transportation along the entire length of the corridors is increased from 50km/h to 75km/h.<sup>19</sup> We see this assumption as a reasonable first approximation for the improvement in flow and congestion management and the better organization of transport that can be achieved through an overall oversight of the economic corridors.

The overall additional impact of improved corridor management is small. But the impact is significant for some countries in Europe and Central Asia and East Asia and Pacific. Results in Table 15 show that improved corridor management is important for countries in the proximity of the New Eurasian Land Bridge and the China–Central Asia–West Asia Economic Corridors (CCWAEC) such as Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic. These two countries would gain at least one additional percentage point improvement in the average time‐trade from better corridor management. The benefits from improved corridor management for countries in East Asia and Pacific are smaller as for them border delays represent a large part of the trade cost. The largest impact of improved corridor management would be felt among the countries that lie along the corridor. In the upper‐bound scenario, shipping times would fall by 7 percent in the China‐Mongolia‐Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC) and by up to 20.4 percent for the China‐ Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The associated change in trade costs would range between 5.1 percent and 17 percent for the China‐Mongolia‐Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC) and the China‐Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), respectively. All other corridors would fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

_Table 15: Improved corridor management scenario, increase in speed along the entire length of the corridors._

||||**% Change ‐ L**<br>|**ower Bound**<br>|<br>||**% Change ‐ U**<br>|**pper Bound**<br>|<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||time|‐trade|trad|e cost|time|‐trade|tra|de cost|
||||Baseline w/||Baseline w/||Baseline w/||Baseline w/|
|**Country**|Region|Baseline|Corridor<br>Mgmt.|Baseline|Corridor<br>Mgmt.|Baseline|Corridor<br>Mgmt.|Baseline|Corridor<br>Mgmt.|
|**Kyrgyz Republic**|Europe & Central Asia|4.09|5.24|4.08|5.23|8.26|8.62|8.24|8.60|
|**Armenia**|Europe & Central Asia|1.14|2.23|1.14|2.22|1.53|5.04|1.52|5.02|
|**Kazakhstan**|Europe & Central Asia|1.74|2.79|1.72|2.76|5.63|9.59|5.56|9.48|
|**Mongolia**|East Asia & Pacific|2.28|3.10|2.27|3.09|4.28|6.67|4.26|6.64|
|**Russia**|Europe & Central Asia|0.88|1.42|0.84|1.36|2.35|4.68|2.25|4.47|
|**Belarus**|Europe & Central Asia|0.92|1.36|0.90|1.33|3.82|6.32|3.74|6.19|
|**Turkey**|Europe & Central Asia|3.36|3.62|3.14|3.38|3.82|6.19|3.57|5.78|
|**China**|East Asia & Pacific|2.55|2.74|2.42|2.60|3.65|5.14|3.47|4.88|
|**Thailand**|East Asia & Pacific|2.46|2.60|2.34|2.47|4.21|6.02|4.01|5.72|
|**Hong**<br>**Kong**<br>**SAR,**<br>**China**|East Asia & Pacific|2.49|2.63|2.45|2.59|2.84|4.80|2.79|4.72|
|**Canada**|North America|0.84|0.94|0.80|0.90|3.65|7.84|3.50|7.49|
|**Honduras**|Latin America & Caribbean|0.72|0.78|0.71|0.77|2.35|6.42|2.32|6.34|
|**Jamaica**|Latin America & Caribbean|0.76|0.81|0.75|0.80|2.26|5.82|2.23|5.79|
|**Bulgaria**|Europe & Central Asia|0.89|0.93|0.85|0.89|2.09|6.48|2.01|6.22|
|**Dominican Republic**|Latin America & Caribbean|0.79|0.82|0.78|0.81|2.27|5.96|2.23|5.87|
|**Romania**|Europe & Central Asia|0.93|0.96|0.90|0.93|2.55|6.00|2.46|5.79|
|**Bangladesh**|South Asia|1.79|1.81|1.75|1.77|2.19|7.20|2.15|7.05|
|**Azerbaijan**|Europe & Central Asia|2.15|2.16|2.13|2.14|2.93|7.41|2.91|7.34|

_Note: Simple average by country across all destinations (countries with largest percentage point differences)_

> 19 To stress the difference with the scenarios discussed in Sections 3 and 4, note that in that exercise the increase in speed is only along the segments that are either new or upgraded.

30