inland transport infrastructure (road. This investment level of 1% per GDP remained a norm for many years such that it became de facto political benchmark and recommendation for infrastructure investment. rail. such as the quality and age of the existing infrastructure.5% in 1975 to 1. Also there exists no purchasing power parity corrected general index for transport infrastructure investment. 97/1). Our first reports from the 1980s noted that the average share fell from 1. 4. though with no theoretical or research basis behind it (ECMT Resolution no. Trends in relation to GDP The International Transport Forum data show that investment in inland transport infrastructures as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has declined steadily in Western Europe since the 1970s. etc. Obviously.2. which make international comparisons difficult. inland waterways).2% in 1980 and further to 1.

has grown sharply. Spain. Estonia.the highest figure ever reported by these countries. Ireland. Poland. In the Central and Eastern European 4 countries (CEECs) the share of investment in inland transport infrastructure. Historically. likely further affecting the level of investment in roads.9% in 2008 -. has continued to decline. Denmark.0% in 1995 and less than 0. at around 0. Czech Republic. 4 Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 37 . Romania. Germany. 1. transport infrastructure investment has been relatively high in relation to GDP but has been in decline since the 1990s. Hungary.6–0. However. jumping to 1. explaining the strong decline in investment relative to GDP. Data for Japan indicates some interesting differences to the analysis above. Iceland. Latvia. In 3 Belgium. the lowest recorded level since our records began (Figure 11).Our most recent data show that investment in inland transport infrastructure as a percentage of 3 GDP in the Western European countries (WECs) . A decision has recently been made to modify the gasoline tax such that revenues go to the general budget. Finland. where the share has remained relatively constant over time. Slovakia and Slovenia.8% per cent in 2007 and 2008. Sweden. FYROM. Luxembourg. United Kingdom Croatia.7% of GDP. France. Serbia. since the end of the 1990s expenditure has been affected by general budget cuts. The GDP share of inland transport investment in the WECs is apparently approaching that of the United States. which until 2002 had remained stagnant at around 1% of GDP. It seems that the direct funding mechanism via earmarked tax revenues was partly responsible for the relatively high level of transport investment. The major source of funding for road investment in Japan has been earmarked gasoline and registration tax revenues for highway development and maintenance.

reinforced by the demands of growing economies. Figure 11. The rising levels of investment in the Central and Eastern European countries certainly reflect efforts to compensate for the earlier underinvestment in the road network capital stock.0 % 1. current prices and exchange rates.5 1.7% of GDP.the Russian Federation investment was 1. Note: CEECs and WECs in Euros.0 0.0 2.4% of GDP by 2003 because of the even stronger real growth in GDP.0 Russian Federation United States 1992 2000 WECs 2003 CEECs 2008 Japan Source: ITF Investment in Transport Infrastructure. Japan 2008 refers to 2007. the share of inland transport infrastructure investment declined to 1.5 3. Data for 2008 shows renewed growth in investment. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 38 . reaching 1.5 0.5 2.9% of GDP in 2000. Investment in inland transport infrastructure as a percentage of GDP at current prices 3. Despite growth in investment volume. It is also clear that aid from the European Union as part of the accession process for most of these countries played a major part in this development.

Investment in inland transport infrastructure fell by over 4% from 2003 to 2007 in real terms. The volume of investment grew 33% from 2007 to 2008. but available data on investment in highways and local roads suggest a continuation of this trend until 2007. However.5% growth from 2007 to 2008 but the volume of investment is still nearly 2% lower than in 2003. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 39 . Volume of investment In the Western European countries. Lack of comparable data from 2003 onwards has limited further analysis. This growth. The volume of inland infrastructure investment in the United States grew by 36 per cent from 1995 to 2001. reported also in our previous survey. Our data on the Russian Federation also show that the growth in the volume of inland infrastructure investment continued strongly in 2008. The latest data for highways and local roads shows 5% growth in 2008 in real terms. This period of slow growth appeared to come to a halt in 2001 when investment in inland transport infrastructure increased by 18% in real terms through 2003. the volume of investment grew by only around a half per cent from 1995 to 2000. data show a falling trend since 2001. The volume of infrastructure investment has accelerated strongly in Central and Eastern European countries since 2003. However. driven by the federal economic stimulus spending.3. The latest data show 2. Investment in inland transport infrastructure increased over 17% in real terms from 2007 to 2008 and the level is currently over 100% higher than the point at which growth began.4. rising to a new peak in real terms. has shown no signs of slowing down. new data show that the level of investment has since declined. in 2003.

the share of road investment amounted less than 65% of total investment in inland transport infrastructure in 2008. Inland transport infrastructure investment in 2007 was nearly 42% lower than in 1995 in real terms. constant prices. 2005 exchange rates. We had already witnessed a fall from nearly Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - 2008 OECD/ITF 2010 40 . While the share of road investment amounted to close to 80% in Western Europe in 1975. According to our latest data. Note: CEECs and WECs in Euros. Figure 12. the share of investment in road infrastructure compared with that in rail infrastructure has continued to decline.Data for Japan likely reflects both the declining funds available. Trends in annual investment in inland transport infrastructure (1995=100) at constant 2005 prices 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 CEECs Russia United States WECs Japan 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: ITF Investment in Transport Infrastructure. Modal split of investment Data presented in Figure 13 show long-run trends in the modal share of investment. the latest figures show a strong decline. and the maturity of the national transport system. especially for road investment. In the Western European Countries.4. 4.

69% in 1995. The share had constantly fallen from over 35% at the end of the 1990s to only 13% in 2006 (Figure 14). While the volume of road investment has continued to grow strongly. For inland waterways there has been a slight decrease in recent years. The trend observed in our data for the Western European Countries is certainly a reflection of the political commitment to the railways. The last two years in particular show a sharp increase in rail share. to slightly below 67% in 2005. While this trend was noted in our previous surveys. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 41 . as a share of total investment in inland transport infrastructure. with an increase in the modal share of rail investment in 2008. and the recent data does not seem to indicate any change in this commitment. This is the second consecutive year with a significant increase. reached 17% in 2007 and 18% in 2008. the last two years (2007 and 2008) seem to indicate a turn in the trend. Poland and Romania. in real terms. especially in the European Union. Rail investment. Central and Eastern European countries are investing heavily in roads. Whereas Western European countries have increasingly directed their investment toward rail. in the volume of rail investment in 2007 and 2008 – especially in Hungary. the change in trend can be traced to the even stronger growth.

9 1. CEEC countries Euros.7 23. current prices and exchange rates 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 68.5 29.0 84. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 42 .9 31.1 66.8 Source: ITF Investment in Transport Infrastructure.4 79.5 33.4 74. Distribution of infrastructure investment between modes Selected years.8 2.9 64.4 2.3 IWW Rail 14.Figure 13. Distribution of infrastructure investment between modes Selected years.8 29.7 90% 22.9 2.0 1.5 17.5 30% 20% 10% 0% 1995 2000 2005 2008 68. Figure 14.7 80% 70% 60% 50% Road 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1995 2000 2005 2008 66.7 1. Western European countries Euros.0 2.3 Source: ITF Investment in Transport Infrastructure. current prices and exchange rates 100% 10.

WECs include Denmark.4. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 43 . our hypothesis seems to hold true for the WECs where the volume of maintenance on inland transport infrastructure has increased more rapidly than the volume of investment. Czech Republic. France. the former grew by 76%. CEECs include Croatia. In this section we examine differences in expenditure on infrastructure maintenance. the volume of maintenance has not increased quite as rapidly as investment and hence the share of maintenance on total expenditure fell from over 45% in 1995 to less than 5 For the comparison of investment and maintenance.5. Lack of data on maintenance has resulted in a slightly different composition of countries included in the following 5 analysis to that shown above. Trends in inland transport infrastructure maintenance We observe marked differences in the level of investment between Western European Countries (roughly described as mature economies) and Central and Eastern European Countries (growing economies). In CEECs. We examine these differences mainly between WECs and CEECs. and Slovenia. Latvia. Hungary. while the latter by around 35% from 1995 to 2008 (Figure 15). Finland. If we assume that the decline in the share of investment in GDP reflects the fact that the main transport infrastructure is in place. Sweden. Iceland. Poland. Slovakia. and the United Kingdom. This has also resulted in an increased share of maintenance in total inland infrastructure expenditure (Figure 16). we might expect that the volume of maintenance spending is increasing faster than investment in more mature economies. and notably uncertainty over the allocation of spending between maintenance and new build in some cases. Luxembourg. FYROM. Despite data limitations. Serbia.

Similarly. in Japan overall budget cuts have affected both investment and maintenance levels. The increase in maintenance in 2006 and 2007 were contributed by increased road maintenance in Hungary during these years. The volume of maintenance in the United States has grown slightly slower than the volume of investment. Trends in maintenance in inland transport infrastructure (1995=100) at constant 2005 prices 250 200 CEECs 150 WECs Australia 100 United States Japan 50 0 1996 1999 2001 2004 2006 1995 1997 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - 2008 OECD/ITF 2010 44 . Figure 15. both declining strongly during the period 1999-2007. data for 2008 seems to indicate a return to the previous declining levels. However.30% in 2008. Both trends show decline in recent years.

In the United States alone. Conclusions In this short summary of aggregate trends in investment and maintenance in inland transport infrastructure we present some preliminary findings based on recent data collected by the International Transport Forum. Many countries have responded to the economic crisis with stimulus packages with significant transport components. current prices and exchange rates 50 45 40 35 30 % 25 20 15 10 5 0 1995 1999 2000 2001 2006 2007 2008 1996 1997 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 CEEC WEC Source: ITF Investment in Transport Infrastructure. Transport infrastructure is not adequate everywhere and big funding requirements remain. the Recovery Act provided USD 35 billion for highway infrastructure projects and public transportation.6.Figure 16. The volume of investment has grown significantly in Central and Eastern European countries. while we observe a declining share of investment in GDP in the Western European countries and in the more mature economies in general. Maintenance share of total inland transport infrastructure expenditure Euros. These will likely increase investment and maintenance shares of GDP Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 45 . 4.

Overall. data on traffic volume and network length by service level can serve as a proxy to analyse case studies. the economic crisis will likely result in scarcer funding. time consuming and often politically difficult. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 46 . In the longer term. where investments have been made they have tended to favour new construction over maintenance of existing infrastructure. In the absence of that information. In addition. countries are looking for alternative strategies. On this basis it seems likely that expenditure across member countries. Increasingly. for example. Whether this is a sufficient level of investment is still unclear. especially on road infrastructure (both new investment and maintenance) has not kept up with the growth in demand in recent years. resulting in chronic maintenance backlogs in many countries.temporarily and our future surveys will shed more light on this. road traffic has grown much faster than road capacity in many countries. 1% of GDP became an established norm and de facto policy recommendation for transport infrastructure investment. Capacity enhancements are also generally costly. among them congestion pricing and innovative incident management. shows that earmarked revenues can have a major impact on the level of investment. The case of Japan. the quality of the existing stock and some idea of the related depreciation rates. one would need data on capital stock. the declining long term trends we observe are likely to continue if no major change is introduced to the existing funding mechanisms. We also noted that. at least for Western European countries. To answer this question. resulting in congestion and increased costs in terms of travel time and delays. Hence.

5. definitions and country notes 5.1. All estimated data are marked with an “e”. Portugal.1. They are primarily intended to fill in data gaps for the production of graphics to include as many countries as possible when calculating aggregates.1. The method used for estimating missing information employs average growth rates calculated for groups of countries and applies this rate to extrapolate missing national data. 5. Norway. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 47 . Finland. Greece. Two groups of countries are identified: Western Europe (21 countries): Austria. Liechtenstein. Denmark. Data sources. Luxembourg. STATISTICAL INFORMATION 5. Netherlands. Ireland. Belgium. Estimating missing data To complete gaps or missing information in data series. Although these procedures are designed to ensure consistency they cannot provide entirely homogenous results between countries. Malta. Spain. France. National Statistic Offices or official Transport Research Institutes) through a regular reporting procedure based on standard questionnaires.2.1. Italy. Data source Unless otherwise specified the statistical information contained in this publication is provided to the International Transport Forum by national administrations (Transport Ministries. the International Transport Forum applies estimating procedures whenever this is possible. The data represent official national transport statistics. Germany. Iceland.

renewal and major repair) including all sources of financing (private and public). When discrepancies occur countries are requested to provide explanatory footnotes.internationaltransportforum. Poland. data correspond to total gross investment (new construction. Quality control Series are checked for their consistency and compared with national sources if need be.1. Czech Republic. Data refers to spending financed by Public Administrations (State.1.3. This Glossary can be consulted and download from our Web site at the following address: http://www.Sweden. BosniaHerzegovina. Romania. reconstruction.pdf As far as investment in transport infrastructure are concerned. Maintenance expenditures refer to expenditures on routine maintenance undertaken to maintain the infrastructure in good condition. Slovakia and Slovenia. the UNECE and the ITF.org/Pub/pdf/ 09GloStat. 5. 5. Switzerland. Lithuania. Turkey and the United Kingdom. FYROM. Serbia. Definitions used Unless otherwise specified all definitions and terms used in this publication are listed in the third edition of “Glossary for Transport Statistics” published jointly by Eurostat. Estonia. Eastern Europe (15 countries): Albania. Bulgaria. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 48 . regional and local authorities) and does not include expenditures financed by the private sector. Hungary.4. Croatia. extension. Latvia.

Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. Belgium: Pipeline data are not available since 2001. Austria: Since 2006 rail data include also foreign railway undertakings using the Austrian rail network. Azerbaijan: Since 1995 goods transported by road include own account.1. Road investment includes Federal Roads only and since 2002 they only include motorways. Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. Country notes Albania: Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. Since 2004 there is a new reporting system for inland waterways activities which creates a break in series. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 49 .5. Since 2007 road casualties are not available. Bosnia: No data available infrastructure expenses.5. Australia: Since 1998 road injury accidents are not available. Maintenance expenditure for railways. on transport Bulgaria: Since 1995 data on passengers transported by private cars are not available. Since 1993 road P-km are no longer available. Expenditures in airports (tarmac) are included in road investment data. ports and airports are not currently available. Investment expenditures for the construction of transport buildings are not available by mode of transport.

Since 1997. Since 2003 data include all vessels performing on the national territory only. Private cars data is not available. Croatia: Until 2002. Investments in the Great Belt Bridge and the Øresunds Bridge are not included. Airports infrastructure expenses refer to state only. and refer to national activities only. Finland: Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. Goods transport by inland waterways includes transit since 1982 and sea vessels Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 50 . Denmark: Private cars data include vans and taxis. Road infrastructure expenses include urban roads. Road infrastructure expenses do not include private spending and urban roads. Private cars data is not available. Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. privately owned wagons are not included in rail transport of goods. Rail infrastructure expenses refer to states expenses only and includes urban and suburban rail. inland waterways and pipelines freight data are not available prior to 1995. and rail investment includes the metro of Copenhagen. Oil pipelines include gas pipelines. inland transport data refers only to goods transported on national vessels performing inside and outside the national territory. and icebreaking since 2006 France: Goods transport by rail and road include transit. Estonia: Inland waterways data is not available since 2000.Canada: Rail. road. Buses and coaches data do not include urban transport. Sea ports investment includes waterways to ports since 2001. Czech Republic: Prior to 1993 data are included in Tchekoslovaquia (CSK).

Japan: Data refers to fiscal year (April 1 to st March 31 ). st Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 51 . Road maintenance refers to national roads only until 2004. Oil pipelines include gas pipelines. Hungary: Starting in 2001.until 1996. Inland waterways transport includes foreign vessels. Road investment includes urban roads since 1993. Road infrastructure expenses include urban road and exclude private funding. Rail investment includes urban transport in the Ile-de-France region. Investment data refer to State investments only. Ireland: No data are available for road passenger transport. Iceland: Road freight transport is not available. Greece: Data source: NSSG. Latvia: Since 2006 oil pipeline transport does not include crude oil anymore only oil product. Germany: Break in series in 1991 due to the reunification of Germany. Private cars data is not available. Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. FYROM: Private cars data is not available. Road freight and passenger transport are not available since 2000. No data available on infrastructure maintenance. Road investment includes urban roads. Since 2005 rail investment includes Deutche Bahn AG only. Road infrastructure expenses do include urban roads since 2003. Bus and coaches data include taxis. Road investment includes urban road. Road investment excludes urban roads.

Portugal: Private cars data are not available since 2000. Netherlands: Buses and coaches data are not available since 2000. and buses and coaches since 2004. Mexico: T-km and P-km are derived from the vehicle park. New Zealand: Passenger road transport data are not available. Until 2001 the number of road injury accidents includes property damage accidents. Norway: Road infrastructure expenses include urban roads. Moldova: Since 1992 data do not include enterprises from the left side of the river Nistru and Bender city. they do not include local authorities but include urban roads. In 1998 the highly subsidised rail passenger transport has been restructured resulting in a shift of passenger transport to the road sector. Infrastructure expenditures are available only for road. Poland: Since 2004 road goods transport includes national and international transport. Road maintenance data include local authorities since 2002. Malta: Passenger road transport data are not available. Road infrastructure expenses include urban roads except for years 1996 to 1999. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 52 .Lithuania: Road investment includes urban roads since 1998. Luxembourg: No data are available for road passenger transport. Maintenance expenditures are available only for road and include private spending. Private cars data is not available.

Private cars data is not available. Slovakia: Prior to 1993 data are included in Tchekoslovaquia (CSK). Since 2008 passenger transport by bus and coaches counting methods has been changed. Russia: Private cars data are not available. Serbia: Since 1997. Road infrastructure expenses partly include urban roads. Road infrastructure expenses include urban roads. road goods transport does not include own account and road passenger transport does not include private cars. United Kingdom: Investment data refer to fiscal years (April to March) and cover Great Britain Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 53 . Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. Slovenia: Road goods transport includes national transport only. Romania: The increase in road safety data in 1990 shows the end of traffic limitations due to petrol restrictions. Sweden: Road infrastructure expenses include urban roads. Road fatalities include death within 7 days after the accident. Rail infrastructure expenses include trams and metro. Turkey: No breakdown available for road passenger transport data. Road infrastructure expenses do not include urban roads. Transport infrastructure maintenance costs are not available. Spain: Transport infrastructure maintenance data are not available.Road investment does not include urban roads. Road infrastructure expenses include urban roads.

Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 54 . Waterways infrastructure expenses include both inland and maritime water facilities.only. Only maintenance data for road is available. Road and rail investments include urban roads and railways. Road infrastructure expenses include urban roads. Since 2005 investment data in sea ports and airports are not collected anymore. United States: Rail passenger transport includes only Amtrak (intercity passenger rail).

List of country codes ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CND CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JAP KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA Albania Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bulgaria Bosnia-Herzegovina Belarus Canada Switzerland Tchekoslovaquia Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Estonia Finland France United Kingdom Georgia Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Iceland Italy Japan Korea Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Moldova Mexico FYROM Malta Montenegro Netherlands Norway New Zealand Poland Portugal Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Sweden Turkey Ukraine United States Albanie Arménie Australie Autriche Azerbaïdjan Belgique Bulgarie Bosnie-Herzégovie Bélarus Canada Suisse Tchékoslovaquie République tchèque Allemagne Danemark Espagne Estonie Finlande France Royaume-Uni Géorgie Grèce Croatie Hongrie Irlande Islande Italie Japon Corée Liechtenstein Lituanie Luxembourg Lettonie Moldavie Mexique ERYM Malte Monténégro Pays-Bas Norvège Nouvelle-Zélande Pologne Portugal Roumanie Russie Serbie Slovaquie Slovénie Suède Turquie Ukraine États-Unis Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 55 .

a: data are not available EU26: does not include Cyprus which is not an ITF member country. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 56 .2. Transport tables and graphs Tables A: Freight transport Tables B: Passenger transport Tables C: Road injury accidents Tables D: Investment in transport infrastructure Tables E: Maintenance expenditures in transport infrastructure Goods transport graphs Passenger transport graphs Road injury accidents graphs Abbreviations used in tables: 0: data are smaller than half of the unit e: data have been estimated c: change in series -: data are not applicable n.5.

5 1.a.1 e 437.6 0.6 e 21.2 -4.2 2.8 2007 2008 08/07 % change 0.6 n.8 13.1 0. 87.2 e 7.1 8.7 37.0 474.1 2.9 -7.6 529.4 10.9 10.6 -20.1 6.1 55.6 14.1 3.8 48.0 a -1.7 0.0 8.4 n.5 16.6 55.a.3 21.5 18. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 57 .1 63.8 8.3 10.7 2 985.6 -0.3 1.5 35.3 3.5 48.6 -2.8 17.0 13.9 2 102.5 -29.7 a 3 603.4 0.3 -2.7 18.1 54.3 1.7 0.6 n.a.2 4.7 19.3 426.8 n.4 -5.2 4.7 0.7 21.9 -7.5 0. 3.8 3.0 1 373.0 12.6 -2.8 4.9 7.9 11.6 3.3 23.3 9.2 -5.a.5 15.6 21.9 49.9 0.4 50.9 10.3 e 47. 4.8 15.1 n.9 -5. n.3 0. 3.3 0.5 25.2 -2.1 8.7 16.0 2 584.6 5.8 0.4 10.9 11.0 0.8 0.3 10.9 6.9 2 593.7 1.4 -4. 507.2 n.4 0.9 11.9 12.9 10.8 23.5 1.1 4.5 2.0 1 509.a.0 6.8 2.4 6.5 10.9 24.1 31.7 1.6 2.FREIGHT TRANSPORT Thousand million tonne-kilometers Table A1 : Rail 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 0.1 -1. 198.9 1.0 2.2 7.8 11.1 c 1.6 9.4 5.2 74.0 8. 54.8 0.5 3.1 290.7 201.1 3.4 1.4 3.2 1.6 0.0 1 672.7 e 13.9 70.5 77.3 -11.8 8.6 57.2 27.1 1.3 0.9 8.9 3.9 -0.5 2.3 0.3 5.6 16.3 0.a.2 10.3 22.9 -5.3 15.1 0.0 311.4 -0.2 e 0.3 8.6 24.7 4 635.1 9.3 10.8 0.2 10.3 59.1 n.4 14.0 75. 6.1 0.3 a 5 376.7 2.5 15.4 8. 83.5 -7.7 5.8 22.8 0.4 12.7 5.1 25.5 -3.7 7.6 3.4 n.5 14.a.5 2.6 4. 36.4 18.6 5.7 n.1 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.8 -4.4 49.8 0.7 19.3 2 116.2 13.7 a 2000 0.0 6.6 6.9 10.8 1.7 16.6 -6.6 7.9 0.9 -10.9 172.4 9.5 0.2 8.2 18.6 13.0 0.0 e 2.5 16.9 -7.3 52.4 114.6 115.6 7.4 22.9 77.3 393.2 10.a.7 6 097. 8.3 1.5 257. 99.6 -2.1 10.4 -3.6 -3. n.a.3 -2.6 9.1 10.5 103.2 -6.7 262.1 0.4 267.5 1.6 3.0 2.2 2 090.6 1990 0.3 18.0 9.a.0 9.a.2 4.3 67.9 12.0 6.8 n.0 10.8 2 140.9 0.8 36.4 21.3 19.1 -3.5 1.a.4 8.6 0.8 15.4 14.a.6 -4.5 3 582.a.5 n.9 4.3 2 522.5 5.6 n.4 133.8 40.1 0.6 a a 6 100.

9 n.9 341.4 -5.0 13.0 194.4 e 0.2 133.1 343. 81.3 38.3 17.0 1.3 12.3 e 2. 1 699.6 37.8 12.a.1 29.3 20.0 9.7 5 154.a.9 152.8 352.7 14.9 39.1 2008 4.a.6 10.2 -8.4 11.4 n.5 13.1 n.7 -8.6 65.8 n.2 159.0 -1.6 13.9 181. 192.a.4 3.a.8 n.7 0.9 0.0 13.9 0.2 0. n.2 n.4 0.a.3 5.3 n.0 15.3 0.3 5.6 2.a.a.5 5.6 12.6 1 14. 396.3 27.0 1.4 e 5.8 1.2 a 1990 1.7 -3. n.8 -2.a.5 19. 0.2 354.7 13.a.7 a 2000 2.6 -9.7 26.1 5.0 -2.1 2.0 a 2007 3. 24.3 27.3 1.8 n.3 19.3 3.0 3.7 2.6 9.0 11.4 181.a. 12.9 8.8 105.2 n.5 1 309.a.1 2.a.3 e 9.8 51.9 27.5 42.2 42.7 0.1 78.2 10.2 19.8 23.6 -1.1 0.6 e e e 0.5 2.a.2 1 116.2 n.1 c 0.a.a.6 17.4 3.a. 40.6 12.3 10.2 n. n.8 132. 7.6 13.2 216.5 23.a.5 1 741.4 n.4 90.1 n. 189.1 5.0 227.0 19.2 n. n.a.a.8 0.8 51.a.2 959. n.6 313.7 a 3 954.7 -2.3 32.a.6 17.5 174.1 -1.0 207.9 n.7 238.0 14.8 e 3.0 n.9 205.2 7. 1: Transport for ow n account not included Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 58 .6 195.7 8.a.3 0. 26.9 6.1 2.3 6. 31.1 8.8 1 239. n.4 10.8 n.a.7 177. n.0 148.6 36.4 66.6 2. n.a.5 174.2 a a a a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.5 08/07 % change e e e 14.a.5 25.1 n.0 n. 15.3 85.8 10.5 1.0 n.a.8 8.1 7.a.0 n.9 25.2 1 299. 135.0 -22. 22.3 20.1 22. 158.4 4.3 4.8 50.9 0.7 21.9 274.0 0. 5.a.1 1.7 84.1 12.3 1.8 n.9 18.3 1 922.0 e e e e e e e 1 1 e a -1.4 2. n.9 3.2 -1. 32.1 17.0 175.8 n. 132.1 5.3 14. 11.8 1.6 4.9 1 719.9 2.4 4.2 5.a.4 7.a.6 9.1 2.4 8.9 0.0 3.1 -4.8 10.7 184.1 2.3 -6.1 0.6 16. 7.3 169. n.9 31.4 5.a.1 n.FREIGHT TRANSPORT Thousand million tonne-kilometers Table A2 : Roads 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 0.a.4 114.7 3.2 n.9 15. 3.9 18.7 6.2 3.8 3.0 280.7 48.2 153.3 -0.5 18. n.4 161.7 222.a.8 a 4 163.0 n.0 7.a.0 26.6 9.7 19.2 -1. 18.2 -33.5 14.1 n. 22.9 4 802.4 23. 7.a.9 5.2 n.3 0.6 a 3 115.3 108.5 2.9 2.a.0 2.2 27. 177.2 -6. 4.7 -0.7 a 2 707.9 20.9 9.6 0.2 16.5 18. 32.7 11.9 16.a.3 45.8 253.6 8.3 75.5 4.a.

9 679.1 2.7 1.1 213.0 0.6 0.9 426.7 2.a.0 n. 0.3 2000 2.6 9.a.a.1 2.4 0.2 665.9 -3.9 0.9 63.7 0.1 8.1 7.2 0.9 -1.a.FREIGHT TRANSPORT Thousand million tonne-kilometers Table A3 : Inland waterways 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 1.5 -25.9 117.1 0.8 2008 2.0 1.0 0.1 0. 0.7 n.1 2.1 n.1 e 0.0 46.0 0.9 13. 0. 7.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 140.4 a 507.9 3.1 0.1 0.9 1.7 08/07 % change -9.1 e 0.9 3. n.7 18.5 1.9 64.1 9.0 1.5 111.3 0.a. n.7 1.1 0.0 25. 0.0 41.2 0. 6.9 441.9 0.8 0.a.4 0.4 6.7 a 1990 1.3 5.4 5.a.0 0.0 1.4 n.7 0.2 6.2 4.2 559.2 0.5 n.2 n.3 0.3 n.8 0.0 1.8 66.7 1.a.5 0.3 n.1 335. 5.4 48.0 9.1 0.1 30.7 1.9 64. 227.2 0. 0.0 0.8 a a a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.4 n. 12.1 14.1 n.8 n.0 9.6 0.3 1.2 11.0 2.2 2.7 1.3 1.3 4.3 163.2 41.8 1.8 -7.2 0.7 0.2 0. 142.a.9 -13.1 29. 41.7 598.a.a.5 2.3 86.4 0.1 8.8 0.5 540. n.3 0.a.a.0 0. 0.6 1.4 n.4 0.1 8. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 59 .9 -4.1 -2.3 -27.0 -3.9 2007 2.8 0.3 35.7 134.3 1.6 1.0 1.3 n.7 396.a.3 e 0.4 776.6 71.a.6 6.2 1.a.1 0.1 0.4 54.4 1.0 5.1 0.3 0.0 0.

3 7.6 842.5 11.4 1 900.4 e -3.6 15.2 9.1 13. 4.8 0.a.a. n.3 2.0 28.1 -22.2 1.0 1.2 n.6 1.5 6.1 53.1 1.2 19. n.7 2.a.4 15. n. 4.a.6 10.6 1.4 1.1 1 239. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 60 .4 1.2 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.0 2007 2008 08/07 % change a a a 0.0 4.4 1.4 19.a. n.2 7.a.1 36.7 2000 0.a.2 e -3. 123. 1. 1.0 -0.5 n.0 4.a.6 2 319.2 7. 7.4 3. n.a.2 6. n.5 11.6 5.7 4.9 2.0 0.2 e 0.5 21.4 745.2 -9.0 0. 0.0 1.7 -7.6 n.7 7.5 n.3 11.4 182.3 3.8 103.2 n.6 5.a.0 0.5 21.a.2 2.4 1.a.5 124.0 n.a.9 9.2 3. n. 7.8 1.4 814.0 0.0 1 140. 6.4 11.6 n.6 2. n.2 -9.0 5.6 1.8 120.0 1 073.5 20.9 2. 5. n.a.4 e -3.a.7 2.5 e 1.a. 1.a. 3.a.5 4.3 11.a.1 20.0 4.8 242. 1.7 4.0 8.a.a.a.9 0.4 90.a.5 0.7 23.1 62. n.4 n. n.a.9 5.9 e -3.1 52.4 1.8 -8.4 e -2.5 2.5 -48.a.5 0.8 0.8 1.5 0.8 2 316.1 36.6 e n.4 50.8 5.0 0. 80.1 n.a. n.9 3.9 -2. 3.4 0.9 36.8 15.0 10.6 852. 1.2 0.7 5.7 11.4 0.2 12.1 10.0 2.0 -33.3 62. 1.2 0.6 n.a.0 9.6 -1.0 2.FREIGHT TRANSPORT Thousand million tonne-kilometers Table A4 : Pipeline 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF n.3 n.a.1 -3.4 15.1 2. n.4 123.3 1990 n.7 -5.3 1 101.6 0.a.9 1 016.1 2.7 n.9 -1.1 n.0 124.9 1 112.2 35.0 0.6 4.4 0.3 21.1 n.a.

1 238. n.4 11.9 n.7 17.0 40.5 11. 12.7 174.9 4.0 6 366.1 30.9 0.4 9.7 46.2 n.8 0.5 -6.2 273.2 18.2 10 043.3 0.a.1 -1.7 301.6 18.1 31.2 16.9 3 523.4 2 194.5 242.5 24.a.3 35.0 19.1 9.6 -1.1 99.a.a.5 277. n.7 13.7 205.1 116.2 14.7 63.7 37.9 n.8 56.8 33.3 35.2 318.7 43.6 n.2 1.2 -0.1 0.7 16.2 91.1 1.7 65.3 34.5 6.6 217.8 n. 20.8 43.0 88.a.7 5 718.4 248.8 -5.4 17.4 13.9 22.3 28.6 29.4 6.9 n.5 -1.4 145.a. 2 389. 66.3 4 028.3 0.8 -0.1 14 240.3 -7.6 3.8 0.5 39.8 224.8 n.1 6.1 7.a.1 316.1 49. 0.9 67.2 13.8 301.9 577.3 n.9 n.3 3.5 41.2 -0.7 1.5 9.2 52. 26.4 150.8 -3. 17.1 0. 124.4 0.3 374.2 0.8 258.3 27.2 106.a. 229.0 31.a.1 3 509.a.4 1 711.9 439. 1 095.8 -29.1 58. 210.9 30.2 12.5 5.6 27.1 36.7 339.0 4.6 17.3 10. 169.7 265.8 212.0 1.a.5 0.4 0. 225.3 4.2 551.5 207.5 33.6 4.a.6 12.a.5 1.8 78. 21.a.5 260.6 -2.1 -1.8 19.8 2007 3.a.1 7.7 168.4 0.3 13.8 191.1 1.8 3.8 67.1 37.5 198.a.2 60.a.5 29. 27.4 376.8 43.4 18.0 1.7 -25.3 13. 1:Rail data not included 2:Road data not included 3:IWW data not included 4:pipeline data not included Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 61 .9 -3.5 4 2000 2.0 4.a.4 13.7 4.3 5.0 5.5 69.4 15.2 16.8 299.0 14.4 n. n.9 4.8 7.7 159.9 11 588.8 10.3 45.3 25.4 12.FREIGHT TRANSPORT Thousand million tonne-kilometers Table A5 : Total freight (A1+A2+A3+A4) 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 0.4 n.a.0 4.9 1 961.1 50.7 n.2 38.8 1.1 7.9 2 341.2 59.8 19.0 378.9 -3.2 116.8 5 165.2 18.4 183.7 17.4 8 640.7 6.8 379.2 94.7 69.4 67.8 74.0 n.1 18.7 1.4 1.9 13.0 n.7 n.8 19.6 9.1 25.0 46.6 2.0 23.1 -4.5 13.a.4 24.6 2008 4.7 21. 60.0 23.2 87. 194.2 6.1 13.5 10.6 2 421.1 1.5 23.9 229.2 23.9 -1.6 4 276. 50. 138.5 -1.3 39.3 n.1 204.1 n.2 4 1990 1.3 -7.1 36.1 5.6 n.2 467.0 -2.9 270.9 57.6 21.3 18.8 112.4 538.a.9 71.5 n.8 11 378.1 -0.4 0.9 335.5 537.a.a.1 14.2 53. 0.2 5.2 34.6 -6.9 n.1 7.a.9 3. e e e 4 e e e 4 c 2 e 2 e e 2 2 2 4 4 e 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 e e e e e 1 e 4 1 2 4 3 a a a a a a a a a a a a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.0 0.1 136. n.a.1 39.6 7.3 3.8 -1.0 9.a.2 598. 83.8 -0.7 5.3 c 4 3 e 4.4 -6. n.8 n.1 08/07 % change e e 2 e 2 3 3 3 e e e e 4 c e e e e e e e e 14.6 6.2 19.3 9.2 3.7 12.

0 175.5 906.0 7.2 n.6 53.3 2000 0.5 -0.3 3.9 0.3 47.4 15.1 0.6 4.2 0. 2.4 3.2 5.3 4.7 33.3 600.9 n.0 1.3 63.7 1.0 0.3 0.8 2.6 1.a.7 8. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 62 .2 3.3 3.0 0.1 53.a.1 9.5 2007 0.4 0.7 7. 3.6 0.9 1.a.7 7.3 6.8 405.a.8 n.5 38.5 402.9 407.1 9.4 6.0 1.0 0.0 12.3 75.8 4.0 11.7 -6.8 6.3 765.8 0.a.8 32.1 1.8 e 3.0 13.8 10.4 0.5 3.2 0.5 17.2 -3.0 49.5 0.a.4 2.0 21.8 3.7 1.3 8.0 3.7 0.9 9.6 1.5 1 079.0 2.3 1 160.5 1.1 6.PASSENGER TRANSPORT Thousand million passenger-kilometers Table B1 : Rail 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 0.7 0.3 4.5 e 12.a.9 n.2 0.1 0.6 1.4 -2.4 1. 19.8 -12.4 4.6 8. 11.3 1.7 7. 8.2 5.9 35.8 111.2 e a a a a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.0 -15.0 9.0 e 08/07 % change -19.a.8 n.3 3.9 1 199.4 8.7 1.8 80.1 n.3 393.4 3.3 0.5 7.5 0.7 387.4 -5.1 24.3 3.0 -1.5 3.4 n.2 7.8 6.3 n.9 38.6 6. 13.2 -1.a. 16. 36.3 0. 8.0 49.8 11.7 6.5 0.9 0.5 288.7 15.5 4.9 2.3 9.8 1.a.0 50.5 4.a.4 5.4 1.3 892.a.4 0.9 3.3 43.5 e e e e e -0.7 1.4 5.1 -5.7 -8.5 1.1 2008 0.6 0.7 8.8 1.0 9.1 0.0 5.6 n.8 -14.8 363.7 0.2 2.4 2.4 n.4 0.8 0.9 4.1 2.2 821. 15.3 1.1 2.7 2.6 167.1 n.3 48.1 85.4 1.4 e 17.9 79.3 0.3 5.0 0.7 30.6 2.5 3.0 30.4 16.4 6.3 5.8 1.3 1 146.a.3 n.4 69. 17.6 6.3 0.4 1.4 1.5 0.6 8.6 10.a.8 81.3 1.8 3.9 1990 0.7 1.2 5.1 19.7 1.4 6.8 51.4 n.1 3.3 2.a.6 0.1 0.a.5 7.2 0.0 10.a.0 8.6 n.3 2. 50.9 55.1 6.3 20.6 5.5 n.1 0.4 47.1 12.2 0.8 4.9 16.1 1.5 1.7 9.8 191. 19.5 174. 19.1 9.2 2.3 -12.6 1.5 55.a.8 8.4 11.2 1.4 76.9 1.6 274.1 6.7 9.5 18.7 8. 13.1 384.1 0.2 20.0 n.2 -0.8 11.0 17.7 3.8 8.8 -3.0 3.7 383.3 n.4 n.0 7.8 7.1 0.6 -1.2 41.9 5. 10.9 0.2 44.2 1. 11. 9.6 5.9 301.

9 99.a.a.9 e e -1. n. n. n.a.8 1.a.3 869. n.8 639.a.a.a. 100.a.a.a.a.9 339.a. 472. 73.0 588.1 n. 26.2 586.a.a.a.1 n. n.8 08/07 % change e a a a a a a 5. 42.0 a -11.a. n.a. 47.7 685.0 n.a.3 n. 3. 147. n.0 n. 51.a. n.9 e e -1.a.1 6. 34.5 36.2 26.a. n.a. 68.8 e n.a.a.a.1 40.a.7 54. 2. n.8 0. n. n.7 a 9 865. n.a. 38. n.a.a. n.3 n. 211.8 n.2 4 618.4 n.8 5.a. n.3 n.3 2.7 522.8 n.a. n.9 719.a.a.3 -0.6 n. n.0 n.3 n.a.a.4 -2.1 n.3 24. n. n.a.a.a.a.3 -1.8 n.a.0 57. 593. n.a.2 53.a.9 n.0 283.2 1.4 240.a.9 n.a. n.PASSENGER TRANSPORT Thousand million passenger-kilometers Table B2 : Private cars 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF n.9 4 050.6 n.9 4 248.7 n.a. 106.a.a.2 a 9 838.5 2.4 1.4 -1.2 7 886.a.a.a. n.9 71. n.3 42. n. n.1 e -1. n. n.a.3 1990 n. n.a. n. n. n.3 n.a. 4 392.7 305.a.a.a.a. 66.a.6 -6. n.2 e 1.7 63. n. n.2 n.9 98.a.7 a 4 445. n.a.2 -1. n. n.a.8 53.a. n. 41.a. n. 19.8 46.1 n.1 -0.a.6 a 10 366.a.4 720.2 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.8 72.a.a.5 85.8 1 458.2 -1.0 20.1 n. n. 2 817.0 n.a. n.1 n.a.5 831.a.2 679. 137. n. n. n.a. 479.a. n. n. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 63 .0 13.4 852.a.0 n.2 41.a.a. n. 63. n.9 a -1.a.a.3 17.a. n. n.4 24. n.1 148.8 n.a.a.9 26.a. n. n. 7.a. 55.a.7 n.6 727.2 -0. n.7 239. n. n.7 e 63. n.5 n.a.a.a. n.3 82. n.4 n.a.7 n.3 n.a.3 n.a. 49. n.a.a.9 280. 46.7 -2.a.a.8 699. 273.a.a.a. 4 094.a. n.3 a 10 439. 13.a.5 768. 23. n.a. n.5 4 622.0 91. n.0 488.a. n. n. 80.a.5 n. 23.1 726.a.7 836.a.a.a.5 n.a.9 n.a.a.1 n.1 112. 149.8 n.a.9 182. n.1 7 852. n. 35.0 n.a.4 e 86.2 14.1 -1. n.a.0 343.4 91.a. 350. n.9 n. n. n. n. n. n.6 760.0 52.5 263. 3.a.a.0 n.a.6 -1. 200. 141.a.a.6 829.a. 110.7 4.a.a.0 2000 2007 2008 5.3 85.2 1. 4. n.0 -0. n.a. n.6 90.a.3 63. n.a. 64.1 n.a.a.a.a.a.5 3 119. 16. 39.8 63. 56.0 n.3 868.a. n. n. n.a.a.4 n.a.a. n. n. 3 671. n.0 80.0 174. n.a.

14.2 6.2 8. 31.9 -5.4 63.a. n.0 381.2 e 9.9 n.5 9.4 7.5 47.4 n.9 2.0 1 459.7 n.9 n. 6.a.a.9 -15.3 24. 3.1 e e a a a a 0. 26.a.4 15.1 e e e 0.a.9 2. 27.4 238.1 -2.0 101.1 1 040.5 59. 90.4 7. 16.7 n.2 2.3 84.6 463.3 2.0 20.a.2 e 8. 13. 5.3 1.5 8.6 6.4 69.8 n.a.2 n.5 1.5 25. 3.1 8.2 n.a.8 n. n.9 13.a.2 n.7 1.6 8.4 a 2000 0.8 3.a.a.6 7.5 e 6.1 0.a.0 498. n.1 8.0 83.9 1.4 10. 3.a.a.1 17.a.4 33.a. 16.1 n.5 5.7 11.8 n.5 2.6 1.6 n.a. 2.a.0 n.9 1.3 13. 6.1 7.0 3.3 1. n.4 48.1 17.0 21.7 6.4 60.5 14. 0. 4. 17. 2.5 n. 2.7 164.a.5 449.3 n.7 a 1 519.a.5 7.5 7.a.0 7. 46. 4.4 n.3 45.9 83.6 n.a. 0.a. n.8 n.1 n.6 7. n.a.4 50.a.a. n.3 12. 5.0 e 3.a.0 93.5 11. n. 32.1 4.1 4.6 7.5 93.0 46.a. 8.5 48.1 -12.0 -2.9 20.3 4.2 30.6 50.5 n. 29.8 7.6 3.2 13. 2.a.3 9.6 81.5 n. 5.a.5 0.5 -1. n.3 18.2 n.2 4.2 60.9 100.7 0. 11.1 n. 55. n.9 -8.a.4 526.1 4. 3. n.9 64.8 10. 12.0 n. 28.3 3.2 n. 9.a.9 4.3 n.3 9.2 1 281. 0. 6.3 1.8 n.8 2.0 e e e e -6.4 4.8 3.1 9.0 24.0 n.a.9 2008 0.9 08/07 % change 19.a. n. 337.3 4.0 473.8 -2.8 a 1 223.2 1.1 19.a.4 n. 500.5 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.a.1 a 1 476.2 11.2 7.1 49.2 -2.0 n.3 13.1 20.9 -0.2 0. 20.5 7.5 7.a.4 3.1 n.5 3.a.3 10.a.6 n.2 6.4 n. 15.5 9.a.2 52.a.a.9 a 1990 2.6 0.7 0.0 e 3. 5.a.a.9 n. 6.7 7.a.8 1.6 103.a.5 8.6 e e 0.8 16.9 1.1 n.9 50.7 19.9 2. 6.3 195.9 12.a.0 262.a.0 n. n.PASSENGER TRANSPORT Thousand million passenger-kilometers Table B3 : Buses and coaches 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 0.a.6 2.7 103.a.4 11.6 43.a.a.a. n.0 5.7 n. n.5 n.7 43.2 n.2 8.4 0.2 -3.8 a 2007 0.4 n.5 65.5 41.9 5.2 0.a.1 6. 0.5 n. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 64 .9 0.6 n.9 1.6 n.4 3.5 c 9.a.5 13.a.a.a.7 3.1 6.0 2.9 4.a.a.8 n.4 25. n.9 259.9 271.a. n.5 1.5 9.4 56.a.

a.2 -3.3 n.2 330.a.9 64.2 343.a.1 n.9 5.a.a.0 2.4 50.a.6 31.a.8 2.0 n. 40.a.7 1 2000 5.2 23.a.9 4 353.6 97. 14.7 27.4 399.9 4.0 606.5 2.5 n.2 479. 29.6 8.8 71.5 2. 2. 1: Bus and coach data only 2: Private cars data only Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 65 .3 774.4 2. 8.a.6 e e e e -1.3 n.5 -0.3 2.2 7.2 206.4 503.1 18.3 81.7 164.9 768. 2 817. 42.3 11.3 n.8 12 113. 2. n.8 13.4 21.3 3 866.8 -0.2 52.6 3.0 209.7 n.3 64.2 330.6 2.0 381.9 100.a.a.3 n.6 53.2 n.8 59.5 913.4 23.7 0. 5.4 -0.a.3 65.6 -0. n. 4.9 43.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -5.3 1. 243.0 4 943.0 14.a.a.a.4 13.a.3 20.0 97.3 n.7 71.3 24. n.7 n.a.0 262. n.9 50. 5.8 9 548.9 284.4 185. n.1 1 1990 2.4 742.6 63.7 08/07 % change -8.9 21. 85.0 n.9 132.3 9.a.6 823.8 729.8 4.7 627.1 n.1 58.1 -12.0 107. 4 893.2 119.9 4 524. 78.6 42.a.5 853.a. n.4 n.5 282.a.3 n.8 3. n. 181.9 7.0 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.5 59.5 96.5 1. n.3 1.1 9.4 42.4 n.7 19.8 95.7 7.a. 3.a.5 449.7 12.a.2 9 027.6 n.6 135.0 28.9 -2.a. n.a.9 12.2 67.4 257.9 4.9 734.9 2.9 1.4 11 247.a.4 11 856.a.a.0 71.a.9 1.6 1. 2.6 12.7 915.9 0.9 1.PASSENGER TRANSPORT Thousand million passenger-kilometers Table B4 : Total road transport (B2+B3) 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 0.5 -0.4 400.4 402.8 24.6 463.2 1.2 4.9 n.9 271.2 4.5 92.2 7.8 n.5 3.7 33.1 59.a. n.a.a.3 1.5 1.6 41.a.0 -0. 164.8 58.6 64.1 -4.4 n. 300.2 9. 12.4 4 487.2 n.2 30.1 0.4 47.6 108.0 131.2 502.8 -0.6 n.8 3.6 e e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.0 2.a. 4. 3.4 n.a. n.9 -0. 5.2 81.a.0 -0.4 2008 6.1 n. 163.a.8 n. 44.8 n.3 2007 7.1 n.3 820.a. n.a.2 n.a. 9. 150.7 28.6 -8.8 73.9 59.8 5.0 n.4 n.9 n.1 933.7 871.9 3 645.3 1.6 -5.a.9 n.2 n. 156.2 58.8 n. n.3 1.3 2.a.9 n.a.2 4.8 101.4 71.0 85. 6. 218. 106.4 94.6 686.a.8 1. 77.1 55.7 34.5 207.2 7.1 20.a.a.4 649.3 11.2 8.a.3 4.5 40.a.4 1 c e 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c 1 a a a 1 a a a 1 a a a 2 a a -1.a. 2.1 5.8 1 796.8 -1. 266.2 n.7 -1.6 -1.9 1.3 19. n.1 32. 114.3 900.4 3.3 633.5 70.1 951.9 3. 4.3 96.4 11 532.6 1 1 1 2 e e 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 1 e 1 e 1 e 1 1 e 1 1 1 -3.9 -2.1 n.3 919.5 33.0 90.

6 -0.1 2.5 6.a.8 n.a.0 116.3 98. 201. n.6 2 2 2 e e 2 2 1 e 2 2 2 2 2 e 1 2 2 e 2 e 2 e 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 -3.8 2007 7. 41.3 26. 10.6 n.2 46.2 -5.5 49.0 21.7 n. n.7 0.6 2.2 27.8 6.2 9.0 651.7 25. 161.8 1.a.a.9 n.3 1 240.4 424.7 1.2 -0.9 118. 2 827.0 5.3 3. 5 301.4 100.a.6 226.8 15.5 -2.2 43.5 47.2 6.1 2.1 98.5 54.0 2.5 n.0 42.9 62. 53.4 23.1 4.4 64.4 573.2 211. 180.7 38.5 0.a.4 424.6 12 693.6 77.6 n.9 450.3 18.4 166. 7.1 69.8 1.7 693.3 7.9 -0.7 n.6 e e 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 e 2 2 2 e e 2 13.7 3.0 -1.0 n.4 82. 10.8 n.8 226.2 n.7 80. n. 42.2 6.a.5 8.7 10 748.9 67.4 4.0 41.5 350.5 4.4 371.3 28.4 0.9 n.7 2008 6.a.a.0 n.6 -5.a.6 2 c e 2 2 2 e 2 2 2 e 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 a a a 2 a a a 2 a a a 3 a a -0.a.a.5 109.5 295.2 4.a.6 76.0 56.7 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.2 13.3 0.8 66. 276.4 1.5 3.4 3.1 22.1 n.2 3.8 n.3 13 203. 228.3 35.2 3.a.0 2.7 19.8 779.a.9 28.PASSENGER TRANSPORT Thousand million passenger-kilometers Table B5 : Total passengers (B1+B4) 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF 1.a.2 9. n.a.8 56.1 464.4 67.4 1.2 1 335.6 69.3 5.3 381.3 0.2 11.8 812.7 921.3 331.2 13.3 -1.5 276.9 0.6 74.3 n.1 1.8 1.5 269.0 n.2 783.1 4.5 724.a.1 5.9 1.3 5 336. 85.7 70.a.1 2 2000 5.a.9 437.0 n.1 101.2 4.0 63. 164.6 12 068.a.a.0 666.0 691.7 6.3 867. 172.4 3 876.0 20.7 2.6 873.1 141.3 102.6 n.1 -1.7 504.4 118.4 4.5 5. 320.7 75.2 7.7 n.4 2.1 -0.0 0. 89.2 10.2 44.7 2 097.2 8.5 1.2 373.5 997.0 1.1 -0.4 496.0 1 316.1 35.1 1 324. n. n.6 27.0 503.7 21.1 7.7 -1.4 0.3 224.6 14. 181.3 214. 1: Rail passenger data only 2: Private cars data not included 3: Bus and coach data not included Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 66 .9 33.7 13.0 19.4 n. 2.0 75.a.6 88.0 853.4 2 1990 3.2 24.1 101.3 1. 66.8 2.3 35.0 0.a.1 3.a.4 n.a.0 15.5 4 496.a.5 9 793.6 -0.3 -12.7 108.8 12 611.1 08/07 % change -8.2 -0.0 88.0 1. n. 120.6 536.9 66.1 e e e e -0.4 n.2 9.1 1.7 4 028.a.a.a.a.a.6 0.7 291.1 -0.a. n.3 3.8 -0. 286.5 98.1 -7.0 36.7 4 362. 16.5 77.0 5.5 80.0 0.4 2.5 n.2 62. n.6 127.2 17.2 62.6 11.0 -1.2 141.8 18.a.8 5.1 855. n.1 36.7 3.4 5.6 191.9 -1.3 3.6 n.3 3.0 41.2 9.a.0 1 012.6 975.0 142.7 4 887.1 6. n.8 10.9 113.

7 12. 124.5 825.9 2 162.1 10.9 8.3 33.8 1.1 340.5 931. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 67 .8 23.0 16.8 6.9 7.0 -4.4 0.a.1 1.7 1.6 1.6 19.5 a 4 917.4 235. 1 666. 22.1 1.7 25.0 2.7 0.7 3.a.a.3 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.a.5 335.5 -4.a. n.3 0.3 1 748.6 5.9 219.3 6.4 n.4 -2.5 -9.5 188. n.a.1 2.2 -8.1 211. 59.6 49.6 30.4 4.9 n.5 e 8.3 1990 n. n.7 -4.3 n.3 0.5 93. 9. 6.9 n.8 58.7 8.0 9.9 81.6 1.0 a 5 017.4 0.9 n.0 21.8 n.0 19.3 -25. n.5 27.4 17.3 44.0 n.3 74.1 0.9 6.3 11.0 11. n.3 13.2 242.8 -8.4 2. n.0 39.0 8.7 23.1 e 23.3 2 108.9 6.9 n. 9.8 50.5 2.5 n.7 23.2 -5.2 4 861.1 -8.a.3 -1.1 39.6 48.5 1.8 25.2 6.a.3 e n.a.7 307.a.1 22.4 7.0 4.8 466.3 4.5 49.ROAD INJURY ACCIDENTS Thousand Table C1 : Number of crashes 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF n.0 23. 51.0 -4.5 45.4 382.a.5 10.3 e 62.a.8 320.2 17.9 8. 21.1 5 180.2 162. n.a. 42.1 15.6 19.a.1 9.2 11.0 9.2 7.5 766.6 n.3 1.0 1 456.1 1.1 255.0 1 268. 8.8 22.8 3.8 4.5 15.a. n.4 6.9 18.5 8.3 -4.7 197. 8.6 3.4 6.5 6. 77.7 1.8 67.6 14.5 0.a. 10.a.6 8.9 a -3.2 28.3 70.2 2.a.a.2 2.2 a 5 412.a.2 8.2 4.4 -5.3 20.3 5.0 5 475.8 643.5 2.4 8.9 8.9 -19.1 18.1 176.4 5.0 14.8 218.6 61. 41.a.1 3. n.0 65.3 11.3 63.7 4.4 1.a.7 -0.8 0.6 -0.2 5.8 30.2 3.0 15.3 -6.2 17. n.4 155.1 4.6 157.4 -8.8 7.0 832.7 -7.0 49. 13.3 16.8 e n.0 49.8 57. n.5 -7.0 1 155.6 161.0 0.4 4.2 1.8 0.4 0.0 2.a.3 50.6 -4.6 19.7 3.6 948.2 2007 2008 08/07 % change a a 1.0 18.5 18.8 -21.4 -1.4 33.a.9 -7. n.1 5 781. 0.5 7.7 -4.0 5.1 -12.1 46.1 8.7 -0.2 n.6 51.3 41.0 1 403.7 33.6 -3.7 n.8 3.1 19.0 115.5 5.8 12.2 7.3 3.4 2.7 3.9 20.0 1 664.9 40.9 290.2 0.1 1.1 35.7 6.0 100.8 -6.1 -9.5 14.9 30.a.6 121.a.4 -5.6 233.a.1 272.2 -5.1 37.3 -23.1 6.1 230.a.9 a 2000 0.a.2 101.2 e 182.0 a 4 566.a.1 -8.2 5.1 -7.1 n.3 101. n.2 8.0 256.8 4.a.7 718. 5.6 9.8 4.6 265.5 377.9 4.9 n.

5 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.4 456. n.4 -1.5 -10.5 1 040.9 51.1 71.7 12.7 26.5 4.2 1.2 801.5 7 638.5 25.1 -5.a.3 134.5 47.a.8 12.6 0.3 66. 2 134.0 315.a.5 -5.0 2. 39.7 1.9 107.1 6.5 325. n.1 11.a.9 61.8 6.2 7.0 2 019.a.4 77.5 2.2 6.6 1.8 98.9 169.9 n. n.6 436.2 23.5 5.2 -10.a.5 336.3 7 281.1 n.1 0. n.6 -6.2 44.0 -6.2 69.0 e 2 532.6 43.1 1 164.3 -8.7 11.4 15.7 1.4 236. 11.6 118.a.4 e n.3 -4.9 -5.0 38.4 32.a.4 8.1 8. 53.0 5.4 9.3 94.5 29.4 1.5 367.8 3 231.6 194. 12.9 1.9 22.3 1.2 4.8 5.5 22.2 23.9 2.a.9 250.3 997.6 1.a.2 39.1 6.4 -5.a.1 4.7 33.1 9.0 -2.4 -8.7 -2.6 17.1 344.0 39.9 9.1 3 276.7 n.6 7.1 -3. n.6 1.1 16.2 950.0 1 565.6 3. 15.3 30.a.9 45.2 18.6 2.2 12.0 1 727.7 3.1 88.5 300.7 -5.1 225.5 4.9 228. n.a.9 0.6 0.9 30.a.0 -5.7 23. 10.1 -19.9 0.3 a 5 127.1 6.2 26.8 11.6 29.a.6 e n. 71.5 20.a. n.5 1990 n.3 162.8 41.8 -2.5 1.2 -9. 27.3 65.8 30.8 23.8 13.2 240.a.8 55.2 0.8 335.1 28.7 -22.0 12.7 -5. 8. 107.5 20.0 e 88.7 9.3 2.5 e 266.2 1.8 67.3 21.5 7.4 12.5 8.3 n.6 32.2 551.9 a 6 441.4 8.1 21.2 26.1 n.a.3 11.3 146.7 11.4 41.3 6.0 63. 0.6 25. 72.1 0.0 8.3 -12.5 68.8 2007 2008 08/07 % change a 1.1 23.a.7 -0.7 a 5 875.4 2. n.5 9.0 a 5 632.8 209.2 -7.8 a -10.a.a.8 21.4 n.0 3.a.1 188.1 352.1 257.6 3.4 10.6 331.2 e 31.6 37.1 8.0 2 383.8 6.0 -28.ROAD INJURY ACCIDENTS Thousand Table C2 : Casualties [killed+injured] 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF n.8 -2.4 9.8 0.7 7 235.4 74.2 n.3 -9.0 2.5 1.7 10.a.7 342.0 17. 7.7 6 826.9 2.4 -27.6 30.a.6 16.9 -9.7 15.7 -12.2 40.8 437.8 8.0 -12.9 20.0 1 951.4 4.7 371.9 511. n.7 n.5 8.a.8 n.5 a 2000 0.2 n.3 6. n.6 8.5 e 12.a.6 155.4 413.8 0.a.7 87.0 15.9 239.0 11.3 12.7 2. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 68 .5 5. 183.1 9. 10.9 -5.0 3.2 1.0 n.8 -7.1 62.0 41.2 23.0 11. n.3 6.0 8.a.9 12.0 3.2 8. n.1 n.0 26.7 44.3 25.3 17.a.6 27.a. n.6 9.0 0.9 4.4 -9.0 -5. 11.7 -8.3 n.

0 n.1 0.3 1.a.6 -18.0 2.5 5.a.9 1.1 n.1 1.6 6.2 0.6 70.a.1 42.2 19.0 11.0 -4.2 5.9 1.a.4 0.6 1.2 0.6 6.0 5.5 0. 1.0 0. n.0 0.9 2000 0.3 -27.0 n.9 0. 0.9 0.7 0.0 n.1 0.a.2 14.4 3.6 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.6 3.5 a: Non available data affects consistency of totals across years.2 0.9 3.0 174.8 0. n.7 1.2 0. 1.a.1 10.2 7.3 4. n.a.6 0.2 0.9 -9.0 0.1 0.9 2.3 0. 52. 2. 0.9 0.0 -11. 0.4 0.2 0.4 5.4 10.4 c 2.6 1.5 106.6 2.9 5.8 -0.1 n.1 0.6 0.1 29.3 0.1 177.0 7.3 1.3 0.6 3.a.5 0. n.3 2.6 -19.6 -1.a.7 1.9 56.1 -7.3 4. n.5 0.5 0.5 5.7 e 37.0 0.8 0.a.2 0.a.3 -8.2 e 4.7 1.5 9.4 0.7 -9.6 1. 0.3 0.5 17.4 7.4 1.0 -18. 3.6 41.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 4. 3.5 -13.5 29.0 0.4 1.7 2.7 1.4 n.6 -10.9 0. 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.a.4 0.a.6 -9.0 1.a.0 7.7 -9.a.2 1.ROAD INJURY ACCIDENTS Thousand Table C3 : Killed 1970 ALB ARM AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH BLR CAN CHE CSK CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR UKR USA EU (26) OECD Total ITF n.0 n.1 -2.6 7.0 0.4 4.6 3.5 6.4 1.4 0.0 9.3 -10.5 0.9 0.4 5.3 0. 0.8 3.0 0.5 1990 n. 1.6 7.5 2007 0.1 9.0 7.a.9 0. 1.6 -12.4 -6.4 0.4 4.2 n.1 4.3 38.6 2.a.1 0.7 0.0 -7.7 1.5 0.4 5.8 6.7 0. n.4 1.5 5.5 0.2 e 2.0 a 93.3 n.6 n.6 1.4 1.8 2. 1.1 16.5 7.4 0.1 6.0 0.0 5.9 -32.1 0.5 0.2 4.0 -15.9 a 141.1 5.0 0.5 2.8 33.8 0.6 14.6 215.1 1.a.1 3.0 2.5 1.7 7.6 -24.4 0.a.8 e 0.2 0.6 0.a.8 -32.0 n.2 n.6 0.3 0.2 0.7 -15.7 -1.6 44.2 0.3 -19.0 1.0 0.8 1. 3.3 0.0 0.4 -13.7 a 08/07 % change -21.4 3.2 -17.2 0.5 0.0 5.6 86.0 4.4 n.0 5.9 0.9 1.7 162.4 8.7 3.7 0.2 1.3 -4.4 1.4 25.7 6.a.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 129.6 0.3 2.6 0.5 -20.5 -7.7 e 2. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 69 .2 41.3 1.3 155.3 9.8 35.a.8 e n.6 0.2 0.6 0.a.6 0.6 0.0 2008 0.9 -7.1 1.4 1.6 1.0 0.0 21.3 1.2 0.6 11.9 e 0. 2.1 -8.5 5.2 0.5 0.8 -9.0 -12.9 n.1 0.7 1.0 0.2 e 1.6 1.7 -5.

1 217 4 716 373 2 503 23 327 5 119 7 515 n. n. 248 196 72 1 161 13 59 n.a. 1 142 38 3 303 2000 2 411 1 199 5 1 012 78 n.a.a. 668 44 n.a. 235 415 109 4 021 4 160 42 1 124 170 n. 7 85 29 2 200 8 456 n.a. 11 845 72 n. 2 191 485 4 284 241 1 926 21 281 4 118 6 518 17 94 171 184 10 175 6 058 38 68 127 40 223 1 193 n. 18 39 38 430 9 363 n. 4 23 7 168 25 324 n.a. n. 1 465 371 5 305 564 920 20 233 2 955 4 583 n. n.a. 126 298 n.a. 2007 1 1 962 1 489 4 1 009 44 n.a.a.a. n.a.a.a.a.a.a.GROSS INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates . n. n.million Euros Table D1 : Rail infrastructure 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n. 198 401 43 2 612 3 53 16 629 61 7 036 2005 2 1 493 1 330 19 916 46 n.a.a.a. n. 646 329 311 5 436 2 287 53 1 231 271 n. n. 18 197 85 4 549 10 139 n.a.a.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 70 .a. 612 4 717 232 2 368 27 211 4 505 8 137 192 92 376 244 7 702 6 883 37 75 138 37 563 0 290 n.a. 901 392 317 9 507 2 215 129 1 290 339 n.a.a. 2008 1 1 727 n.a.a. 1 079 112 5 747 726 648 4 226 2 766 2 415 n.a. n.a.a. 571 521 n. n.a. 150 61 498 3 n. 7 368 n.a.

a. 2 424 457 n.a. 638 737 356 1 883 28 53 186 1 010 38 773 30 352 2000 108 3 697 477 30 1 300 n.a.a.a.a. 138 265 2 536 45 n.GROSS INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates . n.a. 1 069 n.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 71 . 1 717 407 3 442 1 453 2 808 7 299 405 520 639 1 423 2 629 n. 119 n.a.a.a. 152 n. 71 131 283 75 4 792 113 563 n.a. 1 329 1 490 169 n. n. 3 897 9 899 381 567 727 1 599 3 080 n.a. 403 4 494 n.million Euros Table D2 : Road infrastructure 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n. 2 521 283 10 216 352 4 167 8 457 10 439 5 227 n.a.a.a. 144 n. 24 109 166 13 1 283 38 11 909 181 1 020 964 631 2 579 49 227 372 912 4 547 61 401 2005 68 6 736 687 83 1 547 n. n.a.a.a.a.a.a. 2008 500 9 263 n. 277 157 241 2 139 39 n.a.a.a. 1 415 10 200 928 8 245 107 595 11 355 6 308 40 750 1 704 1 153 152 9 169 61 880 60 27 165 128 161 2 318 23 8 1 463 301 1 876 2 113 1 331 3 790 174 360 450 1 297 1 893 n. n. 14 15 114 3 579 36 3 826 n. n.a.a. n.a. n.a. n. 1 493 10 510 1 020 7 778 131 803 12 489 6 974 106 1 066 646 1 425 186 13 664 48 836 58 n. n.a. 2007 253 8 025 802 374 1 393 134 n. 1 101 976 1 319 242 n. 116 2 720 309 11 967 510 4 738 19 488 10 545 5 570 5 304 177 780 129 6 930 128 124 n.a.a. 2 041 10 480 936 8 038 162 928 12 623 6 513 n.a.

2 0 30 0 1 0 1 105 48 4 1 4 436 2005 0 6 n.a.a. 151 n.a.a. n.a.a.a. 178 405 n. 0 21 7 348 102 38 1 n.a.a.million Euros Table D3 : Inland warterways infrastructure 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n.GROSS INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates .a. n.a. 0 10 790 1 108 n.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. n. 3 n.a.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 72 . 1 10 1 0 10 1 244 73 12 21 1 177 2000 0 0 n. 17 11 828 0 114 n. n. n. 14 820 5 168 n.a. n.a. 2 4 29 3 0 13 12 359 58 24 0 n. 2 2 53 0 0 7 20 140 73 15 1 n. 156 85 n.a. n. 152 n. n. n.a.a. 22 925 2 141 n. 188 n. n.a.a. n.a. n.a. 8 1 711 2 107 n.a. 2007 0 6 n.a.a. 2008 0 n. n.a. 2 n. n.a.

30 128 n.a. 2005 11 577 189 5 n. 2 37 53 n. 116 n. 123 n. 413 n. 243 n. 2 n.a.a.a. 279 n. 7 n. 197 n.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. 37 n.a.a.a. 17 157 n. 75 640 67 1 257 54 223 226 n. 1 524 36 238 410 n.a. 262 579 n. n.GROSS INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates . 2008 3 1 057 171 7 n.a. 7 n.a.a.a. 19 n. n. n.a. 23 2 062 3 208 21 30 62 565 n. 37 1 179 2 506 23 26 149 438 n.a. 10 n. n.a.a.a.a. 52 n.a.a.a. 2007 1 702 171 46 n.a.a. 9 44 n.a. 11 93 n. 68 n.a.a. 20 231 n.a. 2 851 n. 2000 6 96 186 n. n.a. 141 n. 6 n. 7 81 67 n.million Euros Table D4 : Sea ports infrastructure 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n.a. 506 61 383 19 41 235 199 n.a. 23 n.a.a. 13 n. n. 30 62 6 146 n.a. n.a.a. 133 n. 60 152 n. 65 570 67 1 012 22 136 283 336 0 17 n.a. 315 n. 68 562 57 498 18 59 197 337 n. 1 17 n.a.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 73 .a. n.a.a.a. 0 n.a. 71 630 n.a. 1 30 18 208 n.a.a. n.a.a.

Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 74 .a.a. 92 n. n.a. n. 7 33 n. 19 0 n.a. 88 n. 325 1 140 n.a. 2007 2 n. 77 1 620 64 2 026 4 74 1 052 n. 83 116 4 n. 15 115 105 7 806 22 3 4 26 17 602 0 n.a. 85 93 42 436 0 16 24 118 124 n.a.a.a.a.a. 70 n. 27 67 12 263 n. 78 22 2 271 5 124 23 3 53 64 17 191 0 n.a. 21 n.a. 1 3 18 185 14 n.a.a. 131 73 1 156 48 458 2 51 570 704 n. 2 275 96 108 820 n. 25 411 28 1 411 118 460 1 65 783 1 197 n.a. 131 144 2 268 0 32 1 85 382 n. 362 100 68 2 n. 4 7 76 455 4 763 2000 1 n. 4 27 n. n.a.a.a.a. n. n. 8 104 237 700 35 1 343 1 48 860 2 602 n. n. 272 n.a. 12 355 28 n. 44 n.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. n. n.a.a.GROSS INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates . 238 n. 73 n.a. 403 12 n.a. n. 82 11 127 6 n.a. 79 146 9 441 0 30 5 107 126 n. n. 10 n. 47 18 278 1 n.a. 2008 0 n. 70 168 7 240 0 4 3 315 218 13 241 2005 7 n.a.a. 217 71 135 2 n.a.a.a. 21 48 n.a.a. 23 n.a.a.a.million Euros Table D5 : Airports infrastructure 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n.a. 7 n.

21 n. n.a.a. n.a. n.a. 347 2 n. 8 105 112 60 n. n.a. n. 30 n.a.a. 82 100 58 n.a.million Euros Table E1 : Rail maintenance 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n.a.a. n. 2008 n.a. n.a.a.a.a. 58 n.a.a. 302 8 n. 2007 n. n.a. 325 12 n. 350 207 n.a. 23 160 234 127 8 919 n. 683 236 n. 43 138 10 1 007 n.a. 14 n.a.a. 28 81 25 n.a. n. 48 88 48 n. 31 n. n.a.a.MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates .a. n.a.a.a. 1 119 n. n. 22 115 2 617 n. n.a.a.a. n.a. n.a.a. 292 0 n. n. 469 257 n. n. n.a.a.a.a. n.a. 100 122 96 n.a.a.a.a. n.a.a. n. 22 10 7 490 165 n. 59 52 n.a.a.a. 20 15 8 541 192 n. n.a.a. n.a. 21 14 9 591 207 n.a.a. 35 122 n. 2005 n.a.a. 1 220 n. 585 49 203 n.a.a.a. n.a.a.a. 17 167 3 377 n.a.a. n.a. 180 3 672 n. n. 258 80 n. 253 n. n.a. n.a.a.a.a.a. n. 4 6 n. n. 5 455 n.a. 96 79 115 5 363 n.a. 0 417 n.a. n. 115 125 n. 8 8 7 353 150 n.a. n.a. 10 360 n. 13 156 3 568 n. 171 457 n.a.a. n. 15 115 108 89 n.a.a. n.a. 2000 n. 14 154 1 288 144 8 282 n.a. n. n.a. n.a.a.a.a. 13 336 n.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 75 . 353 n. n.

MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates .a.a. 23 599 178 3 839 n.a. n. 203 n. 14 4 782 22 727 n.a. 300 156 140 836 404 n.a.a.a. 259 100 99 787 201 23 593 2007 6 2 505 486 31 494 215 n.a. 555 n. n.a. 1 189 397 1 999 n.a. n.a. 22 97 n.a. 406 n. 27 225 584 14 n.a.a. n.a. 48 611 2 294 6 271 9 158 1 367 50 35 9 764 11 642 15 n. 611 n. 57 673 2 286 5 423 n. 589 n. 596 n. n.a.a. n.a.a. 168 444 55 52 n.a.million Euros Table E2 : Road maintenance 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n.a.a. 35 n. n.a.a.a. n.a. 763 n.a. 729 n.a. 2008 8 3 049 n.a. 712 n.a.a. 3 475 n.a.a. n. n. 125 23 211 465 14 n. 31 534 228 5 125 8 316 107 102 25 9 720 27 324 17 4 61 26 45 474 n. n.a. 3 11 23 10 196 n. n.a.a.a.a. 1 147 425 1 514 192 1 338 n. n.a.a. n. 39 600 2 189 5 956 6 242 283 53 34 12 549 14 403 14 4 125 35 80 480 6 3 993 399 1 265 177 426 n. 1 209 133 n.a. 19 25 53 556 1 023 14 523 2000 4 1 852 507 n.a.a.a.a. 1 457 532 n.a.a. 381 n.a. n. 766 202 n. n.a. 329 161 144 856 380 n. 287 125 105 n. n. 5 554 240 449 128 n. 351 n.a. 21 67 79 747 511 26 015 2005 7 2 596 443 83 470 n.a.a.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 76 .a. n.a.a.

4 1 481 2 0 14 n.a.a. 48 n.a.a.a.a.a. 27 46 n. 87 n.a. 38 1 0 n. 17 60 n.million Euros Table E3 : Inland warterways maintenance 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n. 4 n. n.a.a.a.a. n. n. 1 7 n. n. 66 507 n.a. 2000 n.a. 4 n.a.a.a. 25 n. n.a.a.a. 15 55 n. 2005 n.a. n.a.a. 2008 n.a. 16 58 n. n.a. n. 13 4 n.a.a.a. n. n.a. n. n.a.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 77 . 2 n. 1 4 n. n.a. 13 n.a. n.a. n.MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates . 11 1 n.a. 48 12 1 0 15 n. n.a. n.a.a.a.a. 2 33 98 2 0 2 n. 29 n. 3 2 n. n.a.a.a.a.a. 6 2 n. n.a. 0 2 n.a. 6 n.a. n. 2007 n. n. n. n. n.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. n. n.a.a. 14 24 n. 3 n. n. n. n. n. 2 n.a. n.a.a.a. 2 n.a.a.a.a.a. 76 788 n. n. n. n.a.a. n.

a. n. n. n.a.a. 1 394 n. n. 2008 n.a. n. n.a. 1 n.a.a. 13 n.a.a. 706 n. n.a. n.a. n. 94 56 n.a. n. n.a. 1 151 n. n.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. n. 3 074 n.a. 9 2 n. n. 8 n.a.a. 1 n.a. n. 82 48 n. n.a.a.a.a.a. n. n.a.a.a. n. 0 n. n.a.MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates . n.a. n. n.a.a. n. 6 1 n.a.a.a.a. 2000 n. n. n.a.a.a.a. n.a. n. 2007 n.a. n.a.a. n. n.a. n. n. n. n. n. 16 3 n.a.a. n. 6 1 n. n.a. n. 1 13 n.a.a. n.a.a. n. n.a.a.a.a.a.a. 4 n.a. n. 93 50 n.a.a. n. n. 18 n. 2 n.a.a.a. 58 n. n. 25 n.a.a.a. n. 3 1 29 n. n. n.a.a. n.a.million Euros Table E4 : Sea ports maintenance 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n. n. 3 2 54 n.a.a.a.a.a.a. n. n. 130 27 n. n. n. 14 n. n. n.a. n. 6 66 n.a. 15 n. 2 4 n. n.a. 44 n.a.a. 26 1 11 n.a.a. 2005 n. n.a.a.a.a. n. 89 44 n.a.a. n. 130 0 n. n. 130 5 n. n.a.a.a.a. n.a.a.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 78 .a.a.a. n.a. n. n. 1 n.a. n. 129 n.a.a. n.a. 30 n.a. n.a. n.a.a. n. n. 5 n.a.a.a.

a.a.a. n. n. n. 0 n.a.a. n. n.a.a.a.a. n.a. 34 n.a.a. 12 n. n.a.a. 1 n. n. 8 n.a. 181 n. 32 2 n. 274 n. n. 13 n.a.a.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.a.a. n.a.a. n. 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n. n.a.a. 6 n. n. 33 6 n.a. n. 149 n. n.a. n.a.a.a. 2 n. n. 2 n.a. n.a. n. 2007 n.a.a. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 79 . n. 23 n.a.a.a. 20 18 n.a.a.a. n.a.a. 1 28 n. n.a.a.a.a.a. n.a. 2005 n.a. 17 n.a.a. n. n.a.a. n.a. 6 5 2 n. n. 2008 n.a.a.a. n.a. 113 n.a.a.a.a.a.a. n. 22 70 14 n. 2 659 17 n. 178 n.a. 2 n. n.a.a.a. 2 0 34 4 n. 23 n.a. 8 n. 23 n. n.a. 540 n.a.a. n. 291 n.a.a. 1 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 14 n. n.a.a. n. 10 n.a.a. 0 3 4 n. 232 n.MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES IN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Current prices and exchange rates . n.a.a. n.a.a. 3 143 n.a.a. n.a. 1 6 n. n. 6 n. n. n.a.a. n.a.a.a. 2 n.a.a.a. n. n. 2 86 n. n. 7 n.a. n.a. n. n.a. 26 n.a.a. 26 n. 2 n. n. 5 2 n.a.a. 2000 n.a. n. 2 4 n.a.a.a.a.a. n. 1 n. n. n.a. 16 7 n.a. n.a. n.a.a.a. n.a. n.a. 218 n. 42 46 13 n.a. n.a.a. n.a. n. 0 4 6 n. n.a.a. n. n. n. 1 4 n.a.million Euros Table E5 : Airports maintenance 1995 ALB AUS AUT AZE BEL BGR BIH CAN CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO HRV HUN IRL ISL ITA JPN KOR LIE LTU LUX LVA MEX MKD MLT NOR NZL POL PRT ROM RUS SRB SVK SVN SWE TUR USA n.a.a. n.a. 221 n. 1 n.

Goods transport Goods Transport by Rail (1990=100) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 OECD/ITF 2010 Source: ITF EU OECD ITF Goods Transport by Road (1990=100) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2008 Source: ITF EU OECD ITF Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - 80 .Graph 1.

Graph 2. Goods transport Goods Transport by Inland Waterways (1990=100) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 Source: ITF EU OECD ITF Transport by Pipelines 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 (1990=100) Source: ITF EU OECD Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 81 2001 2002 2003 ITF .

Passenger transport Passenger Transport by Rail (1990=100) 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ITF EU OECD ITF Passenger Transport by Private Cars (1990=100) 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ITF EU OECD Passenger Transport by Bus and Coach (1990=100) 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ITF EU OECD ITF Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 82 .Graph 3.

Road injury accidents Road Injury Accidents (1990=100) 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ITF EU OECD ITF Road Fatalities 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 (1990=100) Source: ITF 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ITF Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 EU OECD ITF Road Casualties (1990=100) EU OECD ITF OECD/ITF 2010 83 .Graph 4.

2008 Liechtenstein Malta Iceland Netherlands Sweden UK Switzerland Japan Mexico Norway Germany Turkey Ireland Finland Spain Australia France Luxembourg Denmark Italy FYROM Austria Canada Portugal New zealand Albania Estonia Hungary Belgium Czech Republic Slovenia Slovakia Bosnia-Herz.Graph 5. Total number of deaths per million population. Armenia Korea Azerbaijan Serbia United states Moldova Greece Bulgaria Latvia Romania Poland Lithuania Croatia Ukraine Belarus Georgia Russia Source : ITF 0 50 100 150 200 250 Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 84 .

Total number of deaths per million road motor vehicles. 2008 Liechtenstein Iceland Malta Switzerland Japan Sweden UK Norway Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Australia Spain Finland New zealand Ireland Italy France Austria Canada Denmark United states Portugal Belgium Slovenia Czech Republic Greece Estonia Mexico Hungary Poland Lithuania Korea Latvia Bulgaria Slovakia Croatia Serbia Turkey FYROM Romania Russia Belarus Albania Moldova Ukraine Azerbaijan Georgia Source : ITF 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 85 .Graph 6.

OECD Economic Outlook. WTO (2010). IATA (2009).htm.wto. World Bank (2010). OECD. December 2008. Finance. No. Understanding the World Trade Collapse. Economics Department Working Papers No. Ward’s Automotive Group (2010). Global Economic Prospects 2010: Crisis. What is the economic outlook for OECD countries? An intermi assessment.org/english/news_e/pres10_e/pr59 8_e. OECD (2009b). OECD (2010). Air Transport market Analysis. 2009. Volume 2009/2. and Growth. April 2010.S. WTO Secretariat.REFERENCES ECMT (1999). Review of Maritime Transport.org/globaloutlook. Cleaner Cars. December 2009. IATA (2008). UNTAC (2009). Monthly Traffic Analysis. November. http://www. 86. Fleet Renewal and Scrappage Schemes. OECD (2009a). 279. http://www. WARDS U. Light Vehicle Sales by Company. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2008 - OECD/ITF 2010 86 .worldbank.

rue André-Pascal. 57395 2010 . 2. 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 PRINTED IN FRANCE (74 2010 03 1 P) ISBN 978-92 821-0271-8 – No.OECD PUBLISHING.

oecd. www. Data are also provided on air and maritime transport as well as on investment and maintenance expenditures undertaken in the transport sector.org/publishing (74 2010 03 1 P1) ISBN 978-92-821-0271-8 .internationaltransportforum. This brochure provides the reader with first-hand figures on key transport trends.org -:HSTCSC=VUW\V]: www. including charts to highlight the major trends.Trends in the Transport sector How have the passenger and freight transport sectors evolved in recent years? And what about road safety? This publication presents the most up-to-date statistics on transport markets in International Transport Forum countries for the period 1970-2008.