Statistics BriefJuly2011► Infrastructure Investment

Trends in Transport Infrastructure
Investment 1995-2009
The latest update of annual transport infrastructure investment andmaintenance data collected by the International Transport Forum at theOECD shows:► GDP share of investment in inland transport infrastructure hasremained almost constant in Western Europe (0.8%) and North
America (0.6%) over the past decade;►Record investment levels were reached in Central and Eastern
European countries, with 7.6% growth in 2008/09, amounting to2.0% of GDP (2009);►The balance between road maintenance and investment hasremained relatively constant over time in many regions, withmaintenance making up 30% of total road expenditure onaverage.

Investment in inland transport infrastructure (road, rail, inland waterways) as apercentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has declined steadily in Western
Europe since the 1970s. Our first reports from the 1980s noted this decline
from an average 1.5% in 1975 to 1.2% in 1980 and further to 1.0% in 1982,
after which it levelled off. Our most recent data show that investment in inlandtransport infrastructure as a percentage of GDP declined again in the 1990s in
Western European countries (WECs), to around 0.8% in 2000, where it hasremained (Figure 1). However, there are marked differences between countries,
especially for recent years, varying from 0.5% in Denmark to 1.1% in Spain in2009.

► Trends in

Data for North America show a rather constant GDP share (0.6%) since ourdata series began in 1995. However, the latest estimate indicate a slight growthin the GDP share of investment, reaching 0.7% in 2009. Growth has been
particularly strong in Canada, where investment in inland transport
infrastructure was recorded at 1.2% of GDP in 2009.

► Investment

relation toGDP constant
in WECs since2000

share of GDP
constant alsoin North
America1Figure 1. Investment in inland transport infrastructure 1995-2009(as a percentage of GDP, at current prices)
3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
%
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
WEC

CEEC

Russian Federation

Japan

North America

Note: WECs include Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. CEECs
include Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, FYROM, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia
and Slovenia. North America: United States data 2003-2009 estimated. Public road investment based on Bureau of Economic
Analysis data on Investment in Government Fixed Assets (highways and streets). Private road and private rail investment based onU.S. Census Bureau data on Construction Spending. Public rail investment estimated based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data on
Investment in Government Fixed Assets (transportation) using fixed share for rail investment based on 2003 data. Inland waterways
investment estimated based on data from U.S. Census Bureau data on Construction Spending (from 2003 level annual change).
Japan: not including private investments.

Trends for Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) differ markedly
from those described above. The share of investment in inland transport
infrastructure, which until 2002 had remained at around 1.0% of GDP, hasgrown sharply, reaching 2.0% in 2009 – the highest figure ever reported bythese countries (1.9% in 2008). In the Russian Federation the investment shareof GDP has been more volatile. Investment accounted for 1.9% of GDP alreadyin 2000 but declined back to 1.2% in 2006. Latest data show renewed growth ininvestment levels, varying from 1.7% (2008) to 1.5% (2009). Rising levels ofinvestment in Central and Eastern European countries certainly reflect efforts tocompensate for the earlier underinvestment in the road network capital stock,
reinforced by the demands of growing economies.
Data for Japan show different trend. Historically, transport infrastructure
investment has been relatively high in relation to GDP but has been in decline
since the 1990s. Expenditures have been affected by general budget cuts since
the end of the 1990’s, partly explaining the decline in investment relative toGDP. Further, data do not include private investments on roads, affecting
overall results.
In Western European countries, the volume of investment (expenditure in realterms) remained nearly unchanged from 1995 to 2000. This period ofstagnation appeared to end in 2001 when investment in inland transport
infrastructure increased by 15% in real terms through 2003. The level ofinvestment then declined again to 2008 when it was 1.7% above the 2003
level. The latest data for 2009 show growth of 3.6% over 2008 (Figure 2).

► Recordinvestment
levels inCEECs► Declining

publicinvestment
share of GDPin Japan► Volume ofinvestment
picks up inEurope2

The volume of inland infrastructure investment in North America grew byaround 30% from 1995 to 2001. Lack of comparable data for the United Statesfrom 2003 onwards has somewhat limited analysis, but our estimate based on
available data suggests a slow decline in investment volume that continued all
the way to 2008. Our estimate for 2009 suggests a 10.5% growth in the volumeof investment over 2008 in North America, returning to the 2001 level in realterms.

► Estimatesuggests
investment
growth alsoin North
America in2009

Figure 2. Investment in inland transport infrastructure 1995-2009(at constant 2005 prices, 1995=100)
350

300
CEEC's250
Russian Federation200
North America

150

100

50

WEC'sJapan01995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

The volume of infrastructure investment has accelerated strongly in Central andEastern European countries since 2003. This growth has shown no signs ofslowing down and the volume reached yet another record level in 2009.
Investment in inland transport infrastructure increased 7.6% in real terms from2008 to 2009. Also the Russian Federation shows a surge in investment volume
since 2003. Our data show that the growth in the volume of inland
infrastructure investment continued strongly in 2009, rising to a new peak inreal terms, growing 7.3% from 2008 to 2009.

► Volume ofinvestment
grew 7.6% in
CEECs

Data for Japan appear to reflect both the declining public funds available,
especially for road investment, and the maturity of the national transportsystem. Inland transport infrastructure investment in 2008 was nearly 47%
lower than in 1995 in real terms.
Data presented in Figure 3 show long-run trends in the modal share ofinvestment in Europe. In the Western European countries, the share ofinvestment in road infrastructure has declined slowly with a gradual increase inrail investment. While the share of road investment amounted to close to 80%
in Western Europe in 1975, figures for 2009 put it at 66% of total investment ininland transport infrastructure. The share of inland waterways has remained at
a constant 2% in recent years. The rail share of investment is particularly highin Austria (65%), the United Kingdom (55%), Luxembourg (52%), Sweden
45% and Belgium (41%). The trend observed in our data Western Europe ispartly a reflection of the political commitment to the railways, and the recent
data does not seem to indicate any change in this commitment.

► Gradual

increase inrail share ofinvestment inWECs

3

Whereas Western European countries have increasingly directed theirinvestment toward rail, Central and Eastern European countries are investing
more heavily in roads. The share of roads in inland transport infrastructure
investment increased from 66% in 1995 to 83% in 2009. The last five years,
however, suggest a stabilisation of the trend and the modal split of investment
remained rather constant from 2005 to 2009.

► Modal split ofinvestment
stabilizes inCEEC

Figure 3. Distribution of infrastructure investment between modes(Euros, current prices, current exchange rates)
WECs
100%
90%
80%

CEECs

2

22

2

30

30

31

32

69

68

67

66

66

1995

2000

2005

2009

1995

11

3
222
14

4
13

IWW

84

83

ROAD

2005

2009

RAIL

2370%
60%50%40%
30%

75

20%
10%0%
99

2000

The available data seems to suggest that the balance between maintenance andinvestment has been relatively constant over time in many regions. The volumeof maintenance for road infrastructure in WECs has increased slightly more
rapidly than the volume of investment; the former grew by 25%, while thelatter by around 21% from 1995 to 2008. This has resulted in an increased
share of maintenance in total road expenditure; from 26% in 1997 to 30% in
2009.

► Maintenanceshare of road
expenditure
relatively
constant

Similar to the growth in volume of investment, the volume of maintenance hasgrown strongly in CEECs. The share of maintenance in total road expenditure
has declined slightly, from 30% in 1997 to 27% in 2009. The increase inmaintenance volumes in 2006 and 2007 (Figure 4) was partly due to a major
increase in road maintenance in Hungary during those years.
In North America, the volume of maintenance has been relatively constant overtime. The share of maintenance has declined from 33% in 1997 to 31% in2009, according to preliminary estimates. As with investment data, data on
maintenance is also prone to limitations and uncertainties (such as theallocation of spending between maintenance and renewals).

4Figure 4. Road maintenance share of total road expenditure 1995-2009(Euros, current prices and exchange rates)
40
35
WEC
30
CEEC

25% 20

North America

15Japan1052009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

0Figure 5. Road maintenance expenditure 1995-2009(at constant 2005 prices, 1995=100)
400
350
300
CEEC's
250
WEC's% 200
150

North America

100
Japan

50

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

0Note: WECs include Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. CEECs include
Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia.

5Methodological note
The International Transport Forum statistics on investment and maintenance expenditure on transport
infrastructure for 1995-2009 are based on a survey sent to 51 member countries. The survey covers
total gross investment (defined as new construction, extensions, reconstruction, renewal and majorrepair) in road, rail, inland waterways, maritime ports and airports, including all sources of financing. It
also covers maintenance expenditures financed by public administrations.
The Secretariat has collected and published data on this topic since the late 1970s. The latest survey
covers the years 1995-2009. Member countries supply data in current prices. In order to draw up asummary of aggregate trends for selected countries, data has been calculated in Euro values at bothconstant (2005) and current prices. In order to ensure comparability, the Secretariat has devoted asignificant amount of effort to collecting relevant price indices in order to make calculations at constantprices. Where available, a cost index for construction on land and water is used. Where these indices
are not available, a manufacturing cost index or a GDP deflator is used.
Despite the relatively long time series, these data are often dogged by problems of definition andcoverage, which make international comparisons difficult. Also there exists no purchasing power parity
corrected general index for transport infrastructure investment. Finally, indicators such as the share ofGDP needed for investment in transport infrastructure, depend on a number of factors, such as thequality and age of existing infrastructure, maturity of the transport system, geography of the country
and transport-intensity of its productive sector. We therefore advise caution when making comparisonsof investment data between countries.
This summary covers only aggregate trends in inland transport infrastructure (road, rail, inlandwaterways). Detailed country data on other items (maritime ports and airports) together with moredetailed data descriptions and a note on the methodology are available at:www.internationaltransportforum.org/statistics/investment/invindex.html

If you would like to receive more information, please contact:
Mr Jari Kauppila (jari.kauppila@oecd.org).

6