SWP723Transport in China

A Comparison of Basic Indicators with Those of Other Countries

Jacques YennyLily V. Uy

WORLD BANK STAFF WORKING PAPERSNumber 723

Thy~~_

I r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

i D 0ptIC,00rE'XiS i

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

WORLD BANK STAFF WORKING PAPERSNumber 723 W57

no 7,02,

6t5

Transport in China

A Comparison of Basic Indicators with Those of Other Countries

Jacques YennyLily V. Uy

The World BankWashington, D.C., U.S.A.

Copyright © 1985The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing February 1985

This is a working document published informally by the World Bank. To present theresults of research with the least possible delay, the typescript has not been preparedin accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the WorldBank accepts no responsibility for errors. The publication is supplied at a token chargeto defray part of the cost of manufacture and distribution.

The World Bank does not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein, whichare those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank of to itsaffiliated organizations. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the resultsof research supported by the Bank; they do not necessarily represent official policy ofthe Bank. The designations employed, the presentation of material, and any maps usedin this document are solely for the convenience of the reader and do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bznk or its afHiliatesconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, area, or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its boundaries, or national affiliation.

The full range of World Bank publications, both free and for sale, is described in theCatalog of Publications; the continuing research program is outlined in Abstracts ofCurrent Studies. Both booklets are updated annually; the most recent edition of each isavailable without charge from the Publications Sales Unit, Department T, The WorldBank, 1818 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from the EuropeanOffice of the Bank, 66 avenue d'lena, 75116 Paris, France.

Jacques Yenny and Lily V. Uy are in the Transportation Division I of the ProjectsDepartment in the World Bank's East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.

ILibrary of Congress Cmlaocgino ag. Dz¢z

Yenny, Jacques, 1938-Transport in China.

(World Bank staff working papers ; no. 723)1 Transportation--China--Statistics. 2, Transporta-

tion--China--Passenger traffic--Statistics. 3. Freightand freightage--China--Statistics. 40 Transportation--China--Energy consumption--Statistics. I Uy, Lily V.,1953- , II. World Bank. III. Title. IV. Series.HE278.Y46 1985 380,5:0951 85-3321ISBN 0-8213-0513-1

ABSTRACT

This paper compares China's transport indicators with those of

other countries and attempts to define prospects for the future

development of transport in China. The share of transport in the

economy is briefly discussed, followed in Chapter II by an analysis of

the factors contributing to the high freight-transport intensity that

characterizes China's transport sector. These factors are country size

and resource location; the structure of the economy and, in particular,

the small role of the service sector in China; the degree of processing

of raw materials; and the administrative structure and vertical

integration of industry which often results in circuitous routings and

excessive transport. The chapter concludes with a discussion of average

transport distance and modal split.

In contrast to freight, passenger traffic volumes are low, as

is personal mobility, in comparison with other countries in the same

income range (Chapter III). This is also partly because capital invest-

ments in the transport sector have been small, with priority given to

freight movement. Investment levels are discussed in Chapter IV,

together with their productivity. The low share of total energy

consumed in the transport sector in China in comparison with other

countries is discussed in Chapter V, as is the fuel consumption of rail-

ways and road vehicles. The final chapter draws conclusions from the

foregoing analyses and identifies some of the principal issues in the

sector that China will face to the end of the century.

COMDENSE

Ce document compare les indicatei:rs de transport en Chine avec

ceux d'autres pays et tente de d6finir les perspectives de d6veloppement

des transports en Chine. L'etude resume c `abord !0i mportance des trans-

ports dans 1'economie puis9 au chapitze HI, analyse les facteurs contri-

buoant a la forte densit6 du fret oui cara.ct6rise la secteur. Ces facteurs

sont ies suivants - la superf-ci'e du pays et ia localisation des ressour-

ces, la structure de 17economie et, en part. cuIer, le roie limit6 du

secteur des services, le degr6 de tcanskorr'atiKoa des mati6res premi6res,

et 17organisation administrative et v0 irtegraton verticale ee 17.ndustrie

cqui. se traduisent souvent par des it:;r.-eraires ind`rec_s et dec deplace-

ments excessifs. Ce chapitre se termrne paz 7 2 pr6centat i on des distances

moyennes parcourues et de la repartition moc_-ale.

Compare au fret, le trafic voyageurs est faible, les Chinois se

dep^ta~a- peu par rapport aux habi,:anto du:.ee pays ayant ^o r.5.Te niveau

de reve-.u kChapitre Xio $ette s.'.-uatIon ent aussi en partie ec ce que

les depsnses d'6 uipement consacezes eu sectetar des transports ont ste

falibies et que la priorit6 a 6te dorn6e az; f-aet. Les niveaux d';.nvestis-

senrent ast leur productivit6 son- presentes c.u C'napitre W. 'IL Chapitre V

mov'cre qce, par ;Japo: 2 dautree pays, le -ourcentage de lv-ergie

tetale conso=me par le eecteur de-, tranc or'os et la ccnsoo0nmt4.on de

co•iust4.'le des trains et das ve.Iicdies Soni faio.Des. Le dernzcr chapitre

-'~re les conclusions des a.nalyses recetenteP et id e;.i2`e ce-tains des

prob!lene3 cles qui se pcsent daas je secu'. ^t &=xque½ la Cnine eara a

fa_"z `ioe ffiici a la f,.n S du s'. ,

EXTRACTO

En el presente documento se comparan los indicadores del transporte

en China con los de otros paises y se intenta definir las perspectivas

existentes para el futuro desarrollo del sector en el pais. Se hace un

breve examen de la participaci6n del transporte en la economia, seguido,

en el Capitulo II, de un analisis de los factores que contribuyen a la

gran intensidad del transporte de carga que caracteriza al sector en ese

pais. Esos factores son las dimensiones del pais y la ubicaci6n de los

recursos; la estructura de la economia y, en particular, la pequeiia fun-

ci6n que desempenia el sector de servicios en China; el grado de elabora-

ci6n de las materias primas y, por ultimo, la estructura administrativa y

la integraci6n vertical de la industria, que a menudo se traducen en

itinerarios sinuosos y un transporte excesivo. El capitulo concluye con

un examen de la distancia media de transporte y de la distribuci6n modal.

En contraste con el trAfico de carga, el volumen de transporte de

pasajeros es bajo, lo mismo que la movilidad personal, en comparaci6n con

otros paises de la misma escala de ingresos (Capitulo III). Esto se debe

tambien en parte a que las inversiones de capital en el sector del trans-

porte han sido pequenias y a que se asigna prioridad al movimiento de

carga. Los niveles y la productividad de las inversiones se analizan en

el Capitulo IV. La pequeiia proporci6n del consumo total de energia

correspondiente al sector del transporte en China, en comparaci6n con

otros paises, asi como el consumo de combustible del ferrocarril y de los

vehiculos de carretera, se examinan en el Capitulo V. En el capitulo

final se extraen conclusiones de los analisis precedentes y se identifican

algunos de los principales problemas del sector que debera enfrentar China

hacia fines del siglo.

TRANSPORT IN CHINA: A COMPARISON OF BASIC INDICATORSWITH THOSE OF OTHER COUNTRIES

Table of Contents

Page No.

CHAPTER 1: TRANSPORT IN THE ECONOMY .. 1

CHAPTER 2: FREIGHT TRAFFIC .. 4Freight Growth ........................................ 4Freight Intensity ..................................... 6Average Transport Distance and Modal Split ............ 14Port Traffic .......................................... 20

CHAPTER 3: PASSENGER TRAFFIC .. 22Crowth of Passenger Traffic ........................... 22Travel Purpose ........................................ 26Modal Split ........................................... 28

CHAPTER 4: CAPITAL INVESTMENT PRODUCTIVITY .. 29Infrastructure ........................................ 29Rolling Stock ......................................... 32Investment ............................................ 33

CHAPTER 5: ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN TRANSPORT ....................... 35Railways .............................................. 37Road Transport ........................................ 38

CHAPTER 6: SOME TRANSPORT ISSUES FOR CHINA ...................... 39

Chart 1 China - Comparative Growth of Net Material Product,Output of Agriculture and Industry and Transport inTons and Ton-Km ....................................... 3

Chart 2 China - CVIAO and Total Freight Growth Trend,1952-1982 ............................................. 5

Chart 3 Total Freight and GNP for Selected Countries,1960-1981. 7

Chart 4 China - Passenger Traffic, 1952-1982 .23Chart 5 A Cross-country Comparison of Passenger Traffic and

GNP Per Capita .25

Map I China and Japan Coastlines and DistancesBetween Ports .18

Map Transport Intensity/Rail Intensity/Share ofHeavy Industry .71

ANNEX TABLES:Table 2.1 Intercountry Comparison of Freight Traffic Growth and

CNP ElasticityTable 2.2 Total Freight (bil. tkm) and GNP, selected countriesTable 2.3 China - Freight Intensity by Province

Table 2.4 Average Freight DistanceTable 2.5 Short Distance Rail Transport in Large Urban AreasTable 2.6 Short Haul Transport on Selected Trunk LinesTable 2.7 China - Total freight turnover by mode of transportTable 2.8 USA - Total freight turnover by mode of transpor'tTable 2.9 USSR - Total freight turnover by mode of transportTable 210 Brazil - Total freight turnover by mode of transportTable 2.11 India - Total freight turnover by mode of transoortTable 2.12 Japan - Total freight turnover by mode of transportTable 2.13 Japan - Water freight by commodity and rankingTable 2.14 China - Rail freight by commodity and rankingTable 2.15 USSR - Rail freight by commodity and rankingTable 2.16 India - Rail freight by commodity and rankingTable 2.17 Japan - Rail freight by commodity and rankingTable 2.18 Brazil - Rail freight by commodity and rankingTable 2.19 India - Commodity Flows and Intermodal SharesTable 2.20 Japan - Road Freight by Commodity

Table 3.1 Passenger Traffic (bil pkm) and per capita incomefor Selected Countries

Table 3.2 USA - Household Trips by PurposeTable 3.3 China - Passenger Traffic by Node of TransportTable 3.4 USA - Passenger Traffic by Mode of TransportTable 3.5 USSR - Passenger Traffic by Mode of TransportTable 3.6 Brazil - Passenger Traffic by Mode of TransportTable 3.7 India - Passenger Traffic by Mode of TransportTable 3.8 Japan - Passenger Traffic by Mode of Transport

Table 4.1 Rail and Road Network Density in Selected CountriesTable 4.2 China - Rail Density by ProvinceTable 4.3 China - Investment in the Transport Sector

Table 5.1 International Comparison of Rated Fuel Consumption for Trucks

TRANSPORT IN CHINA: A COMPARISON OF BASIC INDICATORSWITH THOSE OF OTHER COUNTRIES

i. This paper compares China's transport indicators with those of othercountries and attempts to draw prospects for future development of transportin China. The first chapter deals with the share of transport in the economy,chapters 2 and 3 cover in more details freight and passenger transport, theirgrowth over time and in relation to GNP, their intensity, average distance andmodal split. The fourth chapter deals with investments, and the fifth withenergy consumption in the sector; and the sixth highlights some of the majorissues that China faces in transport.

ii. International comparisons of transport indicators are difficultsince transport is very much country specific. The size and shape of thecountry, the extent of its coast line, the navigability of its lakes andrivers, the location of natural resources and population, the nature and com-position of the economy all affect transport, particularly the movement offreight. Therefore, we have limited our systematic analysis to large coun-tries, namely USA, USSR, India, Brazil and Japan, with occasional reference toother countries on particular topics.

1. TRANSPORT IN THE ECONOMY

1.01 The share of transport in the net material product of China (NMP)has been stable around 4% since 1952. This share in gross domestic product(GDP) in 1981 is estimated to have been no more than 4.1% even with adjustmentof distorted prices. This is lower than the share in other countries used inour comparison:

TRANSPORT AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP

1950-60 1960-70 1970-77

India 4.9 5.0 5.3Korea 4.1 5.9 6.5Brazil 6.0 5.6 5.2USA 6.6 6.4 6.4Japan 8.1 7.4 6.3

Source: World Tables, The Second Edition (1980), World Bank 1980.

From the above table it appears that the transport share of GDP increases incountries at low levels of income (India, Korea) and decreases when income

- 2 -

exceeds a certain level (Brazil, Japan, USA)O It is surprising that the shareof transport in NMP has remained constant in China since transport has beengrowing faster than NMP (Chart 1). From 1952 to 1981, NMP at constant pricesincreased over five times while freight tonnage increased over seven times andfreight ton km over 11 times. Passenger traffic also increased more than 10times. This would indicate that transport costs have decreased in relation toother costs, which may be explained by the high intensity with which the net-work and the rolling stock is used (see para. 4.02).

102 China's transport sector is characterized by a high freightintensity, higher than any country except in the USSR; but a low passengerintensity comparatively to other countries again except the USSR. The tablebelow relates freight and passenger traffic to GNP in 1980-81 for the variouscountries of our sample:

FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TRANSPORT INTENSITY

Tkm Pkm GNP Tkm/ Pkm/ Traffic unit/bln bln bln US$ $GNP $GNP $GNP/a

China (81) 852 250 275 3.10 091 4.01USSR (80) 6,021 891 1,393 4.32 0.64 4.96USA (81) 4,766 2,572 2,635 1.8l 0.98 2.79India (81) 266 542 159 1.67 3.41 5S08Brazil (81) 343 450 245 1.40 1.84 3.24Korea (81) 29 53 61 0.47 0087 1.34Japan (80) 439 634 1,071 0.41 0.59 1000

/a Traffic unit = tkm + pkm0

Source: See Annex Tables 2.2 and 3.1

The apparent contradiction between the high freight transport intensity of theChinese economy and the low contribution of transport to GDP can be explainedby the dominance of rail transport in China (see para. 2.16). Rail transportis much less labor intensive than road transport and therefore has a muchlower value added per ton km thar. road transport. In China road freight isseven times more labor intensive than rail while the value added is aboutthree times that of rail0 In the US road is about five times more laborintensive0 The two following chapters analyze in more detail freight andpassenger transport in China and other countries of our sample0

CHINACOMPARATIVE GROWTH OF NET MATERIAL PRODUCT,

OUTPUT OF AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORTIN TONS AND TONKM (INDEX 1§52=1iG)

2.200-

LIGHT&HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT2,000- - TKM

- - TONS1.8800 --- NET MATERIAL PRODUCT

--- GROSS-AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT1,600-

1 , 400-

r 1,200X

ee

18950 15 1 9B0 gee I8C 1970 1 975 1980

SOURCES: t. STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF CHINA, 1883.2. CHINA: RECENT ECONOMIC TRENDS AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT

ANNEX 2, TABLE 2.3.

20 FREIGHT TRAFFIC

Freight Growth

2.01 Domestic freight transpocted in 1982 reached 928 billion ton-km(tkrn) a 13-fold increase since 19529 or an average annual growth rate ofalmost 9%. This makes China the third largest country in the world in termsof freight transport (tkm) after the USSR and the USAo

FREIGHT TRAFFIC VOLUME(billion ton-km)

Road Domestic Pipe- Civil OceanYear Rail /a waterway /b lines aviation Total shipping

1952 60.2 1.4 118 - - 73.4 2.8Modal split (%) 8200 2 16 -- - 100 -

1977 456.8 25.1 102.1 38.7 0.1 622.8 174.11978 534.5 27.4 129.2 43.0 Oo1 734.2 248.71979 559.8 74.5 139.3 47.6 3.1 821.0 317.41980 571.7 76.4 152.3 49.1 Col 849.6 353.21981 5712 78.0 i50M7 49.9 0.2 8500 364.31982 612.0 94.9 170.8 50.1 0.2 928.0 376.91983 664.6 10804 180.5 /c 52.4 0.2 1l00601 n.a.Modal split (%) 66 11 L8 5 - 100 -

/a From 1979 includes all road transport not only that done by road trans-port departments under the Ministry of Communications (MOC)o

/b Excludes Ocean going transport which is often included in Chinese statis-tics. In 19799 coastal shipping accounted for 85 billion tkm and inlandwaterways for 54 billion tkm. The figures for 1982 were respectively 106and 65 billion tkm.

/c Estimate.

Note: These data exclude transport by traditional means whic'o is certainlysizeable in terms of tonnage but mostly on short distanceo

n.a.9 Not available.

2.02 For the period 1952 to 1982 in China.9 the growth of 'reight trans-port has been somewhat higher than the growth in the gross value of industrialand agricultural output (GVIAO) Ssee Chart 2). Freight transport grew quicklybetween 1952 and 19609 slowed doun from 196C to 19759 and recovered after1976. For the purpose of international compaCison freight giowth has beenrelated to GNP in constant terms9 a more coirmonly available mne&sure thanGVIAOO A regression analysis has been carried out with GNP in constant1979-81 US$ as the independent variable anc: freight tlun as the dependentvariable (Annex Table 2.1).

CHINAGVIAO AND TOTAL FREIGHT GROWTH TREND

1952- 1982i,e-

900 -GVIAO (IN BIL. YUAN) _,

--- TOTAL FREIGHT (IN BIL. TON-KM) ,,'800- /'

I

700- , r- ~~~~/ /

H~~~~- /

Iii~~~, /

/80 1 , , , , , , " " / lL

I-5G00-

400

300-40e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_

200-

1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980

- 6 -

2.03 As expected freight elasticity is generally higher in the earlierstages of development; from 1960 to 19819 both Brazil and Korea had elasti-cities over 1, while the USA and Japan were below 1 (Chart 3). The tablebelow shows freight elasticities relative to GNP in various countries. Thevery high elasticity for the USSR reflects the emphasis placed on developmentof resources in the far east greatly increasing average transport distances9at a time of slower overall econcmic growLh0

TOTAL FREIGHT (Bilo tkm) AND GNP (Bilt US$)A CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISON

Years Elasticity

China 1965-1981 1.034USA 1960-1981 0.941USSR 1965-1980 1.427India 1960-i981 0.921Brazil 1960-1981 l1l09Japan 1960-1980 0.756Korea 1961-1981 1.218

Note: The multicountry regression of freight transport (tkm) and GNP ($)gives the following equation: log of Freight Transport = -0.45 + 1.085log of GNP (r square = 0.795) see chart 3. Further details are givenin Annex Table 2.1 together with analyses of sub-periods within the 20year spans.

2.04 It is very difficult to predict freight elasticities for China inthe future as there are a number of factors acting in opposite directions.The attempt to deemphasize heavy industry combined with the campaign forindustrial energy savings would point toward lower freight elasticity. On theother hand9 the rationalization of industry which may mean larger plants insome sectors and less regional self-sufficiency would lead to higher freightelasticities.

Freight Intensity

2.05 China's economy appears at first sight highly intensive in freighttransport0 Expressed in ton-km of freight per dollar of GNP9it is almosttwice as intensive as the USA9 India and Brazil and eight times as intensiveas Japan and Korea both smaller size countries0 High transport intensityseems to be a systemic characteristic of most socialist economies; the intens-ity in the USSR being about 40% higher than that of China0 There are a numberof factors affecting transport intensity: country size9 location of resourcesand population9 composition of GNP9 the level of processing of raw materialssuch as ores9 lumber9 agricultural products 9 and the degree of vertical inte-gration of industry0 The effect of each factor is discussed below on thebasis of the international comparison0 An analysis of provincial transportintensity in China is also added at the end of this sectiono

TOTAL FREIGHT AND GNPFOR SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1960-1981

I I §| I I l '''I/_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~USS

1000 XN

0

F- INDIAI- 7

IG ZILH

F-

0I-

i 0 ~ I*i1I i 11

1010 1000

GNP( BIL. US$

- 8 -

FREIGHT INTENSITY 1980

Country TKM/$CNP

China 3.10USSR 4.32USA 1.81India 1.67Brazil 1.40Korea 0.47Japan 0.41

Note: See Annex Table 2.2 for details, time series and sources.

2.06 Country Size and Resource Location. Country size is an obviousfactor affecting transport intensity measured in ton-km. This can be illu-strated by comparing freight transport in Japan versus that in the USA for1980.

TOTAL FREIGHT 1980

Country area Tons Ton-km Average distance(million km2) (millions) (billions) (km)

Japan 0.38 59985 439 73

USA 9.36 5,501 49827 877

China 9.60 59457 850 156

While Japan moves a higher tonnage than the USA9 the average distance is lessthan one-tenth9 reflecting not only the size of the country but the concen-tration of its population along a limited portion of the eastern seaboard.Size and resource location are certainly factors in the high intensity ofSoviet transport0 While average distance for total Soviet freight transportis not available9 the average distance for rail freight has increased from 800km in 1965 to some 925 km in 1980; reflecting the need to exploit more distantresources in Siberia and further east particularly for coal9 ores and timbero

2.07 The implications for China are again somewhat balanced0 Chile thecountry is as large as the USA9 the population is far more concentrated. Over70% of the population lives east of a Beijing-Guangzhou line9 while in the USAboth the east and west coasts are highly developed0 For China9 this wouldimply generally moderate transport distances within its densely populated

-9 -

areas, with a smaller proportion of freight moving to and from the distantwestern parts of the country. Regarding resources, the most common, such ascoal, are spread throughout the country. However, the conditions for coalexploitation in the Shanxi-Nei Monggol area are more favorable than in theNortheast and Southwest. Concentrating on these resources will increasetransport intensity more than would the development of local production closerto demand areas or the development of industry close to primary resources.The trade-offs are between higher mining costs and lower transport costs ofregional mines. The same applies to feed grains and meat production. Theformer are produced more efficiently in the north-east, the latter is producedmore intensively in the south. The trade-offs are between shipping grain fromnorth to south versus shifting some of the meat production to the north.

2.08 Composition of CNP. This is probably the major factor affectingtransport intensity. Heavy industry is more transport intensive than lightindustry which in turn is more intensive than services. Therefore it shouldbe expected that, all other things being equal as an economy diversifies,transport intensity decreases. Such a decrease is very noticeable in Japanwhere freight intensity decreased from 0.62 tkm/$CNP in 1960 to 0.41 in 1980while the service sector increased from 42% to 53% of GNP. The case is some-what less clear in the US where a long-term decrease from 1.91 in 1960 to 1.69in 1977 was somewhat reversed in 1981 (1.81). This can be explained by thevery small changes which occurred in the sectoral composition of the US econ-omy between 1960 and 1980. The table below gives the broad sectoral dis-tribution of CDP in the countries of our sample.

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CDP

Agriculture Industry Services1960 1981 1960 1981 1960 1981

China 47 35 33 46 20 20India 50 37 20 26 30 37Korea 37 17 20 39 43 44Brazil 16 13 35 34 49 53Japan 13 4 45 43 42 53USA 4 3 38 34 58 63

Source: World Development Report 1983, Table 3 p. 152-153.

China has the smallest service sector and the largest industrial sector amongthe above countries. This is certainly a major factor in explaining the highfreight intensity. Assuming that the service sector does not generate anyfreight transport, the freight intensity related to total GNP of a countrywhere the service sector is 20% (China) would be double that of a countrywhere the service sector is 60% (USA) with the same intensity of freight forthe other sectors (agriculture and industry). The freight intensity of China

- 10 -

is thus smaller than that of the USA when the service sector is excluded, butstill higher than that of India. The following table shows freight intensityrelated to the non-service sectors of the economy.

FREIGHT INTENSITY 1980-81

Non-service Freight intensityTkm/$GNP sectors/GDP excluding service(1) (2) sector (1°2)

China 3.10 0080 3088USA 1.81 0.37 4.89India 167 C.63 2.65Brazil 1.40 0C47 2.98Korea 0.47 0.56 0084Japan 0.41 C047 0.87

Source: See tables9 para. 2.05 and 2.08.

2.09 Processing of Raw Materials. Any weight reducing processing done atthe source of raw materials will reduce transport intensity. Coal beingtransported in such massive quantities in China is a prime candidate for pre-transport treatment. The following international comparison speaks foritself.

COAL PREPARATION IN PERCENTAGE OF RAW COAL

China Japan France Britain Germany USSR

18.0 94.7 92.5 88.3 87.4 63A4

Source: Ways to Improve Economic Benefit of the Coal Industry Enterprises byLi Shaoxun and Ji Zhongshi in Research on the Economics andManagement of Technology No. 49 December 319 19829 po 52-56.

In the case of the USSR9 it is said that further coal preparation would save20-25 million tons of transport per year; (out of a total moved by rail ofover 700 million tons) and that ex essive humidity and rock content mobilize2009000 extra rail cars per year.- In China a reduction in the volume ofcoal transported by rail of 5 to 10% would save transporting 20-40 milliontons.

1/ Herve Gicquiau, "Une Crise Durable des Transports Interieurs de l'URSS",Le Courrier des Pays de l'Est no. 2519 Mai 1981.

- 11 -

2.10 Other examples from the USSR I/ indicate that, every year, 11 mil-lion tons of fertilizer are transported which contain only half the normalnutrient level. Also, because scrap steel is not well pressed and packed, itis estimated that 250,000 extra rail cars are needed to move the total volumeof 58 million tons. Regarding timber transport, it is estimated that raw logsrequire 35-40% more rolling stock than would sawn timber. By contrast, thetable below indicates that in the US large tonnages of primary forest and woodraw materials move only a very short distance (93 km) while smaller quantitiesof sawmill products and plywood move on distances which, for rail transport,are comparable to those in China and the USSR for timber (which includes bothlogs and sawn timber). This indicates that in the US processing generallyoccurs near the production sites. From the US figures above, it can also beseen that the share of rail increases as the average transport distance forthe product becomes longer (Modal split is discussed in more detail below).

TRANSPORT OF TIMBER AND PRODUCTS

AverageTons % tkm distance

million rail million km

USA (1977)

Primary forest and wood raw materials 296 27,638 93Of which by rail 45 15.2 5,235 116

Sawmill products 61 36,346 596Of which by rail 16 26.2 22,302 1,394

Millwork plywood and prefab 26 18,885 726Of which by rail 8.8 33.8 13,933 1,583

China (1981)

Timber by rail 40 - 50,000 1,250

USSR (1979)

Timber by rail 145 - 242,600 1,673

Source: 1977 Census of Transportation, Commodity Transportation SurveySummary, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, June 1981.

2.11 The 1982 Almanac of China's economy mentions iron ore and phosphaterock where dressing could save transport. However, since detailed informationon raw material processing for products other than coal is lacking, it is notpossible to estimate how much total transport demand could be reduced in Chinaby processing and preparing before transport. It is probably safe to say,however, that savings could be substantial.

- 12 -

2.12 Vertical Integration of Industry. It is not clear to what extentthis factor affects transport intensity in China9 as the general impression isthat industries tend to be more integrated than in other countries i.e. manu-facture all components in-house. If that is true9 further rationalization ofproduction may imply more transport per unit of output. For instance9 if arefrigerator factory decides to buy its compressors rather than make them9transport will increase. However this may be more economical if the refriger-ator factory would otherwise make compressors in uneconomic quantities. Inthe USSR, it appears that fragmentation in certain industries i-7 leading toexcess transport of parts and unfinished heavy steel products5. Also thevertical integration within Ministries results in purchases of componentswithout regard for transport distances9 i.e., ignoring a source for theproduct which may be nearer but under a different Ministry. '"'or example, therolled steel needed by the Chongqing Post and Telecommunications EquipmentFactory is supplied by the Chongqing No0 3 Iron and Steel Plant0 Although thewarehouses of the two are only four kilometres apart, steel products, underthe old system, had to be transported to a warehouse several hundred kilo'metres away, then distributed to the Post and Telecommunications EquipmentFactory after management fees were collected by the administrative departmentin charge0 As a result, steel products which cost 700 yuan per ton finallycost 900 yuan per ton after 3 ravelling more than 500 kilometres on theChengdu-Chongqing Railway0"- Reform of this "old system" has started asenterprises formerly under the administration of 22 ministries and SichuanProvince are now under the management of the city of Chongqing, but surelysimilar problems still exist in other parts of China0

2o13 China: Freight Intensity by Province0 Freight intensity measuredin tkm/yuan GVIAO is above the national average in the north, northeast andthree southern provinces Hunan, Guizhou and Guangxi (Annex Table 2.3 and Mappg0 71). While the data on tkm by province include all modes, the road andwater transport totals allocated to the provinces amount to only one-thirdtheir national totals reported in global figures0 For roads, provincial fig-ures cover only the transport bureaus under MOC; for waterways, it is notclear what is covered, but the provincial distribution probably excludescoastal shipping0 If all water and road transport were recorded by province,the transport intensity of provinces in the Yangtze river basin would cer-tainly increase and Jiangxi and Hubei could exceed the national average also0

2.14 Most provinces with a transport intensity above the national averagealso have above average rail network density, both in terms of population andarea0 The same provinces also tend to have a higher proporticn of heavyindustry than provinces with lower transport intensityo The table below showsthe provinces with above and below average transport intensity along with

2/ Herve Gicquiau, opo cit0

3/ Tang Zurong, "Trial Economic Reforms in a Big City," Bei_ing Review,No. 46, November 12, 1984.

- 13 -

FREIGHT TRANSPORT INTENSITY, RAIL NETWORK AND HEAVY LIGHTINDUSTRY SHARE BY PROVINCE

Transport Rail Density per Heavy/lightintensity per area population industry

tkm/Y GVIAO km/sq km km/000 pop. ratio

North and NorthwestHebei 2.14 16.8 0.6 52/48Inner Mongolia 2.39 4.0 2.3 55/45Shanxi 1.32 13.8 0.8 68/32Shaanxi 1.00 9.8 0.6 46/54Gansu 1.66 5.8 1.2 77/23Ningxia 1.99 6.7 1.1 67/37

NortheastLiaoning 1.26 25.2 1.1 64/36Jilin 1.28 19.3 1.6 57/43Heilongjiang 1.28 10.8 1.5 66/34

CentralHenan 1.50 22.5 0.5 45/55Anhui 1.01 10.0 0.3 45/55

SouthwestGuizhou 1.17 8.1 0.5 57/43Guangxi 1.07 8.9 0.6 37/63Hunan 0.97 12.2 0.5 53/40

NATIONAL AVERAGE 0.85 5.6 0.5 49/51

Central and SouthShandong 0.56 11.7 0.2 44/56Jiangsu 0.44 7.1 0.1 39/61Zhejiang 0.55 8.3 0.2 35/65Fujian 0.61 8.6 0.4 37/63Jiangxi 0.83 8.6 0.4 49/51Hubei 0.74 8.9 0.3 48/52Guangdong 0.36 5.2 0.2 35/65Sichuan 0.48 5.2 0.3 49/51

Note: Further details are given in Annex Tables 2.3 and 4.2.

Source: Statistical Yearbook of China 1981.

- 14 -

their rail density and the share of heavy and light industry. Only inShaanxi, Henan, Anhui and Guangxi is the share of heavy industry lower thanaverage while transport intensity is higher. This can easily be explained forHenan by its location at the intersection of two very important rail lines;the north-south Beijing - Guangzhou and the east-west Longhai ines0 The sameexplanation, although to a lesser extent also applies to Shaanzi, Anhui andGuangxi, where transit traffic is probably higher than averagec A regressionanalysis shows that there is a significant relationship between transportintensity in tkm/Yuan of CVIAO and the share of heavy industrial output in aprovince. The equation is Y = -0.335 + 2.544 x in which Y is tkm/Yuan ofGVIAO and x is the heavy industry output share in percent of total industrialoutput (GVIO). Details are shown in Annex Table 2039 po 2 .

Average Transport Distance and Modal Split

2.15 Some references to transport distances were made in the sectionabove about transport intensity0 Annex Table 2.4 gives average freight dis-tances for China, USA and Japan, the only countries for which information isavailable0 For other countries, average distances are only available for railfreight0 In China, average transport distance increased substantially from159 km in 1949 to 382 km in 1982. The increase has not been gradual but inbrief spurts followed by many years without change0 As the economy recoveredfrom the war, it increased rapidly to 249 km in 1951 and then remained aroundthis level until 1962. A new surge occurred and the average reached 282 km in1965, stagnating at this new level until 1976, probably as a result of thepolicy of increased regional self-sufficency0 From then, it has been increas-ing very rapidly, adding 30% in 5 years0 The present average transport dist-ance in China is still much lower than that of the US, a country of equalsize0 The location of population and resources are probably the main factorexplaining this fact (para. 2.07). Average transport distance may thus wellcontinue to increase in China with rationalization of industrial productionand greater reliance on specialization of areas endowed with specific producc-tion advantages (coal in the north, feed grains in the northeast)0

2.16 The dominance of rail in the sector is unique to China0 Despite areduction in share from over 80% in 1950 to 66% in 1982, rail in China stillhas the largest share of freight traffic of any country in the world0 Con-versely, the use of road transport in China is among the lowest in theworld0 The only country with a lower road share is the USSR mainly because ofthe very large share handled by pipelines (32%).

- 15 -

MODAL SPLIT OF FREIGHT TRAFFIC /a(in % of total tkm)

Rail Road Water Pipeline

China (1982) 66 10 18 5India (1981) 63 33 4 -USSR (1982) 57 7 4 32USA (1981) 31 18 31 19Brazil (1981) 23 60 13 3Japan (1980) 9 41 51

/a Rounded figures. Further details, as well as time series and sources aregiven in Annex Tables 2.5 to 2.10.

2.17 Considering tons rather than ton km gives a higher share to the roadmode in China, but this is also typical of all other countries.

RAIL AND ROAD TONNAGE

Rail Road Road/rail-- (million tons) -- ratio

China (1980) a/ 1,113 3,855 3.5USSR (1979) 3,687 23,000 6.2Korea (1982) 47 356 7.6Japan (1980) 74 5,318 72.0USA (1977 industrial

products only) 548 1,891 3.5

/a The road figure for China includes 760 million tons handled by theHighway Transport Departments and 3,095 million tons by own accounttrucks, according to surveys conducted by MOC.

The above statistics may not be entirely comparable in coverage. Some dealwith intercity traffic only (Korea, USA), others like Japan probably includetrips within urban areas. In the case of Japan, almost 30% of the road tonn-age consists of sand, gravel and stone moving an average distance of 16 kmonly. The figure for the USA covers only industrial products and thus fallfar short of the total road transport which include large quantities of pri-mary materials moving over short distances. The figures above confirm thatmodern road transport in China is still very small. However, the totaltonnage moved on roads is probably much higher when one considers all the

- 16 -

traditional modes including all the agricultural tractors which represent mostof the traffic on many roads in China.

2.18 The burden placed on the Chinese railway by short distance trafficis well known. Hauls shorter than 100 km account for 23% of total railfreight traffic and amounted to 250 million tons in 1980; hauls shorter than50 km accounted for 14% of rail traffic. The same problem appears to affectthe USSR with its railway transporting 380 million tons (13%) within less than50 km and 700 million tons (24% of total) within less than 100 km. In India,however9 tonnage moved less than 100 km accounts for only 6% of total railtraffic while 50% of the traffic moves over 700 km0 In China much of theshort haul rail traffic happens in and around large metropolitan areas such asBeijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Taiyuan etc0 For instance, 49% of the 30 milliontons loaded in the Beijing urban area are moving over distances less than50 km0 Percentages are 33% and 25% respectively for Tianjin and Taiyuan.Major commodities in this metropolitan rail transport are constructionmaterials, coal, ores, oil and steel generally moving from sidings to sidings(Annex Table 2.5). On a sample of main lines, short haul trafLfic ranges onlyfrom 0.5% to 11% of total traffic, except for some short movements of ore andcoal between a mine and a plant on two of the lines (Annex Table 2.6). There-fore, little capacity could be saved by removing short haul traffic on trunklines; but the situation would need to be studied in large metropolitan areas0

2.19 In almost all countries, the rail share of traffic has decreasedmarkedly over the last 20-30 years (Tables 2.7 to 2.12). The most strikingcase is Japan where the share of rail dropped from 51% in 1955 to 9% in1980. The exception to this trend is Brazil which, however, does not have amajor railway infrastructure and where the share of rail increased from 19% in1960 to 23% in l981 Most of the shift from the railways has been toward roadtransport, except in USSR where pipelines account for 32% of total trans-port0 As illustrated by the international experience, there is a large poten-tial for the development of road transport in China0 In India, road transporthas been shown to be more economical than rail for most commodity movements upto 200 to 250 kilometers0 For some commodities, particularly perishablefruits and vegetables and small machinery, road transport has a comparativeadvantage over rail for distances up to 450 kni0 Further details are inpara. 2.22. The average distance for road transport of industrial products inthe USA is 235 km, within the economic range indicated for India. In comparison,average road transport distance in China is a mere 35 km; up from 10 km in the1950s. The average is apparently only 18 km in the USSRo Increasing theshare of road transport in China will face a number of problems, i.e., theneed for major development efforts on the road network; the production ofvehicles, particularly fuel efficient ones; and the demand for liquid fuel,which could easily increase five times over the next 15-20 years0

2.20 In Japan, the shift from rail has not only brought traffic to roadsbut also to coastal shipping which has replaced rail as the dominant mode andaccounts now for 51% of the traffic (the share of rail in 1955). In 1980,coastal shipping in Japan moved 450 million tons over an average distance of470 km (Annex Table 2.13). In comparison, the two transport bureaus under theMinistry of Communication in China moved only 50 million tons in 1979 albeitover distances exceeding 1,000 km0 The figure may somewhat understate the

- 1 7 -

total amount of coastal shipping as some will be done by agencies not undercentral authority. Nevertheless, there seems to be scope for further increas-ing coastal shipping in China. The distances for coastal shipping are verycomparable for the two countries. The distance between the new industrialport of Tomakomai in Hokkaido to Nagasaki in Kyushu is equivalent to thatbetween Qingdao and Guangzhou (see Map 1). In Japan, five commodities accountfor some 80% of the coastal shipping traffic:

JAPAN COASTAL SHIPPING(Major Commodities in % of Total)

-- 1965 1980 … -

tkm % of tkm % ofRank billion total Rank billion total

Coal 1 23.7 29.3 5 12.3 5.8Iron & steel 2 14.2 17.6 3 31.5 15.0Petroleum products 3 11.8 14.7 1 58.3 27.7Cement 4 6.3 7.8 4 20.6 9.8Non metallic minerals 5 6.1 7.6 2 46.7 22.2

Total 62.1 77.0 169.4 80.5

Note: See further details in Annex Table 2.13.

Traffic for these five commodities increased almost three times in 15 years orat an average annual rate of 7% p.a. In the case of China, coal, petroleumproducts and grain are very good candidates for increased transport by coastalshipping.

2.21 Modal split varies greatly from commodity to commodity. Typically,bulk commodities are more economically carried by either rail or water trans-port than by road, even over short distances. Indeed, in most countriesincluding China about three quarters of all rail traffic is made up by at most10 commodities. As shown in Tables 2.14 to 2.18 these commodities are thesame for all countries and their ranking is fairly stable. They consist ofcoal, petroleum, ores, timber, iron and steel, cement, construction materials,grain and fertilizer.

2.22 Modal split by commodity requires special studies and surveys whichare not readily available in many countries. A survey conducted in India forinterregional freight traffic, dividing India into 289 regions, shows thefollowing modal split for various commodities in 1978-79.

QINKLANGDAOBEIJING )

Q ~~~~TIANJIN t 2

2~QINGDAO

SHANGHAI

G f T~ ~~~~~~~~oky

Lrn

KagosNima ~~~~CHINA ANTD JAPAN COASTLINES

c GUAINUITOU ~~~~~~Comparative Distanceebetween Njor Ports

- 19 -

INDIA: FhTERMODAL SHARE BY COMMODITY

Rail Road-- (share in %) --

Minerals, coal, iron and steel, salt, cement,mineral oils, fertilizers, stones and productsof agriculture >80 <20

Electrical equipment, leather goods, hides,edible oils, chemicals and drugs, non-ferrousmetals, livestock, tyres and tubes, machinery 40-60 40-60

Automobile and parts, milk and products, textiles,tea and coffee, paints and dyes, cycles and parts,fruits and vegetables, manufactured articles 4-30 70-96

Source: Report of the National Transport Policy Committee, May 1980, p. 24,see also Annex Table 2.19 for detailed figures.

2.23 As a further example, the table below shows the modal split forcement and fertilizer distribution in the U.S. Cement is distributed overrather short distances. Because of the ubiquity of the basic raw material,the industry locates near markets and, therefore, the most common transportmode is road (83% of the total). For fertilizer, the average distributiondistance is almost three times that for cement. As a result, much largerproportions of the product go by rail and water than for cement.

CEMENT AND FERTILIZER DISTRIBUTION BY MODEUSA 1977

Cement Fertilizertons tkm Av. tons tkm Av.

million % million dist million % million dist

Total 86.8 100 15,114 174 47.9 100 22,782 476

Rail 7.9 9 2,440 309 21.2 44 15,614 737

RoadCommon 42.7 49 6,626 155 9.2 19 2,037 221Private 29.1 34 3,435 118 9.3 19 1,309 141

Water 6.8 8 2,613 384 5.3 11 3,760 709

Other .3 - - - 2.9 6 - -

Source: U. S. Census of Transportation, 1977. Op. cit.

- 20 -

2.24 By comparison9 the average transport distance of cement by rail inChina is 422 km in 19839 substantially higher than in the US despite the factthat a higher percentage of the production moves by rail in China (30% versus9% in the U.S.). This long distance is somewhat puzzling since plant size inChina is smaller than in the US and indeed much of the production occurs invery small plants. One possible explanation is that there may be cross haulsof cement as a result of certain administrative organization. For the USSR9the data is only available for construction materials as a whole9 includingcement. The average rail transport distance is a very high 480 km. A com-parable average for China9 adding cement and construction materials9 would beonly 245 km. Construction materials consisting of sand9 gravel and brickswould generally be expected to move only on very short distances9 and primar-ily by road. In Japan, sand, gravel and stone account for almost 30% of thetonnage transported by road (1,492 million tons in 1980), but move on averageonly 16 km (Annex Table 2.20).

2.25 For fertilizer9 the average rail distance in China9 731 km, is verycomparable to that in the USA (737 km) and both are considerably lower thanthat in the USSR (1,079 km) and India (1,015 km). Here, the location of theplants and their average size have a major impact on a particular country'stransport pattern. The average distance in China increased rapidly from550 km in 1978 to over 700 km in 1982 following the opening of 13 largefertilizer plants. Distribution studies for specific commodities have beendone in many countries, Coal, cement, fertilizer, and grain would all bepotential candidates for similar studies in China in view of their dominancein the transport system.

Port Traffic

2.26 Port traffic in China is still low, mainly as a result of the self-sufficiency policy and the littLe development of coastal shipping mentionedabove. It is increasing rapidly, however, having grown almost 80% since 1976,from 142 million tons to 250 million tons in 1983 for the centrally admin-istered coastal ports. The Government has recognized the importance of havingadequate ports to handle the traffic generated by its change in trade policiesand major capacity investments are taking place in many ports. The presentfive-year plan envisages the construction of 132 new berths by 1990. Lookingat port development in other countries, it can only be expected that furtherlarge port investments will be needed in China over the next two decades tokeep up with expanding trade and increase the use of coastal shipping.

- 21 -

2.27 Recent figures on total port traffic in selected countries are asfollows:

PORT TRAFFIC IN SELECTED COUNTRIES(million tons)

Total Foreign trade Domestic

China 1982 238/a 82 156Japan 1979 2,885 815 1,225U.S.A. 1980 1,950 n.a. n.a.India 1978-79 major ports 70 n.a. n.a.Korea 1980 79 n.a. n.a.

/a Coastal ports only. In 1981 Changjiang river ports handled 87.9 milliontons.

n.a.: Not available.

The most explosive growth in port traffic in recent years has been that ofJapan. Traffic increased 10 times between 1955 and 1975, from 250 milliontons (about China's present level) to 2,500 million tons. This is equivalentto an average annual growth rate of over 12%. Over a twenty year periodbetween 1960 and 1980, port traffic in the U.S. more than doubled from942 million tons to 1,950 million tons. This corresponds to an average growthrate of 4% p.a. It is not surprising that this figure is lower than for Japanas the US economy was already more developed in 1960 and port traffic was thenfour times that of Japan. Also Japan imports most of its raw materials andenergy.

2.28 Port traffic is related in part to foreign trade, in part to thedevelopment of coastal shipping, both of which have increased rapidly in Japanover the last 20 years. The table below shows the relative share of foreigntrade in the GNP of selected countries.

FOREIGN TRADE COMPONENT OF CNP FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES(in % of GNP)

1960 1980Exports Imports Exports Imports

China 2.37 2.48 6.46 6.91Brazil 10.14 11.66 8.84 11.04U.S.A. 5.85 6.75 10.23 11.22Japan 5.44 9.55 13.78 14.68Korea 2.59 10.34 37.70 44.78

Source: World Bank EPD data base.

- 22 -

2.29 While the figure above may be lower than other estimates9 China'sforeign trade is still low by international standards. However9 a continua-tion of the present economic policies is likely to foster foreign tradeincrease at a rate higher than that of the overall economy. Coastal shippingmay also grow faster than overall economic growth. Combined9 these twofactors will generate a growth in port traffic which may well be 50% higherthan the growth in GNP, i.e.9 between 10 and 12% p.a. This would mean thatport traffic in the year 2000 could be five times the present level. Whilesome rationalization may be possible to avoid some of the present transship-ments between seaward and inland waterway traffic, this traffic demand wouldstill imply the need for very large port investments to avoid bottlenecks thatwould stifle economic development0

30 PASSENGER TRAFFIC

Growth of Passenger Traffic

3.01 Passenger traffic reached 274 billion passenger-km (pkri) *in 19829 an11-fold increase since 1952 and an average annual growth rate above 8%. Thegrowth of passenger traffic has been more erratic than that of freight0 Forinstance9 the traffic levels reached in the early 1960s were not achievedagain until the early 1970s. Since 1978 however9 the growth has been veryimpressive averaging 12% p.a0 9 well over twice the overall rate of economicgrowth (Chart 49 Annex Table 3.1). This illustrates the potential demand fortravel as income grows0 It is likely that this growth would have been evenhigher if it had not been constrained by the limited capacity to offer morepassenger services0

CHINA, PASSENGER TRAFFIC VOLUME(billion passenger-km)

Year Rail Road Waterways Aviation Total

1952 20.1 2.3 2.5 - 24.9Modal split % 81 9 10 - 100

1977 102.3 44.8 9.8 108 158.71978 109.3 52.1 1001 2.8 174.31979 121.6 60.3 11.4 3.5 196.81980 138.3 72.9 129 4o0 228.11981 147.3 83.9 13.8 500 250.01982 157.5 96.4 14.5 6.0 274.41983 177.6 110.6 15.4 5.9 309.5Modal split % 57 36 5 2 100

CHINA - PASSENGER TRAFFICSELECTE8D YEARS, 1952-t982

CIN BMILION PASS-KM)3a01

2E0-IJY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

, 200-./

It 153-

w

w

1<84 /988 1972 1976 198019S2 ISSO 19803 1 9B4 109B8 1 972 1976 19803

- 24 -

30C2 Despite the rapid growth in passenger traffic9 the mobility ofpeople in China is still very low; it reached 270 pkm per cap-ta in 1982versus 785 in India where GNP per capita is lower than in China. The tablebelow shows the mobility and GNP per capita in the countries used as com-parators.

INTERCOUNTRY COMPARISON OF PASSENGER TRAFFICPER CAPITA AND CNP PER CAPITA

Year Pkm/capita GNP/capita

CHINA 1981 252 278

India 1981 785 232Korea 1981 19368 19576USSR 1980 3,356 5,244Brazil 1981 3,735 2,027Japan 1980 5,416 9,173USA 1981 11,193 11,465

Note: The multicountry regresslon of mobility (pkm/capita) versus income(GNP/capita) gives the following equation. Mobility = -26.62 +- 0.865Income (r square = 0.91) see Chart 5. (Although the best fit is fornatural numbers, the graph is in log scale for presentationpurposes.) Further details as well as time series and sources aregiven in Annex Table 3.l1

The low mobility in China most likely results from demand restraint combinedwith inadequate supply of passenger transport capacity0 Demand restraint ispartially a consequence of the comparatively low share of CGP going to house-hold consumption, perhaps 50% in China as compared with some 7C% in India0The mobility in the USSR is also low; it is just Wlow that of Brazil whereper capita income is only half that of the ussR0 - The comparison ofmobility across economies indicates that it is generally lower in centrallyplanned economies than in market economies (Chart 5).

3.03 As indicated above, personal mobility is strongly related to incomelevels0 Elasticity relative to income is also higher at lower income levelsthan at higher ones0 Countries at low levels of income show increasing eles-ticities as income grows (China, India, Brazil, Korea) while higher incomecountries have decreasing elasticity (USA, Japan)0 Detailed elasticityfigures derived through regression analysis are given in the Lable below for

4/ USSR statistics do not include travel by private car, which has beenestimated to add about 10% to the total pkm (Soviet Economy in the1980's: Problems and Prospects Part 1, Joint Economic Committee Congressof the United States, December 31, 1982).

A CROSS-COUNTRY COMlPARISON

PASSENGER TRAFFIC AND GNP PER CAPITA

I 00Q00 I USA /

p BBZIL < ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JAPAN Z ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ I Ir 1

USAR

4. 0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(IND A

1 00 1 33I al3

a- P

CHINA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

piioo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rt

100 I~

GNP PER CAPITA C197G-1981 CONSTANT US$)

- 26 -

seven countries. It shows that over the last 15-20 years9 elasticities havebeen rising in India, Brazil and Korea and dropping in Japan and the U.S.Almost everywhere9 increase in mobility has been accompanied by a strongdemand for personal transport. An inter-country comparison shows that theincome elasticity gf personal transport is substantially higher than that ofpublic transport0 . For the thirty four countries in the sample9 personaltransport has an income elasticity of two while rail and air transport haveelasticities of 102 and local transport of 100 There is no doubt that asincome levels increase in China9 similar pressure for personal transport willmaterialize.

3.04 The implications of this analysis for China are clear; there is avery high potential demand for personal travel as income rises. At China'slevel of income9 the international comparison indicates that elasticities oftravel would also be increasing over quite an income range before they starttapering off. Taking an income elasticity of 1059 which is well below elas-ticities in India and Brazil and assuming a 7% growth of GNP would mean anannual growth in mobility of 10% resulting in a mobility 5 times larger thannow by the year 2000. This wouLd mean about 19250 pkm per capita9 the levelof mobility reached in the USSR between 1960 and 1965 and in Brazil in 1970.How much of this demand wilL be. apparent in China will depend upon Governmentpolicies including how much the Government will be willing to invest in theinfrastructure and rolling stock which would be necessary to satisfy even sucha relatively modest demand by international standardsa

Travel Purpose

3.05 Little information is readily available on the purpose of personaltravel. Below are the results of a household survey conducted in the U.S. in1977.

USA - HOUSEHOLD TRIPS BY PURPOSE9 1977(in millions)

Total Visit toTrips Relatives Recreation Business Other

312.5 136.6 72.7 86.7 16.5In % 100l0 43.7 23.3 27.7 5.3

Note: See further details and source in Annex Table 3.2.

5/ Irving B. Kravis9 Alan Heston and Robert Summers9 World Product andIncomes9 Johns Hopkins University Press9 Table 9.4.

- 27 -

INTERCOUNTRY COMPARISON OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC GROWTHRATES AND INCOME ELASTICITY

Growth ratesTotal Passenger-km/

passenger-km capita GNP/capita Elasticity/a

China1965-81 8.28 6.29 4.29 1.091966-76 6.98 4.67 3.80 0.921977-81 11.98 10.67 5.78 1.451978-81 12.84 11.46 4.16 2.10

India1965-81 8.01 5.69 1.67 7.291965-75 6.98 3.94 1.62 4.921976-81 11.89 9.57 2.21 12.00

USSR1965-80 3.61 5.15 3.27 0.851965-75 7.37 6.39 4.46 0.761975-80 3.59 2.70 0.91 1.50

USA1965-81 3.53 2.45 1.85 1.171965-75 3.97 2.88 1.63 1.311976-81 1.83 0.77 1.69 0.53

Brazil1965-81 12.75 10.28 4.91 2.461965-72 12.44 9.69 5.97 1.511973-76 14.02 11.52 5.54 2.371977-81 11.23 9.25 1.48 4.34

Japan1960-80 7.23 6.02 7.01 0.551960-70 11.13 9.96 9.99 0.701970-80 3.46 2.23 4.11 0.33

Korea1961-81 9.95 7.70 6.10 0.931961-71 10.13 7.64 6.13 0.811971-81 9.70 7.78 6.05 1.03

/a Elasticities are not the ratio of the pkm/capita to GNP/capita, they arederived from regression analyses of mobility as a dependent variable ofincome. The equation being of the form: Pkm/capita = a + b GNP/capita.

- 28 -

It shows that most trips were made to visit relatives followed by businesstrips. Purely recreational trips amount to less than one quarter of thetotal. There is no doubt that personal travel is an important ingredient ineconomic activity as well as for the basic livelihood of the people. A surveyof rail passengers in the Shanghai Railway Administration indicates that 31%of the trips are made for business.

Modal Split

3.06 Similar to freight9 China holds the world record for rail use inpassenger travel. Only India still has a substantial portion of rail usage9while rail travel has dropped considerably in Japan and virtually disappearedin the U.S.

MODAL SPLIT OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC /a(in % of total pkm)

Rail Road Water Air

China (1982) 57 35 5 2India (1976) 41 58 1USSR (1980) 37 44 1 18Japan (1980) 26 68 1 5Brazil (1981) 3 95 2USA (1982) 1 85 14

/a Rounded figures0 Further details as well as time series are given inAnnex Tables 3.3 to 3080

3.07 In all countries including China9 the rail share of traffic hasdecreased markedly over the last 20-30 years (Tables 3.3 to 3.8). The adventof the private car has of course ended rail travel in the U.S., prevented itsdevelopment in Brazil9 and greatly reduced its use in Japan. In China andIndia9 the role of buses has increased sharply0 The share of bus passengersin China increased from 5% in 1950 to 35% in 19829 and from 25Z to 60% inIndia in terms of passenger km0 In terms of passenger transported, buses inChina transport almost three times as many passengers as the railways. Giventhe relatively low density of the railway system and the fact that most tripsare relatively short distances (average distance is 155 lkm for rail and 32 kmfor road)9 the share of bus travel will continue to increase rapidly inChina. This will compound the burden placed on the road sector by freighttraffic. With increased production and income in the rural areas9 the demandfor personal travel to markets and towns will be very large and for most areascan only be handled by bus0

3.08 Aviation is another mode where China is lagging behind othercountries0 Only 4 million passengers were carried in 19819 versus 5.3 mill;ionin India with a much lower population, and 267.3 million in the USA0 Giventhe distances in China, there is certainly a great scope for further develop-ment of aviation.

- 29 -

4. CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Infrastructure

4.01 China's transport network has developed rapidly over the last 30years.

CHINA TRANSPORT NETWORK 1952-1982('000 km)

InlandYear Railways Roads Waterways Pipelines

1952 22.9 126.7 951957 26.7 254.6 1441965 36.4 514.5 1581978 48.6 890.2 136 8.31979 49.8 875.8 108 9.11980 49.9 888.3 109 8.71981 50.2 897.5 109 9.71982 50.5 907.0 109 10.4

Source: China National Economic Development, Part III, p. 24, NationalStatistics Bureau 1983.

Nevertheless, the density of the network is still very low in comparison withthat of other countries. Both in terms of density per area or population,China falls below other countries in our sample. India, with a lower incomeper capita has a transport network 2.5 times as dense as that of China perhead of population and over 5 times as dense per land area. The U.S. whichhas the densest network per capita of our sample (30 times as dense as China)also has 7 times more km of rail and road for an area the size of China.Adding some 100,000 km of inland waterways would only marginally improve thepicture in China. Also, other large countries such as the U.S. and USSP haveeven larger navigable inland water networks than China. Annex Table 4.2 givesthe rail density by province in China. Provinces in north, northeast andnorthwest China generally have rail densities above national average both interms of population and area. Because of their low population, western pro-vinces also have high rail densities per population but not by area. Guangxialso exceeds both national averages. Central and southern provinces exceedthe average density per area but are below average in terms of density perpopulation (see also para. 2.14).

- 30

TRANSPORT NETWORK DENSITY IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Density per Density per'000 inhabitants '000 sq km

Rail Road Total Rail Road Total

China (1981) 005 091 0.96 6 93 99Korea (1980) 0.08 1o24 1o32 32 480 512India (1979) 0009 2.43 2.52 19 488 507USSR (1979) 0.53 5.41 5094 6 64 70Japan (1980) 0.21 9.52 9.73 63 29944 3g007Brazil (1980) 0.25 11.82 12.07 3 164 167UoSoAo (1979) 1.60 28.02 29.62 38 673 711

Note: See further details and sources in Annex Table 4.1.

4.02 Because the transport network is still small in China9 it is usedvery intensively at least for the railways. China has the second largestfreight density in the world after the USSR9 and the second highest passengerdensity after India. Locomotives and rolling stock also have very highutilization factors in comparison with other countries.

RAILWAY TRAFFIC DENSITY

Total trafficNet tkm/route km Pkm/route km units/route km------°°°°°°°°°-°°°°°°°°° (million) ---------------------

China 109 2.4 13.3USSR 24.7 2.4 27.1USA 7.7 001 7.8Romania 6.9 2.1 9.0India /a 4.5 4.4 8.9Brazil 102 0.7 1l9

/a Broad gauge only0

Although little statistical information is available on road tzaffic9 visualinspection indicates that roads are also used intensively in China0 Becauseof the low density of the network and therefore lack of alternative routes9existing roads are used both by motorized and non-motorized traffic with theresult of greatly reducing the speed of motorized traffic0 The nationalaverage speed of motorized vehicles is less than 30 km/hr and much lower inthe vicinity of cities and towns where congestion by non-motorized vehicles

- 31 -

and small tractors is heavy. In recent years, a number of corridors haveemerged where a modern road, reserved to motorized traffic, would bejustified. There is however one area where intensity of use appears low inChina, namely trucking. The total output of road freight transport in Chinaand India was about the same in 1979-80, around 77 billion tkm. In Indiahowever, this was achieved with only 30% the number of trucks available inChina.

TRUCK PRODUCTIVITY

Trucks Output Productivity per truck(000) (bln tkm) (000 tkm)

China 1,300 76.4 59India 368 77.0 209USSR 5,053 408.0 81

This low productivity results from a number of factors: (a) the predominanceof small size trucks in China; (b) the low utilization resulting from the pre-dominance of trucks for own account use rather than for common carrier servi-ces; (c) the high incidence of empty running; (d) the short average transportdistance by road which means that much of the truck time is used in loading/unloading and waiting; and (e) the low average speed. Another factor affect-ing productivity, as calculated here with regard to the entire fleet, is theavailability of trucks for service or conversely the proportion of the fleetunder maintenance or repairs. No information is available on this point;except that this seems to have been a problem in the USSR in the 1960 , whenthe average percentage of the truck fleet at work was less than 65%.6 Acomparison with developed market economies is difficult; in the USA forinstance more than half the "trucks" are used for personal transportation,i.e., like cars. Heavy trucks (over 12 t gross weight, empty weight + max.load) average 55,000 km p.a. Assuming an average load of 10 tons would give aproductivity of 555,000 tkm.

6/ Holland Hunter, Soviet Transport Experience: Its Lessons for OtherCountries, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. 1968.

- 32 -

Rolling Stock

4.03 The stock of vehicles in China has increased substantially since theearly 1960s but it is still low in comparison to that of other countries.

TRANSPORT ROLLING STOCK IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Rail RoadLocomotives freight passenger &

cars rail cars Trucks Buses…(_000)-------- ( OO

China (1980) 109000 260 15 19300 110

India (1980) 109847 548 39 368 117Korea (1982) 508 16 2 264 66

(1979)USSR (1980) 439770 n.a. n.a 59053 951Japan (1980) 49386 102 47 89778 232Brazil (1980) n.a. n.a. n.a. 947 122UoSoAo (1982) 269797 1901.9 4 269213 529

(1977) (1980)

Note: n.a. = not available

Sources: 1 Almanac of China's Economy 19822. Japan Statistical Yearbook9 19829 ppo 283-287O3. SAR-India - Railway Modernization of Maintenance Project II,

po 474. Report of the National Transport Policy Committee (May 1980)

po 1855. Statistics of Railroads of Class I in the U.S. years 1972 to

19829 pp 8-10.6. Kulp9 G. and MoC. Holcomb9 Transportation Energy Data Book9

6th edition9 po 84 and 89O7. Soviet Economy in the 1980so Problems and Prospects9 Joint

Economic Committee Congress of the U.S.9 Decemober 319 19829p. 224 (trucks). Buses estimated by totalling 15 years of netannual supplies.

80 USSR Facts and Figures Annual9 ppO 293 i 4219. SAR - Korea - National Provincial and County Roads Project9

December 29 1983. po 35l0o SAR-Korea - Seventh Railway Project9 April 19 19809 Table 2-i1.l1o World Road Statistics9 19819 po 64.

- 33 -

Investment

4.04 From 1953 to 1980, some Y 110 billion or 15.0% of all new investmentcoming under the heading "State Capital Construction" went into the transportsector (Annex Table 4.3). In comparison, transport investment constitutes10-14% of annual domestic investments in developed economies, it is oftendouble these percentages in other LDCs.7/ China's share would then appearsomewhat on the low side. However, "State Capital Construction" probablyexcludes some of China's fixed investments done by the lower levels of govern-ment; it also excludes renewals which in many countries are included ininvestments. In recent years, with the exception of 1981, annual investmentsin the transport sector have averaged about Y 6 billion with about half thatamount going to railways, and around 20% each to ports and waterways and toroads.

4.05 Transport investments generally account for higher proportion oftotal investment in the early stages of development. An example of this isIndia.

INDIA: SHARE OF PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES IN TRANSPORT SECTOR

Transport Share

1951 to 1956 22.1 to 23.51966 to 1978 14.1 to 16.0draft sixth plan 1978-83 12.1

Source: Report of the National Transport Policy Committee Government ofIndia, Planning Commission New Delhi, May 1980.

By contrast, transport investment in the USSR since 1950 has been held below10% of total investment. A slight increase reflecting the pipeline boom hastaken place since 1976, with an average of 11.1% for 1976-79. Low transporta-tion investment seems to be the fate of socialist economies as illustrated bythe following quote: "It thus happens that branches of infrastructure - andamong them also transport - are usually to be found at the end of the "queue"and mostly only the remainder of investment resources is allocated to theirdevelopment and that the cutting down of investment usually begins with themwhen economic management wishes to restrict the investment process. Transportis suitable for such a "role" for several reasons. Firstly, the economicresult of its services may be measured with greater difficulty than that of

7/ George W. Wilson, Economic Analysis of Intercity Freight Transportation,1980, p. 275.

- 34 -

material production in general. Besides, neglect of the development of trans-port will reach a critical level only if it accumulated over a relativelylonger period, since in the transport system capacity reserves can be usuallyfound - that may be exploited, for example, through reorganization, or, as itwas done in the majority of socialist countries, by the employment of addi-tional manpower and the extraordinary extension of working time0 t may seem,therefore, that the tolerance of transport is "almost infinite"0 '.'

4.06 Below is the average annual investment in the transport sector inrecent years for selected countries0 It is difficult to obtain total invest-ment in the transport sector of developed market economies since there are somany actors involved. To give some order of magnitude, in the USA, statehighways departments have invested some US$15 billion p.a. (roads) in recentyears; the private sector has invested some US$29 billion and private car pur-chases run at US$75 billion0 The total of these three figures alone add up toalmost US$120 billion, about 40 times the level in China. In Japan, roadinvestment was over US$20 billion in 1979 and port investment has been runningat US$2 to 2.5 billion p.a. in recent years despite the fact that port trafficis now increasing less rapidly than in the 1960s and 1970s0

ANNUAL TRANSPORT SECTOR INVESTMENT

Billion US$

China 3.0Korea (1977-81) 1.2India (1978-83) 108Brazil (1974-78) 800USSR (1979) /a 20.0

/a 15.2 billion roubles estimated equivalent to US$20 billion.

4.07 China's annual investment in the transport sector is small incomparison to that of other countries0 At about 101% of CNP it is comparableto the level of India0 The percentage is about 1.4 in the USSR, goes up to2.0 in Korea and 3.26 in Brazil. The incomplete figures given above for theUSA already add up to 4.6% of GNP, while in Japan public investment in roadsand ports alone amount to 2% of GNP. This excludes private investments and inparticular all road vehicles, rail rolling stock and ships. t-Jith those inclu-ded the investment ratio to GNP may well be near that of the USA0 The high

8/ Io Major, "Tensions in Transportation and Development Level of Transportin Some Socialist Countries," Acta Oeconomica, Vol0 30 (2), pp 231-32,(1983).

- 35 -

level of investment in the transport sector of market economies represent thewidespread use of private automobile, and in this sense the figures are notparticularly relevant for China at this stage. Nevertheless, even withoutprivate cars, the demand for transport investment will remain high in China.In view of some of the points made above, particularly concerning ports,roads, and passenger traffic, investments could well be higher than in thepast to avoid constraints on economic development.

5. ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN TRANSPORT

5.01 Total energy consumption in the transport sector reached about 40million tons of coal equivalent (TCE) in 1980, accounting for only some 8% oftotal final energy use:

ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR, 1980(Million tons of Coal Equivalent)

Petroleum Percentageproducts Coal Electricity Total of total

Railroads 1.7 19.0 0.6 21.3 32.5Trucks & buses /a 15.0 - - 15.0 36.9Automobiles 0.2 - - 0.2 0.5Vessels 3.7 - - 3.7 9.1Civil aviation 0.4 - - 0.4 1.0

Total 21.0 /b 19.0 0.6 40.6 100.0

Share of transport sectortotal final commercialenergy consumption (%) /c 24.6 5.8 0.6 7.8

/a Includes transport by own-account trucks, as well as trucks operated by statetransport departments.

/b Includes 1.5 million TCE of fuel oil.7h Total final consumption of petroleum products includes crude oil which is

directly burned as fuel in industry and power generation.

Sources: SSB Statistical Yearbook of China; Ministry of Railways; Ministry ofCommunications; Estimates.

- 36 -

Coal is currently the dominant locomotive fuel 9 and thus petroleum productsaccount for only a /little over one-half of total energy consumption in thetransport sector0 9 Motor vehicles9 consisting mostly of trucks and buses9consumed over 90% of total gasoline consumption in the country9 but only some10% of national diesel oil consumption (agricultural equipment accounted forabout 50% of diesel oil use9 while vessels9 railway locomotives, and industryaccounted for most of the remainder). In contrast with most other countries9gasoline accounts for about 85% of the fuel consumed by trucks and buses.

5.02 Compared with other developing countries9 the transport sector inChina accounts for very low portions of both total commercial energy consump-tion and petroleum product consumption0

STRUCTURE OF EMERGY CONSUMPTION9 1980

Share of transportFinal commercial Final oil

energy consumption/a consumption

Developing CountriesChina 7.8 24.6Argentina 30.6 55o2Brazil 2600 46D4Mexico 33.9 56.4India 22.2 44.1S. Korea 12.3 27.7

Developing CountriesUoSoAo 25o2 62.0Canada 20.2 51.2Japan 14.01 28o6France 18.4 34.8W0 Germany 15.7 34.4Italy 1805 35o8U.K. 1806 52.2

/a Total energy consumption excluding consumption or losses in energyproduction and conversion9 and power transmission and distribution0Electricity consumption is computed at thermal replacement value0

Source: OECD.

9/ Tractors used for highway transport are extcluded0

- 37 -

In China, transportion uses only 7.8% of the final commercial energy consumedin the country, while shares in other developing countries are over 20%,except for Korea, where it is 12%. Similarly, transportation accounts foronly 24% of petroleum product consumption in China, while shares of 40% orhigher are common abroad.

Railways

5.03 One of the reasons why transport accounts for such a low share ofenergy consumption in China clearly has to do with the dominance of railtransport and corresponding underdevelopment of road transport. Anotherreason is the energy inefficiency of other economic sectors which make theproportion use for transport appear unduly small. According to the availablestatistics, freight transport by rail consumes roughly one-ninth of the energyper payload ton-km as freight transport by road in China. While the relativeenergy efficiencies of different modes may be very different in other countries,such a wide differential between modal efficiencies are common - in India,rail freight transport is also almost ten times as energy efficient as roadfreight transport. In the U.S.A., however, rail freight transport is aboutfour times as energy efficient as road freight transport.

5.04 Currently, coal-fired steam locomotives account for about 80% of thetotal gross converted ton-km (ctkm) 10, of rail transport, followed by dieseltraction at 20% and electric traction at 2%. Unit consumption of diesellocomotives in China compares favorably with most other countries. Steamlocomotives consume about 17.3 kg of coal equivalent (of 7,000 Kcal/kg) per1,000 ctkm as diesel or electric locomotives.

10/ Refers to the gross trailing weight of cars, freight, and passengerstransported times distance. One passenger-kilometer is assumed to equalone gross ton-kilometer of freight transport following the practice ofthe Ministry of Railways.

- 38 -

Road Transport

5.05 Available data on road freight transport suggest that average fuelconsumption per ton km in China is exceptionally high, compared with Franceand the UOSOAO

COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN TRUCK TRANSPCRT°USA, FRANCE AND CHINA

Energy consumption per 100actual payload ton kilometers /a

Liters of fuel 1,0C0 kilocalories

USA, 1978 35

France, 1973: /b0-50 km 71150-300 km 47Over 500 km 29

China, 1980:State transport departments 8.2/c 65Own-account trucks 17.5 137National average 14.4 113

/a Actual payload ton-kilometers denote the actual net tonnage of freightmoved times the distance moved. Energy consumption rates are thereforeinfluenced by a variety of factors such as road conditions and loadfactors, in addition to the rated fuel consumption characteristics ofdifferent trucks.

/b Key factors which account for the different fuel consumption rates fordifferent haulage distances probably include truck size, load factors,road conditions, and operating speeds.

/c Assumes 80% gasoline and 20% diesel oil.

Sources: USA: G. Kulp, et. al., Transportion Energy Conservation Data Book(Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1980); po 1-28.

France: Pierre Merline, "Comment economiser l1energie dans lestransports" (cited in TWD, the World Bank, Energy andTransport in Developing Countries, 1983)o

China: 1981 Statistical Yearbook of China; Ministry of Communica-tions; Mission Notes.

- 39 -

Much of the difference can be attributed to China's own-account truckingsector. Own-account trucks currently consume roughly twice as much fuel perpayload ton-km as trucks run by state transport departments, and they accountfor 89% of China's truck fleet and about two-thirds of the total ton-km ofroad freight moved. Although own-account trucks may be older and in poorercondition than trucks operated by transport departments, on average, the mostimportant factor underlying the different unit consumption rates between own-account and transport department trucks is a difference in average load fac-tors.12/ The average load factor for transport department trucks currentlyexceeds 62%, which is only slightly lower than the average load 13 actor fortrucks on the Interstate Highway System in the U.S.A. in 1976.- Own accounttrucks in China, however, are believed to have an average load factor in theneighborhood of 30%.

5.06 Additional factors which contribute to high fuel consumption ratesin both transport department and own-account trucks include prevailing trucksizes, engine efficiencies, road conditions, fuel quality, and operatingstandards. As shown in Annex Table 5.1, rated fuel consumption per payloadton-km drops sharply as truck sizes increases. Unlike most developedcountries, road conditions in China are not appropriate for trucks withpayloads over 20 tons. While several models in the 8-ton range have beendeveloped and used, the vast majority of freight is moved by trucks in the 4-5ton range. This brings a major penalty in terms of energy efficiency. MostChinese gasoline truck engines also operate with compression ratios of about6-7, compared to averages of about 8.5 abroad. This is primarily due to thelow octane content of gasoline currently produced for the domestic market(66-70, compared to about 90 for regular gasoline in the U.S.A.). Moreover,less than 20% of China's highway network is paved with asphalt. Poor roadconditions, and low average operating speeds due to these conditions andcongested, slow-moving traffic further contribute to high consumption rates.All of these factors combined result in the fuel efficiency of Chinese trucksbeing lower than that of most modern trucks abroad operating under idealconditions.

6. SOME TRANSPORT ISSUES FOR CHINA

6.01 As indicated in the previous chapters, Chinese transport is charac-terized by the predominance of freight over passenger movements. The highfreight intensity can largely be explained by the sectoral composition of theeconomy and the minimal role of the service sector. When freight intensity isrelated to output excluding the service sector, the transport intensity in

12/ Average load factor = PayloadVehicle capacity

13/ In 1976, empty truck capacity miles (including the empty truck capacitymiles of partially loaded trucks) accounted for 27.1% of total truckcapacity miles. Interstate Commerce Commission, Empty/Loaded Truck Mileson Interstate Highways During 1976, (April 1977).

- 40 -

China appears less out of line with that of other economies. Nevertheless,even with the present economic structure9 improvements can still be made toreduce freight transport demand. Various examples have been quoted regardingpreparation or partial processing before transport of coal9 ores9 timber9 etc.

6.02 Another factor that may result in excess transport is the degree ofvertical integration of industry combined with some administrative rigiditieswhich may result in cross hauls and longer transport distances than neces-sary. This matter is linked to the location of resources and historicaldevelopment of various sectors of the economy. When making decisions oncreation or expansion of certain productions, close attention should be paidto transport. Trade-offs should be considered between production closer tomarkets9 possibly at higher production costs but lower transport costs9 with aview to minimize total cost including transport. This is particularly truefor coal where production close to markets in the northeast and southwestshould be compared with coal production in Shanxi at lower cost but withlonger transport distances to markets in the northeast and the south0 Anotheralternative could be to locate more industry near natural resources0 Othercommodities for which distribution studies could be considered in China are,grain and in particular feed grains from north to south; fertilizer includingthe distribution of domestic production and of imports; and cement, for whichplant size increases will have an impact on transport distances. Such studiesare always difficult because they cut across various administrative jurisdic-tions involved in the production, consumption and distribution (includingtransport) of particular commodities, they are nevertheless very useful inidentifying rationalization measures and cost savings0

6.03 The appropriate role of the various transport modes is also an areafor further consideration in China0 There is no doubt that the railways willcontinue to dominate the transport scene in the future, although possiblysomewhat less exclusively than now0 The international comparison shows thepotential for greater use of other modes in parallel and also in conjunctionwith the railways0 Road transport is very suitable for the distribution ofagricultural produce and also for many light industry products. It is alsothe only way to provide mobility to the great m.'asses in the rural areas0 Itsdevelopment raises issues for investment as well as energy which are discussedbelow0 Water transport, both inland and coastal, is another F.iode which shouldcontinue to be developed for bulk commodities such as coal, petroleum andgrain, and possibly others0 Development of domestic water transport combinedwith increasing foreign trade will put great pressure on the ports and raiseissues of investment planning and location in relation with hinterlands.Finally, domestic aviation should also receive greater emphasis for longdistance passenger travel0

6.04 There is no question that transport demand for both freight andpassenger will continue to grow rapidly0 Given the new directions of theeconomy, demand could well grow faster than in the past despite some ration-alization which may temper freight transpo-t growth, such as energy conserva-tion; processing of raw materials; and improvement in distribution chains ofvarious commodities0 On the other hand, rationalization of p-oduction meylead to increased transport demand resulting from fewer but larger plants-,production at locations endowed with comparative advantages; and greater

- 41 -

specialization of industry. As shown by the international comparison,increasing incomes result universally in more demand for personal travel. Theelasticities of demand are also much greater at lower than higher incomelevels. The implications for China is that travel wouLd increase faster thanincome, but how much of this demand will be apparent will depend upon Govern-ment policies, including the share of GNP allocated to consumption and thecapacity to invest in passenger transport infrastructure and rolling stock.

6.05 This continued rapid growth of transport which could substantiallyexceed the overall growth of the economy will require continuous massiveinvestments between now and the year 2000. Railway investments will continueto be large in the earlier years while other modes are gradually developed.Port investments will also have high priority. The development of roads androad transport can be expected to take a gradually increasing share. Totaltransport investments absorbing between 2% and 4% of CNP would appear quite inline with those of other countries and necessary to avoid crippling overalleconomic development.

6.06 A particular problem of road transport development is the relateddemand for liquid fuel. Estimates show that even a comparatively modestdevelopment of road transport, in comparison with other countries, couldgenerate a demand for liquid fuel five times higher than the current level ofabout 10 million tons. (Current oil production is around 100 million tonsp.a..) A related issue is the need to improve energy efficiency of roadvehicles, including the merit to shift to alternative fuels. While dieselengines are more efficient for large trucks, gasoline engines can more easilybe converted to LPG and even to natural gas. The use of alternative fuels,such as gas and alcohols, for the transport sector are certainly worthinvestigating in the case of China in view of the constraints on oilproduction.

Table 2.142 Page 1

INTER COUNTRY COMPARISON OF FREIGHT TRAFFICGROWTH AND GNP ELASTICITY

Annual Growth Rates (%)Years Elasticity /a GNP Freight

China 1965 - 1981 1034 6.20 5871965 - 1976 0.860 5.98 40771977 - 1981 0.835 7.23 6.071978 - 1981 0.495 5.53 2.59

USA 1960 - 1981 0.941 3033 3.071965 - 1975 0.880 2.71 2.071976 - 1981 1.748 2.77 4.12

USSR 1965 - 1980 1,427 4.20 60091965 - 1975 1,229 5.44 6.861976 - 1980 2.746 1.27 4.31

India 1960 - 1981 0.921 3.71 3.741960 - 1970 1.122 3.95 4.611965 - 1975 0.610 3.86 2.541976 - 1981 0.519 4.27 2.68

Brazil 1960 - 1981 1109 6.68 7.861960 - 1970 1,057 6.11 6o871965 - 1975 0,897 9.O8 8,441976 - 1981 1,472 3,73 5,70

Japan 1960 - 1980 0,756 8016 5,921960 - 1970 0.887 11,12 9,711965 - 1975 0,885 2,47 6,861976 - 1980 0,877 5,33 4,16

Korea 1961 - 1981 10218 8,47 100411961 - 1971 1,576 9.22 14.871971 - 1981 0.782 7,72 6,13

a/ Elasticities are not the ratio of the GNP and freight growth rates, theyare derived from regression analyses of freight as a dependent variableof GNP.

- 43 - Table 2.1?age 2

FREIGHT TRAFFIC AND GNP, 1960-1981

0~~~~40

CHINA USA

4w-

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~280

Ua 80 1400 le80 2208 2080 3089

799 6s1 0 0 O 38 0e010 6 0

699USSR 0INDIA

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4 800900-4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5°6 10 I 0 20 28 30 1502 0 40 es so 0Z 2e

4 0

3SP- BRAZIL 4S0 JAPAN0

30e,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 ~~~~~~~~~ 288 0

ISOL 0 1S8

lee ISO 288 252 388 008 489 888 see 1888 1208

GNP AT 1979-1981 Constant US$ (Billion)

Table 2. lPage 3

44

ffi 2 KOREA=

E-I

GNP AT 1979-1981 Constant US$ (Billion)

TABLE 2.2: TOTAL FREIGHT (BIL. TKM) AND GNP (BIL.US$)FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1960-1981

CHINA USA USSR INDIA_ _ ________________ ____ ------ --- -__ _ -- - __ ------ -_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __--- - -

Freight GNP Tkm/$GNP Freight GNP Tkm/$GNP Freight GNP Tkm/$GNP Freight GNP Tkm/$GNPYEARS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (lO) (tt) (12)

1960 381 74 5.15 2526 1324 1.91 629 123 74 1.661965 342 105 3.26 3001 1662 1.81 2480 751 3.30 172 87 1.981970 442 150 2.95 3560 1932 1.84 3366 1034 3.26 193 109 1.771971 481 157 3.06 3587 1991 1.80 3610 1121972 507 165 3.07 3760 2105 1.79 3810 ill1973 537 172 3.12 3955 2221 1.78 4134 188 115 1.631974 519 181 2.87 3929 2198 1.79 4452 207 115 1.801975 595 189 3.15 3683 2171 1.70 4815 1275 3.78 221 127 1.741976 571 199 2.87 3894 2299 1.69 5086 1309 3.89 233 129 1.811977 673 208 3.24 4081 2418 1.69 5342 1353 3.95 240 140 1.711978 789 234 3.37 4638 2526 1.84 5664 1362 4.16 248 1491979 821 251 3.27 4786 2589 1.85 5753 1373 4.19 257 141 1.821980 850 268 3.17 4827 2584 1.87 6021 1393 4.32 247 1511981 852 275 3.10 4766 2635 1.81 6229 266 159 1.67

BRAZIL KOREA JAPAN

Freight GNP Tkm/SGNP Freight GNP Tkm/$GNP Freight GNP Tkm/SGNPYEARS (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

1960 70 63 1.11 4 12 0.33 139 223 0.621965 109 78 1.40 7 18 0.37 186 358 0.521970 136 114 1.19 351 640 0.551971 147 128 1.15 16 29 0.55 162 672 0.241972 148 142 1.04 389 736 0.531973 180 162 1.11 407 81O 0.501974 225 177 1.27 376 805 0.471975 245 186 1.32 361 817 0.441976 260 204 1.27 22 47 0.46 373 870 0.431977 275 215 1.28 387 917 0.421978 299 224 1.33 410 972 0.421979 326 238 1.37 442 1026 0.431980 355 255 1.39 439 1071 0.411981 343 245 1.40 29 61 0.47 1102

Notes: (1) Chinese Statistical Yearbook, 1981. p.279. Oceangoing freight was excluded from the total freight. Highwayfreight turnover for 1960-1978 was increased to reflect the freight for own account trucking which is notavailable in the Statistical Yearbook. Estimates were made based on its relationship to common carrierfreight given for 1979-1982.

(2) (5) (11) (14) (17) (20) - GNP for all countries except USSR,was taken from EPD Data Bank - Atlas GNP atconstant US dollars (uaing the domestic GNP deflator for the base period 1979-1981). GNP for USSR at 1980US dollars was taken from USSR Facts & Figures Annual.

(3) (6) (9) (12) (15) (18) (21) -- Freight/GNP.(4) Transportation in America, July 1983. p.7. The 1950 water freight includes an estimate of 235 ton-miles for

domestic coastwise freight made according to previous trend.(7) Soviet Economy in the 1980's: Problems & Prospects, Part I, Joint Economic Committee Congress of the US,

Dec. 1982, p.219, Maritime freight was excluded from the total freight.(10) SAR-India-Railway Modernization & Maintenance Project II, Oct. 26,1982 (p.77).(13) 1960-1965, Transport Sector of Brazil, May, 1974.

1970-1976, GEIPOT, 1979 (p.446). Based on the reports of GEIPOT, 1982, the highway freight was overstatedfor previous years. Henece, the highway freight in this table for 1970-1976 was reduced based on its sharein total freight for 1979-1981.1977-1981, GEIPOT, 1982 (p.644).

(16) SAR-Korea-Provincial and County Roads Project, November 23, 1982,p.33. The fxrst two figures are for years 61 & 66(19) Japan Statistical Yearbook, various issues.

- ~~~~~~~~Table~ 2.3

Table- 2.3 C CHIIA - INTERIUDAL FREIGHT INTENSITY BY PROVINC9 19E

Pv9v.ne< Railway Road Water Total GVIAO Iatensity-------------- Bil.Tonlc ° °°°O BuoY Tkm/Y

Beijing 12056 0,75 13,31 23050 0o57Tianjin 14047 Oc61 0001 15009 21l380 069Hebei 68o66 1.42 0o98 71oO6 33o20 2o14Shanxi 21,81 0,83 0000 22O64 17,20 'I32Inner Mongolia 23-98 0.42 24040 10020 2039Liaoning 66013 0.92 O,38 67043 53050 1,26Jilin 24,01 0o45 0o04 24,49 19.10 1.28Heilongjiang 42,07 0o62 0.81 43,50 34 ,10 1o28Shanghai 3.21 0,83 1o63 5.67 64.20 0.09Jiangsu 18o83 1o20 9.096 29o98 67,40 _ 0o44Zhejiang 12013 0.87 5019 18018 33010 0.55Anhui 22,00 0.92 1030 24.82 2Z460 1.01Fujian 5,55 0,93 2.02 8150 14.00 0.61Jiangxi 11.65 0,61 1.63 13-89 16080 0083Shandong 26,33 2059 1o23 30o15 54,30 Oo56Henan 53078 1030 0.12 55020 36080 105CHubei 21069 1.09 3.98 26076 36o00 0°74Hunan 26087 0,79 2026 29093 30070 0097Guangdong 8,03 081 4o50 13o34 37o00 0,36Guangxi 13066 0Q59 2025 16-51 15040 1007Sichuan 18.61 2.O 1.61 22,23 46,70 0,48Guizhou 9032 0051 0009 9092 8,50 1o17Yunnan 5-19 1o55 0002 6o76 13000 0052Tibet 0 37 0o37 0o74 0,50Shaanxi 14-95 0 58 0.01 15,54 15-50 1,00Gansu 16043 0,47 16090 10020 1066Qinghai 0,56 0027 0,83 2.00 0041Ningxiai 3 88 0o10 3,97 2.00 1 99Xinjiang 4-91 0.86 5077 7050 0°77

Subtotal 571,25 25,27 40.61/ 637,13 749,04 0.85

Enterprises under a/the ministries 0.0Q4 474,38R/ 474-41=

Total 571o25 25o30 51409S 1111,54 749004

Note% GVIAU Gross Value of Industrial and Agriculture Output for 1981.

Source.. Chinese Statistical Yearbook 1981, pp. 19% 281 & 2820

a/ only road tzansport buveaus under HOCb/ probably only bureaus under MOC, total ioi 152,0c/ includes ocean shippina 363.2 bil. a3.

- 47 - Table 2.3

Page 2

HEAVYINDUST. FREIGHT/FREIGHT GVIAO GVIO GVAO FREIGHT SHARE GVIAO

Total Rail Total Heavy Light100 mil tkm ----- Y 100 million -- lO,OOOt tkm/Yuan

1 TOTAL 6371.3 5712.00 7490.0 5178.0 2515.0 2663.0 2311.94 107673 0.485709 0.9S0642 BEIJIN6 133.1 125.58 235.0 217.0 116.0 101.0 18.33 3046 0.534562 0.566383 TIANJIN 150.9 144.67 218.0 199.0 82.0 117.0 18.16 1823 0,412060 0.692.04 HEBEI 710.6 686.62 332.0 218.0 114.0 104.0 113.78 9962 0.O 5 6 . .140365 SHANXI 226.4 218.06 172.0 119.0 81.0 38.0 53.36 11921 0.680672 1.316236 INN£R RON 244.0 239.78 102.0 60.0 33.0 27.0 41.69 3911 0.550000 2.392167 LIAONING 674.3 661.32 535.0 451.0 288.0 163.0 84.34 12663 0.638581 1.260378 JILIN 244.9 240.09 191.0 134.0 77.0 57.0 57.34 4890 0.574627 1.282209 HEILON6J 435.0 420.69 341.0 250.0 166.0 84.0 90.71 9321 0.664000 1.7S27610 SHANGHAI 56.7 32.11 642.0 609.0 260.0 349.0 33.09 1204 0.426929 0.0°83211 JIANGSU 299.8 188.26 674.0 466.0 181.0 285.0 207.62 3332 0.388412 0.4448112 ZHEJIANG 181.8 121.27 331.0 214.0 74.0 140.0 117.42 1495 0.345794 0.54°2413 ANHUI 248.2 219.97 246.0 130.0 58.0 72.0 116.19 3738 0.446154 I.0C89414 FUJIAN 85.0 55.54 140.0 82.0 30.0 52.0 57.63 1263 0.365354 4.6*)71415. JIANGXI . 138.9. 116.51 168,0 92.0 45.0 47.0 76.54 2126 0.48?130 0.e267916 SHANDONQ 301.5 263.31 543.0 344.0 150.0 194.0 199.00 5306 0.43iQ47 0.55;2517 HENAN 552.0 537.75 368.0 204.0 92.0 112.0 163.52 6614 0.450980 1.S000018 HUBEI 267.6 216,88 360.0 246.0 118.0 128.0 114.08 3093 0.479675 1.74U33319 HUNAN 299.3 268.74 307.0 176.0 94.0 82.0 131.43 3622 0.534091 0.9749220 GUANGDONG 133.4 80.31 370.0 250.0 88.0 162.0 120.27 2951 0.352Q00 0.3605421 GUANGXI 165.1 136.61 154.0 82.0 30.0 52.0 71.91 1735 0.36S854 1.0720822 SICHUAN 222.3 186.11 467.0 275.0 134.0 141.0 191.59 4269 0.487273 0.4760223 GUIZHOU 99.2 93.19 85.0 44.0 25.0 19.0 40.79 1481 0.S36912 1.1670624 TUNNAN 67.6 51.94 130.0 71.0 36.0 35.0 58.90 1470 0.507042 0.520v025 TIBET 3.7 . 7.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 6.24 . 0.636364 0.SOOO26 SHAANXI 155.4 149.48 155.0 105.0 48.0 57.0 50.03 2212 0.457143 1.0025827 GANSU 169.0 164.29 102.0 74.0 57.0 17.0 28.02 1950 0.7702/0 1.656362a O!NGHAI 8.3 5.55 20.0 12.0 7.0 5.0 8.15 206 0.593333 0.4150029 NINGXI 39.7 38.77 20.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 7.55 1245 0.666667 1.9350030 XINJIANG 57.7 49.09 75.0 41.0 22.0 19.0 34.26 813 0.536585 0.76933

MODEL: EOIDEP VARIABLE: INTENSE

SUN OF MEANSOURCE DF SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE PROW>FMODEL 1 2.181899 2.181899 9.136 0.0053ERROR 28 6.687197 0.238828C TOTAL 29 8.869097

ROOT MSE 0.488701 R-SOUARE 0.2460DEP MEAN 0.966649 ADJ R-SO 0.2191C.V. 50.55618

PARAMETER STANDARD T FOR HO:VARIABLE DF ESTIMATE ERROR PARAMETER O PROD > ITI

INTERCEP 1 -0.335539 0.439966 -0.763 0.4521SHARE 1 2.543844 0.841620 3.023 0.0053

TABLE 2-4: AVERAGE FREIGHT DISTANCE, SELECTED YEARS, 1940-1982

CHINA USA JAPAN

Freight Freight FreightYEARS Bilo Tkm. TKil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkm Nil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil*Tkm Mil.Tons Avg.Dist

1940 1400 1495 9361945 1860 2128 8741950 45 216 208 1710 3043 5621955 125 569 220 2470 3567 692 85 821 1041960 355 1705 208 2526 3606 700 139 1533 911965 322 1209 266 3000 4435 676 186 1626 114.1970 415 1499 277 3560 5060 704 351 5259 671975 554 2001 277 3683 4962 742 361 5030 721976 529 1994 265 3894 5280 738 373 5000 751977 623 2213 282 4081 5486 744 387 5101 761978 734 2452 299 4638 5710 812 410 5541 741979 821 2438 337 4786 5806 824 442 5957 741980 850 2362 360 4827 5501 877 439 5985 731981 852 2274 375 4766 5359 8891982 928 2429 382

Sourcesg 7TY Chinese Statistice) Yearbook, 1981-(2) Transportation in America, July 1983.(3) Japan Statistical Yearbook, various issueso

- 49 - Table 2.5

SHORT DISTANCE RAIL TRANSPORT IN LARGE URBAN AREAS('000 tons)

Beijing area Tianjin area Taiyuan area

Tons loaded 29,670 18,561 20,888

Unloaded in Area /aTons 14,606 6,124 5,208% of total loaded 49.2 33.0 24.9Of which:

Coal 3,558 - 5,060Coke 388 - -Oil 1,255 16 -Iron and steel 1,557 1,008 45Ores - 32 -Nonmetallic ores 1,748 54 -Construction material 4,487 3,420 13Cement 1,059 - 5Timber 95 150 1Fertilizer 113 39 -Grain 57 910 2Cotton - 3 -Salt - 8 -Others 289 484 82

Tons UnloadedTotal 51,672 46,149 15,136

% loaded in area 28.3 13.3 34.4

/a This local traffic moves on average less than 50 km.

- 50 - Table 2.6

SHORT HAUL TRANSPORT ON SELECTED TRUCK LIMES('000 tons)

TrafficLine Section Tons Of which /a Percentage

shortdistance

Beijing-Shandong Beijing-Longjiaying 499728 99071 18.0(Excluding 5.4 mt of coal to one power station) 7.3

Beijing-Guangzhou Changchoudian-Anyang 239970 49891 20.0(Excluding 2.8 mt of coal and ore to Handan Iron and Steel Co.) 8.7

Shanghai-Ningpo Nanjing-Nanxiang 89622 190 2.2

Beijing-Baotou Shinan-Konquan 519855 39C39 5.8

Zhejiang-Jiangxi Hangzhou-Xintangbian 59634 52 lo0

Tianjin-Pukou Tianjin West-Dezhou 59496 588 110

Shijiazhuang-Dezhou Shijiazhuang-Dezhou 819 4 005

Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan 279810 572 2.0

/a Less than 50-60 km.

TABLE 2.7 CHINA - FREIGHT TURNOVER BY MODES OF TRANSPORT

Billion Ton-km Percentage shareYEARS Rail Road Water Pipeline Air Total Rail Road Water Pipeline Air Total

1950 39.40 2.70 5.10 - - 47 83.47 5.72 10.81 0.00 0.00 100.001955 98.20 10.20 23.40 - 0.01 132 74.50 7.74 17.75 0.00 0.01 100.001960 276.70 39.60 65.00 - 0.03 381 72.56 10.38 17.05 0.00 0.01 100.001965 269.80 28.50 43.30 - 0.03 342 78.97 8.34 12.67 0.00 0.01 100.001970 349.60 41.40 51.20 - 0.04 442 79.05 9.36 11.58 0.00 0.01 100.001975 425.60 60.00 81.80 26.20 0.06 594 71.69 10.11 13.78 4.41 0.01 100.001976 386.90 63.00 85.50 35.70 0.07 571 67.74 11.03 14.97 6.25 0.01 100.001977 456.80 75.30 102.10 38.70 0.08 673 67.88 11.19 15.17 5.75 0.01 100.001978 534.50 82.20 129.20 43.00 0.10 789 67.74 10.42 16.38 5.45 0.01 100.001979 559.80 74.50 139.00 47.60 0.12 821 68.18 9.07 16.93 5.80 0.01 100.001980 571.70 76.40 152.30 49.10 0.14 850 67.29 8.99 17.93 5.78 0.02 100.001981 571.20 78.00 152.80 49.90 0.17 852 67.04 9.15 17.93 5.86 0.02 100.001982 612.00 94.90 170.80 50.10 0.20 928 65.95 10.23 18.41 5.40 0.02 100.00

Source: Chinese Statistical Yearbook, 1981. p279.

Notes: (1) Oceangoing freight was excluded from the total freight.(2) Highway freight turnover for 1960-1978 was increased to reflect the freight for own account trucking which

is not available in the Statistical Yearbook. Estimates were made based on its relationship to commoncarrier freight given for 1979-1982.

TABLE 2.8: USA - FREIGHT TURNOVER BY MODES OF TRANSPORT

Billion Ton-km Percentage shareYEARS Rail Road Water Pipeline Air Total Rail Road Water Pipeline Air Total

1940 610 100 595 95 0.03 1400 43.57 7.14 42.50 6.79 0.00 100.001945 1112 108 436 204 0.14 1860 59.78 5.81 23.44 10.97 0.01 100.001950 961 278 642 208 0.48 2089 45-99 13.30 30.73 9.95 0.02 100.001955 1015 359 769 327 0.79 2471 41-08 14.53 31.12 13.23 0.03 100.001960 932 459 766 368 1.43 2526 36.89 18.17 30.32 14.57 0.06 100.001965 1140 578 787 492 3.07 3000 38.00 19.27 26.23 16.40 0.10 100.001970 1241 663 957 693 5.31 3559 34.87 18.63 26.89 19.47 0.15 100.001975 1221 730 909 816 6.00 3682 33.16 19.83 24.69 22.16 0.16 100.001976 1287 821 951 829 6.28 3894 33.05 21.08 24-42 21.29 0.16 100.001977 1342 893 961 879 6.73 4082 32.88 21.88 23.54 21.53 0.16 100.001978 1397 964 1327 943 7.64 4639 30.12 20.78 28.61 20.33 0.16 100.001979 1492 978 1331 978 7.47 4786 31.17 20.43 27.81 20.43 0.16 100.001980 1500 893 1480 946 7.79 4827 31.08 18.50 30.66 19.60 0.16 100.001981 1487 869 1493 909 8.01 4766 31.20 18.23 31.33 19.07 0.17 100.00

CDSource: Transportation in America, July 1983.(p.7). m X

Note: (1) The 1950 water freight includes an estimate of 235 ton-miles for domestic coastwise freight made according M sto previous trend.

TABLE 2.9: USSR - FREIGHT TURNOVER BY MODE OF TRANSPORT

Billion Ton-km Percentage shareYEARS Rail Road Water Pipeline Air Total Rail Road Nater Pipeline Air Total

1965 1994 143 134 208 1.3 2481 80.40 5,76 5.40 8.39 005 1000001970 2550 221 174 419 1.9 3366 75.76 6.56 5.17 12,45 0.06 100.001975 3307 338 222 945 2.6 4814 68.69 7.02 4.61 19.63 0.05 1000001976 3367 355 223 1139 2.7 5087 66.19 6.98 4.38 22.39 0.05 100.001977 3403 373 231 1332 2.8 5342 63.71 6.98 4.32 24.94 0,05 100.001978 3504 395 244 1519 2.9 5664 61o86 6.97 4.31 26081 0.05 100,001979 3421 408 233 1689 2.9 5754 59.45 7.09 4,05 29.36 0.05 100,001980 3517 432 245 1824 3.1 6021 58.41 7.18 4.07 30.30 0.05 100.001981 3582 454 255 1935 3.2 6229 57.50 7.29 4.09 31.06 0,05 100.001982 3684 471 263 2058 3,3 6479 56.86 7.26 4.06 31.76 0,05 100.00

Sourcee Soviet Economy in the 19809s: Problems and Prospects9 Part I9 Joint Economic Committee Congress of the US, p.219

Note= Maritime freight is exclluded from the total freight,

IJn

TABLE 2010: BRAZIL - FREIGHT TURNOVER FY MODE OF TRANSPORT

Billion Ton-km Percentage ShareYEARS Rail Road Uater Pipeline Air Total Rail Road tater Pipeline Air Total

1960 13 42 15 0.10 70 18,66 59.83 21.37 0,00 0.14 100.001965 18 75 16 0.10 109 16.50 68.74 14,67 0.00 0.09 100,001970 30 82 22 2 0.20 136 22.03 60.21 16.15 1.47 0.15 100.001975 59 147 32 7 0.52 246 24.03 59.87 13.03 2.85 0,21 100.001976 63 156 33 8 0.66 261 24.17 59.85 12.66 3.07 0.25 100.001977 61 168 37 8 0.69 275 22.21 61.16 13.47 2.91 0.25 100,001978 64 182 41 11 0.79 299 21.42 60.91 13.72 3.68 0,26 100.001979 74 1°94 47 11 0.92 327 22.64 59,34 14.38 3.36 0.28 100,001980 86 209 48 12 1.02 356 24.16 58.70 13.48 3.37 0.29 100,001981 79 205 46 11 1.05 342 23.10 59.93 13.45 3.22 0.31 100.00

fote ~s: (1) 1960-19659 Transport Sector of Brazil9 Ray 91974. (2) 1970'19769 GEIPOTg 1979 (p.446).Based on reports of GEIPOT, 19829 the highway freight tjas overstated for

previous years, Hence9 the highuay freight in this table for 1970-1976 was reduced based on its share intotal freight for 1979-1981.

(3) 1977Th19819 GEIPOT, 1982 (p.644).

TABLE 2.11: INDIA - FREIGHT TURNOVER BY MODE OF TRANSPORT

Billion Ton-km Percentage ShareYEARS Rail Road Other Total Rail Road Other Total

1950 44 6 50 88.00 12.00 100.001955 60 9 69 86.96 13.04 100.001960 88 35 123 71.54 28.46 100.001965 117 55 172 68.02 31.98 100.001970 127 66 193 65.80 34.20 100.001975 148 73 221 66.97 33.03 100.001976 157 76 233 67.38 32.62 .100.001977 163 77 240 67.92 32.08 100.001978 155 94 249 62.25 37.75 100.001979 156 101 257 60.70 39.30 100.001980 1591981 174 92 12 278 62.59 33.09 4.32 100.00

Source: SAR - India - Railway Modernization & Maintenance Project II, Oct. 26,1982 (p. 1 & 17).

TABLE 2.12: JAPAN - FREIGHT TURNOVER BY MODE OF TRANSPORT

Billion Ton-km Percentage ShareYEARS Rail Road Water Total Rail Road Water Total

1955 43 10 32 85 50.82 11.15 38.03 100.001960 55 21 64 139 39.24 14.97 45.79 100.001965 57 48 81 186 30.76 25.98 43.26 100.001970 63 136 151 351 18.09 38.77 43-14 100.001975 47 130 184 361 13.14 35.96 50.90 100.001976 46 133 194 373 12.41 35.53 52.06 100.001977 41 143 202 387 10.68 37.01 52.31 100.001978 41 156 212 409 10.07 38.14 51.80 100.001979 43 173 226 442 9.76 39.14 51.11 100.001980 38 179 222 439 8.59 40.77 50.64 100.00

Source: Japan Statistical Yearbook, various issues.

TABLE 2.13: JAPAN - WATER TRANSPORT BY COiMMIODITY AND RANKING

1965 1970 1975 1980-_____________ __________________________ -------------------------- -------------------- _____________-------

Commodities Bil.Tkms. Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist

Coal 23.65 30.94 764 20.49 25.73 797 11.06 13.21 838 12.31 15.50 794

Iron & Steel 14.21 25.63 554 21.27 40.59 524 25.09 47.41 529 31.50 57.21 551

Petroleum Products 11.81 39.26 301 27.08 100.88 268 51.76 137.55 376 58-34 143.84 406

Cement 6.26 11.42 548 14.82 31,98 463 12.40 22.73 546 20.63 39.65 520

Nonmetallic minerals 6.14 16.31 377 21.40 50.60 423 41.94 73.49 571 46.68 80.96 577

Metallic Minerals 2.83 4.68 605 4.34 6.19 702 1.30 2.13 613 0.86 0.98 875

Machinery 2.68 8.24 326 5.86 10.20 574 2.94 4.40 668 2.92 5.35 545

Sand, gravel & Stone 2.12 13.05 163 4.00 27.16 147 3.10 23.25 133 6.47 45.92 141

Paper & Allied Products 1.65 1.99 827 2.54 3.42 741 2.66 3.87 687 3.78 4.22 894

Logs & Lumber 1.41 3.49 405 2.45 5.53 443 2.49 9.07 275 0.86 3.23 265

Chemical Drugs 1.16 3,40 343 3,21 7.38 435 4.75 11.53 412 6.65 15.34 433

Others 6.71 21.26 316 15.06 32.41 465 13.22 28.72 460 19.76 38.19 517

Total 80.63 179.66 449 142.51 342.08 417 172.71 377.34 458 210.73 450.38 468

1965 1970 1975 1980 1

Rankings % Share Rankings %3 Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share

Coal 1 29.32 4 14,38 5 6.41 5 5.84

Iron & Steel 2 17.62 3 14.93 3 14.53 3 14.95

Petroleum Products 3 14.65 1 19.00 1 29.97 1 27.68

Cement 4 7.76 5 10.40 4 7.18 4 9.79

Nonmetallic Minerals 5 7.62 2 15.01 2 24.28 2 22.15

Metallic Minerals 6 3.51 7 3.05 11 0.75 10 0.41

M-achinery 7 3,33 6 4.11 8 1.70 9 1.38

sand, Gravel & Stone 8 2.63 8 2.81 7 1,79 7 3.07

Paper & Allied Products 9 2.04 10 1.78 9 1,54 8 1.79

Logs & Lumbers 10 1.75 11 1.72 10 1.44 11 0,41

Chznical Drugs 11 1.44 9 2.25 6 2.75 6 3.15

Total 91.67 89.44 92.34 90.63

Notes Rankings are based on the freight turnover in ton-kms.Data are based on the Transport of Coasttwise Shipping Survey.

Sourcess Japan Statistical Yearbook,1967(p.282), 1971(p.280)9 1977(p.272), 1982(p.294).

TABLE 2.14: CHINA - RAIL FREIGHT BY COMMODITY AND RANKING

1970 1975 1980 1981______________ ------------------------ _ -------------------------- -------------------- _____________-------

Commodities Bil. Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist

Coal 96 254 377 110 316 349 177 415 426 183 412 445Petroleum 35 37 946 41 62 662 30 56 541 29 50 576Timber 32 29 1129 39 35 1114 51 42 1208 50 40 1228Iron & Steel Products 26 31 859 34 42 818 47 61 770 42 55 768Construction materials 16 89 182 25 136 187 33 159 210 30 140 218Metallic Ores 15 41 364 18 52 338 19 59 319 16 53 307Nonmetallic Ores 12 32 381 19 47 407 25 60 411 24 58 418Grain 10 21 476 13 22 571 22 32 702 25 34 720Cement 8 13 605 6 16 350 9 24 381 10 24 395Salt 6 9 705 5 9 596 5 9 548 5 9 600Fertilizer 6 10 590 6 11 578 16 22 710 18 25 731Others 87 101 869 108 119 906 137 148 925 138 148 929

LI'

Total 350 666 526 425 867 490 571 1086 526 570 1049 544

1970 1975 1980 1981

Rankings % Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share

Coal 1 27.43 1 25.93 1 30.95 1 32.14Petroleum 2 10.00 2 9.69 5 5.27 5 5-04Timber 3 9.26 3 9.18 2 8.97 2 8.68Iron & Steel Products 4 7.51 4 8.05 3 8.20 3 7.44Construction materials 5 4.63 5 5.98 4 5.83 4 5.33Metallic Ores 6 4.23 7 4.12 8 3.29 8 2.88Nonmetallic Ores 7 3.51 6 4.54 6 4.31 7 4.25Grain 8 2.83 8 2.94 7 3.87 6 4.33Cement 9 2.23 10 1.32 10 1.58 10 1.68Salt 10 1.77 11 1.25 11 0.89 11 0.95Fertilizer 11 1.69 9 1.48 9 2.75 9 3.14

Total 75.09 74.47 75.90 75.86

Note: Rankings are based on the freight turnover in ton-kms.

Sources: SAR - Ministry of Railways

Table 2.15 : USSR - RAIL FREIGHT BY COMMODITES

1965 1970 1975 1980

Commodities Bil.Tkms Hil.rons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist

Coal 374 553 678 425 614 692 498 717 695 599 732 818Petroleum 280 222 1262 354 303 1169 481 389 1238 461 423 1090Mineral bldg. iat. 227 573 395 300 691 434 441 947 465 457 957 477Iron & Steel 141 112 1261 192 142 1357 258 183 1411 279 192 1456Timber 263 175 1502 295 179 1647 308 187 1645 252 147 1714Ores 109 191 572 170 246 690 232 308 754 237 316 749Grain 84 89 946 111 106 1049 128 122 1048 137 135 1014Fertizer 47 43 1084 71 71 1000 112 106 1057 125 116 1079Others 426 458 929 578 545 1060 779 662 1175 894 712 1256

Total 1950 2415 807 2495 2896 861 3237 3621 894 3440 3728 923_ _ _ _ _ -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - - -- - - _ _ _ __-_ _ _ _ _

1965 1970 1975 1980

Rankings % Share Rankings ',, Share Rankings SJ Share Rankings ,a Share

Coal 1 19.20 1 17.02 1 15.'8 1 17.41Petroleum 2 14.38 2 14.19 2 14.87 2 13.40

mineral bldg. Ilat. 4 11.62 3 12.03 3 13.61 3 13.27Iron & Steel 5 7.22 5 7.70 5 7.98 4 8.12Timber 3 13.49 4 11.81 4 9.51 5 7.32Ores 6 5.61 6 o.79 6 7.17 6 6.88Grain 7 4.29 7 4.46 7 3.95 7 3.99Fer-cizer 8 2.38 8 2.84 8 3.47 8 3.63

Total 78.19 76.d3 75.93 74.01

Note: Rankings are based on the freight turnover in ton-kms.

Source: Soviet Economy in the 1980's: Problems & Prospects,Part I, Joint Economic Committee Congressof tne US9 Dec. 1982, p.222.

TABLE 2.16: INDIA - RAIL FREIGHT BY COMMODITY AND RANKING

1969 1975 1980

Commodities Bil. Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist

Coal 31 53 585 38 64 594 36 64 563Foodgrain 13 15 867 16 16 1000 24 18 1333Steel Plants 9 24 375 12 28 429 13 28 464Cement 6 11 545 9 12 750 7 10 700Iron Ore for Export 5 9 556 7 11 636 7 11 636Petroleum Products 5 9 556 7 12 583 12 15 800Fertilizers 4 5 800 6 7 857 9 8 1125Other goods 37 49 755 41 47 872 39 42 929

Total 110 175 629 136 197 690 147 196 750

1969 1975 1980

Rankings % Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share-_ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_-_- - - - - - - -_- - -

Coal 1 27.98 1 27.95 1 24.64Foodgrains 2 11.86 2 11.49 2 16.45Steel Plants 3 7.85 3 8.67 3 8.67Cement 4 5.69 4 6.38 7 4.87Iron Ore for Export 5 4.78 5 5.34 6 4.94Petroleum Products 6 4.51 6 5.26 4 7.92Fertilizers 7 3.43 7 4.60 5 6.03

Total 66.10 69.69 73.52

X

Note: Rankings are based on the freight turnover in ton-kms. X

Sources: SAR - India - Railway Modernization & Maintenance Projects II, Oct. 26, 1982. p.51

TABLE 2.17: JAPAN - RAIL FREIGHT BY COVIiODITY AND RANKING

1965 1970 1975 1980___________________________ -------------------------- ------------------- -_________-________-_-___________

Commodities Bil. Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Hil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Hil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkms Nil.Tons Avg.Dist…_________________________ --------- _-______ -------- - - - ____ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -- - ---- -- - ----

Logs and lumber 4.40 11.90 369.50 3,45 8.47 407.13 1.11 2.93 378.66 0.47 1.60 292.42Coal 3.37 33011 101.77 1.93 18.70 103.38 0.75 6.72 111.82 0.59 5.89 100.49Chemical Fertilizer 2.54 6.98 363.99 3.02 8.53 353.80 2.59 6.30 411.12 2.11 5.37 393.03Cement 2.53 14,51 174,19 2.32 16.39 141.58 1.96 14.21 138,04 1.80 14.99 119.85Fresh & Frozen Fish 2.13 2.55 835.29 1,74 1,64 1061.47 0.56 0,48 1163.90 0.18 0.20 943.59Paper 2.05 3.27 626.76 3.26 4.54 717.78 2.73 3.91 698.19 2,13 3.19 668.13Chemical Drugs 1.88 4.47 420.71 2.35 5.75 409,19 1.79 4,18 426,83 1,60 3,65 438.97Integrated Steel & Steel Pr 1.77 4.12 429.44 2.62 5,80 450.96 1.61 3.50 460.55 1.10 2.37 462,84Rice 1.67 4.55 367.33 2.04 4.96 411.81 1.98 3.72 532.83 1.83 3.00 610,74Mineral Oil 1.58 8.82 179.00 2.41 15,14 159.46 2.44 15.63 156.04 2.38 16.50 144.07Others 3,35 17.30 193.73 3.29 19.56 168.14 2.23 20,49 108.70 1i68 17.65 95,13

Total 27.26 111.56 244.35 28.44 109.49 259.73 19.75 82.07 240.62 15.87 74,40 213.30

1965 1970 1975 1980

Rankings % Share Rankings 5 Share Rankings % Share Rankings 5 Share

Logs and Lumber 1 16.13 1 12.13 8 5.63 9 2.94Coal 2 12.36 9 6.80 9 3.80 8 3,73Chemical Fertilizer 3 9.32 3 10.62 2 13.11 3 13.29Cement 4 9.27 7 8.16 5 9.94 5 11.32Fresh & Frozen Fish 5 7.81 10 6.13 10 2.84 10 1.16Paper 6 7.51 2 11.46 1 13.84 2 13.45Chemical Drugs 7 6.90 6 8.27 6 9.04 6 10.11Integrated Steel & Steel Pr 8 6.49 4 9.20 7 8.16 7 6.91Rice 9 6.13 8 7.18 4 10.03 4 11.54Nineral Oil 10 5.79 5 8.49 3 12.35 1 14.98

Total 87,71 88.43 88.72 89.42

note: Rankings are based on ths freight turnover in ton-kms,Data refer to the revenue freight carried from the national or connected private railwaysthrought the national railuay lines,

Sourcess Japan Statistical Yearbook, 1982, p.284-285.

TABLE 2.18: BRAZIL - RAIL FREIGHT BY COMMODITY AND RANKING

1970 1975 1980 1982

Commodities (Bil. Ton-km) Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist

Iron Ore 18.13 43.25 54.82 46.38 82.78 560.27Cement 1.30 1.94 3.00 3.70 6.26 591.98Coal 0.71 1.03 2.11 2.17 11.14 195.06Steel Products 0.67 0.86 3.82 2.99 8.42 355.44Petroleum Products 0.41 2.61 5.66 5.59 11.64 480.45Others 9.01 8.93 17.45 17.03 47.71 356.86

Total 30.23 58.62 86.86 77.86 167.94 463.64

1970 1975 1980 1982-…_ _ - ------ ----- ----------------- ----------------- I

Commodities Rankings % Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share

Iron Ore 1 59.97 1 73.78 1 63.11 1 49.29Cement 2 4.29 3 3.31 4 3.45 5 3.73Coal 3 2.36 4 1.76 5 2.43 3 6.63Steel Products 4 2.21 5 1.46 3 4.40 4 5.01Petroleum Products 5 1.37 2 4.45 2 6.52 2 6.93

Total 70.19 84.77 79.91 71.59

Note: Rankings are based on the freight turnover in ton-kms.

Sources: 1. The 1970, 1975 and 1980 rail freight are taken from Sintese Ferroviaria Brasileira,

Ministerio dos Transportes. Data represent rail freight for the three major railwaycompanies: RFFSA, FEPASA, EFVM (p.38). X

2. The 1982 rail freight is taken from unpublished data of RFFSA which represents total I

rail freight in Brazil.

- 60 Table 2.19

INDIA: COMMODITY FLOWS AND INTERMODAL SHARES(1978-79)

Total freight traffic Avg. dist. Percentage sharetons ton-km km Rail Road

-- millions----

Iron ore 17.2 99052 526 99.3 0.7Limestone & dolomite 6.9 29516 365 92.4 7.6Coal 69.3 469332 669 92.2 7.8Cement 15.4 99452 614 77.9 22.1Mineral oil 17.9 99676 541 73.2 26.7Fertilizers 11.6 99213 794 71.9 28.1Iron and steel 15.2 12.778 841 64.3 35.7Foodgrains 23.7 229681 957 59.3 40.7Stones & marbles 6.7 19940 290 49.4 50.6Wood & timber 6.6 39723 564 38.6 61.4Building & materials 7.9 19909 242 13.1 86.9Fruits & vegetables 7.9 49206 532 809 91.7Provisions & households 6.9 39826 554 8.3 91.7Other 618 439465 703 52.3 47.7

Total 275.0 180.769 66.9 3301

Source: Report of the National Transport Policy Committee May 19809 pO 96.

TABLE 2.20: JAPAN - ROAD FREIGHT BY COMMODITY AND RANKING

1967 1970 1975 1980

Bil.Tkms Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkm Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkm Mil.Tons Avg.Dist Bil.Tkm Mil.Tons Avg.Dist… - ---------------------- - ------ ____ _ - -- ------- __ -- - ___ ___ _ - --- ______ ________

Sand, Gravel & Stone 14.31 833.16 17.18 22.80 1056.67 21.58 19.82 1197.05 16.56 24.23 1492.28 16.24Logs & Lumber 7.79 250.13 31.14 10.21 323.86 31.53 7.80 211.63 36.86 8.09 193.39 41.83Food 6.37 175.64 36.27 9.62 231.70 41.52 7.53 193.03 39.01 13.23 258.77 51.13Ceramics 6.33 264.61 23.92 10.82 415.67 26.03 9.28 412.52 22.50 11.24 500.08 22.48Machinery 6.16 122.43 50.31 11.62 204.31 56.87 8.41 183.62 45.80 14.65 272.59 53.74Iron & Steel 3.99 122.77 32.50 7.10 182.27 38.95 4.84 140.30 34.50 6.96 156.47 44.48Chemicals & Allied Products 3.59 88.68 40.48 6.25 139.56 44.78 5.56 111.44 49.89 9.18 143.60 63.93Vegetables & Fruits 2.95 85.15 34.64 3.58 113.83 31.45 4.63 85.59 54.10 6.42 88.68 72.40Petroleum Products 2.68 92.98 28.82 5.03 143.53 35.04 3.11 126.81 24.52 4.25 151.89 27.98Others 26.92 1236.94 21.76 48.89 1814.67 26.94 58.72 1730.88 33.92 80.65 2060.21 39.15

Total 81.09 3272.49 24.78 135.92 4626.07 29.38 129.70 4392.87 29.53 178.90 5317.96 33.64

1967 1970 1975 1980

Rankings % Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share Rankings % Share

Sand, Gravel & Stone 1 17.65 1 16.77 1 15.28 1 13.54Logs & Lumber 2 9.61 4 7.51 4 6.01 6 4.52Food 3 7.86 5 7.08 5 5.81 3 7.40Ceramics 4 7.81 3 7.96 2 7.15 4 6.28Machinery 5 7.60 2 8.55 3 6.48 2 8.19Iron & Steel 6 4.92 6 5.22 7 3.73 7 3.89Chemicals & Allied Products 7 4.43 7 4.60 6 4.29 5 5.13Vegetables & Fruits 8 3.64 9 2.63 8 3.57 8 3.59Petroleum Products 9 3.30 8 3.70 9 2.40 9 2.38

Total 66.80 64.03 54.73 54.92

Notes: Rankings are based on the freight turnover in ton-kms.Data are based on the Survey of Motor Vehicle Transport. a

Sources: Japan Statistical Yearbook, 1969(p.271), 1972(p.273), 1977(p.267), 1982(p.289).

o..

TABLE 3.1: ItSTERCITY PASSEtSGER TRAFFIC(BIL. PKIt) AtSD PER CAPITA IflCOE(US$)FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1960-1981

CHI!A USA USSR

Traffic Population Pkm-PC GClP-PC Traffic Population Pkm-PC GNP-PC Traffic Population Pkn-PC GNP-PCYEARS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

1960 88 110 1257 7326 29621965 70 736 95 142 1476 194 7595 8553 367 232 1581 32381970 103 839 123 184 1900 205 9266 9422 553 243 2278 42591971 111 859 129 188 1972 208 9494 9588 587 245 2394 42781972 124 877 141 192 2086 210 9937 10029 625 247 25251973 133 895 148 197 2159 212 10187 10482 657 250 26311974 138 910 151 202 2102 214 9832 10276 703 252 27871975 144 924 155 208 2179 216 10091 10054 747 254 2937 50111976 147 936 157 214 2349 218 10771 10542 780 257 3038 50991977 159 947 168 222 2460 220 11171 10977 803 259 3099 52241978 174 958 182 246 2576 223 11571 11348 842 262 3218 52081979 197 969 203 260 2558 225 11367 11505 871 264 3296 51991980 228 980 233 274 2507 228 11013 11349 891 266 3356 52441981 250 991 252 278 2572 230 11193 11465 268 52651982 274 2635

INDIA BRAZIL KOREA JAPAtS

Traffic Population Plk-PC GtSP-PC Traffic Population Pkn-PC GWlP-PC Traffic Population PIa-PC GIJP-PC Traffic Population Pls-PC GNIP-PCYEARS (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

1960 114 170 39 877 8 26 310 483 157 93 1681 23661965 158 487 324 178 66 84 781 942 15 29 506 615 262 98 2666 36251970 232 548 424 199 116 9S 1210 1196 21 33 647 876 451 104 4345 61331971 560 199 132 98 1340 1305 481 105 4574 63621972 572 194 150 101 1492 1414 507 108 4712 68691973 269 584 461 197 170 103 1651 1571 527 109 4830 74481974 268 596 450 194 194 105 1839 1677 541 111 4891 73101975 290 609 477 209 221 108 2046 1718 558 112 4985 73251976 309 621 497 208 252 110 2290 1847 38 36 1060 1299 559 113 4943 77161977 335 634 528 2O 294 112 2622 1911 564 114 4941 80591978 648 231 334 114 2929 1953 601 115 5218 84671979 661 214 379 116 3261 2039 630 116 5425 88691980 675 224 432 118 3654 2150 634 117 5416 91731981 542 690 785 232 450 121 3735 2027 53 39 1368 1576 118 93611982

Itotas- (1) Chinose Statistical Yearbook,1981 ,p.273. Figurcs rcprosont total passonger traffic.(2) (6) (10) (14) (18) (22) (26) - all population figures :ere from EPD Dats3 Bank,nid-year population (in nil.).(3) (7) (11) (15) (19) (23) (27) - Traffic/population(4) (8) (12) (16) (20) (24) (28) - GtIP per capita for all countries eacept USSR ras taken fron EPD Data 33ank-Atlas GNP par capita at constant US

dollars (using the domeotic GtIP deflator for the base period 1979-1981). GINP per capita for USSR nas at 1980 US dollars talcen from thaUSSR Facts & Figures Annual.

(5) Transportation in America, July 1983, p.13.(9) Soviet Economy in the 1980's: Problees & Prospects, Part I, Joint Economsic Conmittee Congress of the US, Dec. 198

2,p.224.

13) SAR-India-Railuay £rodernization & i3aintenance Project II, October 26,1982 provided the rail passenger non-suburban traffic(p.50); Report oftha t ational Transport Policy Conmittee (t ay 1980) providod the percentage share of rail in total passenger traffic (p.18).

(17) 1960-1965, Transport Sector of Brazil, DIc 20, 1974.1970-1981, GEIPOT,1979(p.445) & 1981(p.643), total passenger traffic less city passenger traffic.

(21) SAR-Iorea-Provincial and County Roads Project, Nlovember 23,1982, p.32. Urban passenger traffic is excluded fromo total passenger traffic.Thte first thrlo figures are for the years 1961, 1966 and 1971. a

(25) Japan Statistical Yearbook and Nippon, a charted survey of Japan, various issues. Rail commutors were excluded from the total passenger traffic.t o inforcation cvnilable on road co=uters.

Table 3.2: USA-HOUSEHOLD TRIPS BY MAIN PURPOSE, 1977(in thousands)

Visit

Relatives Recreation Business Others

Total Household Trips 312532 136639 72718 86689 16486

Percentage share of total 100% 44 23 28 5

Round Trip Distance (percentage share in total household trips)…--- - -…-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

200 to 299 miles 33 35327

300 to 399 miles 16 17 15 19

400 to 599 miles 18 17 16 15

600 to 799 miles 8 7 8 6

800 miles and over and 25 25 29 22outside US

Source: 1977 Census of Transportation -National Travel Survey.

Department of Commerce, USA

a.

TABLE 3 3: CHINA - PASSENGER TRAFFIC BY N-iODE OF TRANSPORT

Billion Pass-km Percentage ShareYEARS Rail Road Uater Air Total Rail Road Water Air Total

1950 21 1 1 0001 24 88.48 5.34 6-14 0-04 1000001955 27 5 4 0.06 35 75.62 14.25 9.97 017 1OO01960 67 15 6 0.16 88 76.29 16-53 7001 0.18 100.001965 48 17 5 0.25 70 68-71 24-13 6.80 0.36 100.001970 72 24 7 0.18 103 69.65 23.29 6.89 0.17 100.001975 96 37 9 1t54 144 66-53 26.09 6,31 1.07 1000001976 96 40 9 1.60 147 65-10 27-41 6.39 1oO9 100.001977 102 45 10 1o80 159 64-46 28.23 6018 1013 1000001978 109 52 10 2.80 174 62-71 29.89 5.79 1.61 10001979 122 60 11 3q50 197 61079 30.64 5,79 1078 1000001980 138 73 13 4000 228 60063 31096 5.66 1.75 1000001981 147 84 14 5000 250 58-92 33-56 5.52 2000 1000001982 158 96 15 6.00 274 57-40 35,13 5.28 2.19 100.00

Sourcee Chinese Statistical Yearbook, 1981 (p,273)0

TABLE 3.4° USfL PESSEMGER TRAFFIC BY E-ODE OF TRAFNSPORT

Billion PassaInz Percentage ShareYEARS Rail Road Air Total Rail Road Air Total

1940 40 487 2 529 7,54 92o07 0039 0OM01945 150 399 7 556 270C6 71070 1,24 100,001950 52 742 16 81C 6,45 91,54 201 1CO.C01955 46 9C61 37 1144 4,04 92o75 3021 100 0 C01960 35 1167 55 1257 2077 92.88 4035 1000001965 ?8 1354 93 476 1 92 951o,7 6.33 1OO,C31970 18 1692 191 1900 0o92 89003 10,04 LOO.C01975 16 1925 239 2179 0075 88031 10095 100Q001976 17 2C67 265 2348 0.72 88o02 11o26 410OC0

1977 17 2159 285 2461 0068 87075 11057 1CO001978 17 2233 327 2577 0,66 86.66 12069 1000001979 19 2172 367 2558 0073 84092 14035 100C001980 18 2136 353 2507 0.73 85o21 140C6 100oC01981 19 22C6 348 2572 0o74 85,75 13051 1COo001982 18 2251 366 2635 0o67 85,44 13089 100O00

Souroos ~'.o::EI.*.o. in ;~rj Jul l983 p ,t13, oN

TABLE 3.5: USSR - PASSENGER TRAFFIC BY MODE OF TRANSPORT

Billion Pass=km Percentage ShareYEARS Rail Road Water Air Total Rail Road Water Air Total

1965 202 121 6 38 367 54.99 32.87 1.75 10.39 100.001970 265 203 7 78 553 47.98 36.61 1.27 14.14 100.001975 313 304 8 123 747 41.83 40.64 1.12 16.41 100.001976 315 325 9 131 780 40.41 41.72 1.09 16.78 100.001977 322 345 8 128 803 40.15 42.93 1.03 15.89 100.001978 332 362 8 140 842 39.45 42-94 0.96 16.64 100.001979 335 376 8 151 871 38.51 43-19 0.95 17.34 100.001980 332 390 9 161 891 37.27 43.74 0.97 18.02 100.00

Source: Soviet Economy in the 1980's: Problems & Prospects , Part I, Joint Economic CommitteeCongress of the US,Dec. 1982, p.225.

TABLE 3.6: BRAZIL - PASSENGER TRAFFIC BY MODE OF TRANSPORT

Billion Pass-km Percentage shareYEARS Rail Road Water Air Total Rail Road Water Air Total

1960 8 30 0.03 2 39 19.02 75.07 0.00 5.83 99.921965 8 56 0.03 2 66 12.61 84.92 0.00 2.43 99.951970 5 109 0.05 2 116 4.65 93.58 0.00 1.72 99.961975 5 211 0.01 5 221 2.21 95.48 0.00 2.31 100.001976 5 241 - 6 252 1.94 95.67 0.00 2.39 100.001977 12 275 - 7 294 3.98 93.77 0.00 2.24 100.001978 12 315 0.02 8 334 3.56 94.14 0.00 2.29 99.991979 11 359 0.03 9 380 3.00 94.67 0.00 2.32 99.991980 12 410 - 10 432 2.86 94.92 0.00 2.21 100.001981 13 427 0.21 10 450 2.92 94.82 0.00 2.22 99.95 o

Sources: (1) 1960-1965, The Transport Sector of Brazil, Dec. 20, 1974. m m(2) 1970-1976, GEIPOT, 1979, p.643.(3) 1977-1982, GEIPOT, 1982, p.445.

TABLE 3.7: INDIA - PASSENGER TRAFFIC BY i-IODE OF TRAMSPORT

Billion Pass-km Percentage ShareYEARS Rail Road Air Total Rail Road Air Total

1950 66 23 ° 89.00 74.16 25-84 000 100o001955 62 31 0O30 93-30 66-45 33.23 032 100.001960 78 57 0o60 135.60 57-52 42-04 0.44 10000

1965 96 95 1.00 192.00 50O00 49-48 0.52 100.001970 118 169 - 287.00 41o11 58.89 000 1000001975 149 225 2.60 376.60 39-56 59-75 0.69 100.001976 164 235 2q90 401o90 40.81 58-47 0.72 100.001977 177 250 3.40 430-40 41.12 58.09 0C79 100001978 192 192.0019791980 229 331 2000 562.00 40-75 58-90 0o36 1000001981

Source1SAR°India°RailuJay Nodernization & Naintenance Project II Oct 026 g1982(2) National Transport Policy Committee (Nay 1980).

TABLE 3 80 JAPAN - PASSEUGER TRAFFIC BY 1N10DE OF TRaTSPORT

Billion Pass-km Percentage Share

YEARS Rail Road lUater Air Total Rail Road U-Jater Air Total

1955 72 28 2000 0O20 102 70 83 27 01 1.96 0o20 100,001960 98 56 2q70 0.70 157 62-40 35-43 1.72 0.45 1000CO1965 135 121 3q10 2.90 262 51o65 46Oc6 1O18 loll 100C00'970 155 28S 48os 9O40 451 33o90 62.93 i.O6 2o0c 100OCG1975 172 361 6.6o 19010 558 3Oo74 64o65 1i18 3042 100OOO1976 169 363 6.50 20O10 559 30.29 64o96 1.16 3.59 C0O-001977 166 369 6.30 23o60 564 29-35 65-35 1.12 4.18 100-001978 165 403 6.20 26.90 601 27-44 67O06 1q03 4-48 100O001979 166 428 6-40 3Oo2O 630 26.27 67.92 1.02 4079 1000001980 167 432 6.10 29-70 634 26.28 68O07 0O96 4o68 100.CO

Sourceg Japan Statistical Yearbook, various issues.

TABLE 4.1: RAILWAY AND ROAD NETWORK - DENSITY COMPARISONFOR SELECTED COUNTRIES

RAIL RAIL DENSITY ROAD ROAD DENSITYCOUNTRY YEAR POPULATION AREA LENGTH -------- …- LENGTH ------------

(mii.) ('000 ('000 (KM/'OOO (km/'000 ('000 (km/'OOO (km/'OOOsq.km) km.) pop) sq.km.) KM) pop) sq.km)

China 1981 991 9600 53.91 0.05 5.62 897 0.91 93.49Brazil 1980 118 8512 29.66 0.25 3.48 1395 11.82 163.85India 1979 661 3285 60.78 0.09 18.50 1604 2.43 488.31Japan 1980 117 378 24.00 0.21 63.55 1113 9.52 2947.95Korea 1980 38 98 3.16 0.08 32.07 47 1.24 476.77USA 1979 225 9363 358.90 1.60 38.33 6304 28.02 673.24USSR 1979 264 22400 141.10 0.53 6.30 1427 5.41 63.71

Sources: 1. World Road Statistics 1976-1980.2. Indian Railways Yearbook 1978-1979.3. China Statistical Yearbook, p.269.4. Transport Policy for Brazil 1979/85, preliminary draft, by Cloraldino Severo,

June, 1983.5. Korea - Staff Appraisal Report of Seventh Railway Project, April 1, 1980.6. USSR - Une Crise Durable des Transports Interieurs de l'URSS. Herve Gicquiau in

"Le Courrier des Pays de l'est no 251 Mai 1981.

ID

Table 40 2g RAIL DENSITY BY PROVINCE

08S PROVINCE RAIL LENGTH AREA RAIL DENSITY P0PULATION RAIL DENSITY'NM) (('000 SQ,KM) (KM/'000 SOa. K) (10000) (KS/10000)

TOTAL 53906.0 9600 5,6152 99622 0.541112 'EiJINb 858.5 17 505000 902 0.951773' TTIANJIN 4' 9.9 11 4108091 763 0.602754 HEBEI 3201.1 190 16.8479 5256 0060904S SHANXI 2074,! l50 13.8287 2509 0o826746 INNER .OS 440801 1100 400Q74 1903 2.316407 LIA0NINr 3775.? 150 25.1727 3535 1.068158 JIL1N 3470 .3 180 19.2794 2231 1255549

9 HEILONGJ 4987.7 460 10.8428 3239 1.5398910 SHANGHAI 244.7 6 40.7833 1163 0.2104011 JIANGSU 713.6 100 7?1360 6010 0.2R87412 ZHEJIANG 830.8 100 8.3080 3871 0,2146223 ANHUI 1296.2 130 9.9708 4956 0.2615414 FUJIAN 1027.? 120 8.5658 2537 004029925 JIANGXI 1375.7 160 2,5981 3304 004163716 SHAN ONG 1749.7 150 11.6647 7395 0.2366i ct.7 KE'AN' 3602. 2.6 22,5156 7397 0.4870 0la HUBEI 160-.0 190 8.3944 4740 0o3S77629 HUNAN 2560B9 210 12.1948 53B0 004777820 GUANGD0NG 1149.6 220 5.2255 5884 002953821 GUANGXI 2044.7 230 8.e09o 3613 0,i659322 SICHUAN 2919.1 560 5.2127 9924 0,2941523 GUxZHOU 1373.3 170 8.0782 2027 0.4857824 YUNNAN 162906 380 402884 3223 0,5056225 TIBET *1200 M 28( 26 SHAANXI 1838.4 190 907811 2863 0.6486627 GA.NSU 2244,4 390 5.7549 2941 RoR563128 OXNGH4X 1027.2 720 1.4267 382 2,6890129 NINGXIA 439.0 66 6.6S30 383 1 448 &30 )ItNJiANG 982.3 2600 0.6239 2303 0.75388

TABLE 4.3: CHINA - INVESTMENT IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR(Including Post & Communication)

(Bil. Yuan)

2nd.FYP 3rd.FYP 4th.FYP 5th.FYP 6th.FyP1953-57 1958-62 1963-65 1966-70 1971-75 1976-80 1978 1979 1980 1981-85 1981 1982 1983 1984

Railway 5.916 10.416 3.395 11.25 17.308 14.047 3.044 17.29 1.445 2.637 4.3 6.4Highway 1.086 .799 .887Waterway 1.391 1.295 1.545Aviation .275 .07 .145Pipeline .054 .02 .017

Subtotal 5.85 27.5 3.629 5.231

Post & Tele-communications .384 .42 .49

0'Total 9.015 16.33 5.378 15.001 31.759 30.245 6.804 6.409 6.234 29.38 4.049 5.721

Total capitalInvestment 58.847 120.609 42.189 97.603 176.395 234.217 50.099 52.348 55.889 230.00 44.291 55.553

Transport in % oftotal investment 15.32 13.54 12.75 15.37 18.00 12.91 13.58 12.24 11.15 12.77 9.14 10.30

Sources: 1. China Statistical Yearbook, JPRS84111, 12 August 1983, p.119.2. Railway-Knowledge, 7/28/1983, p.2.3. Ta Kung Pao, December 2, 1983.4. Sixth Five Year Plan5. 1982 - from SYC 1983, p.333.

La of which .47 for ports under MOC (Almanac of China's Economy 1982 FBIS partial translation p.382)

-70 Table 5.1

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF RATED FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR TRUCKS

Rated Fuel con- Fuel con- Energy Energy con-Fuel sumption sumption consump- sumption

Gross Consump- per 100 per LOG tion per per 100

vehicle Rated tion per gross payload 100 gross payload

weight Payload 100 km ton-km ton-km ton-km ton-km

(tons) (tons) (liters) (liters) (liters) (1000 kilometers)

New Trucks in DevelopedCountries /aFord Courer (1981) 1.98 0.69 6.8 3.4 9.9 26.5/b 76.1 /b

Isuzu TID25 (1981) 2.74 1.09 8.6 3.1 7.9 24.27W 60.9 lbInternational SP2650 (1981) 20.76 11.76 31.1 1.5 2.6 12.0 21.2

Mercedes Benz 1217 (1979) 13.80 6.97 21.3 1.5 3.1 12.4 24.4

Man-VW 9136 (1980) 10.02 5.90 16.9 1.7 2,9 13.5 23.0

Volvo F12F (1981) 38.46 23.32 49.1 1.3 2.1 10.3 16.9

International SF2670 (1981) 37.74 23.86 42.0 1.1 1,8 8.9 14.1

Kenworth K124 (1980) 39.46 23.06 48.7 1.2 2,1 9.9 17.0

Ford Louisville (1981) 36.92 22.87 45.4 1.2 2.0 9.9 15.9

Trucks in India /cTATA (1201 SE/42) 11.12 5.0 30.8 2.7 6.2 22.2 49.5

Ashok Leyland Beaver 15.62 7.5 35.5 2.3 4.7 18.3 38.0

Trucks in ChinaHaiyan SWH600 n.a. 0.5 8.0 n.a. 16.0 n.a. 123,5

Beijing BJ130 n.e. 2.0 15.0 n.a. 7.5 n.a. 57.5

Shanghai SH130 n.a. 2.0 14.0 n.a. 7.0 n.a. 54.0

Yuejin NJ130 n.a. 2.5 20.0 n.a. 8.0 n.a. 61.8

Jianghuai HF140 n.a. 3,0 25.0 n.a. 8,3 n.a. 64.3

Hongwei GZ140 n.a. 3.5 22.5 n.a. 6.4 n.a. 49.6

Jiefang CA-lOB 8.0 4.0 29.0 3.6 7.3 28.0 56.0

Dongfeng EQ140 9.3 5.0 28.0 3,0 5.6 23.2 43.2

/a All fuel consumption figures refer to highway cycle rates under optional test conditiono,

lb Data is unclear as to whether diesel oil or gasoline is consumed. In these figure,tt is assumed that gasoline is

used.

/c TATA and Beaver trucks often carry payloads higher than the rated payloads given - indeed, Indian laws allou actual

payloads to exceed the given rated payloads by as much as 25Z. Higher payloads would entail higher energy

efficiencies than those given.

Note: Energy consumption per ton-km (1,000 kilocalories) is computed in addition to fuel consumption (liters), as the

trucks listed for China consume gasoline, while the large trucks in other countries consume diesel oil, Diesel

oil is converted at 8,030 kcal/l, while gasoline is converted at 7.720 kcal/l.

Sources: China: Zou Dewwi, et.al., Qiche yongyotu qiangzhi (Common Ktnowledge Concerning Oil Use in Motor

Vehicles), 1977.

Other countries: EGY, the World Bank, "India: Increased Energy Efficiency in the Consumption of Petroleum

Products," October 1983.

World BankPublicationsof RelatedInterest

The Economic Analysis of surplus criteria for investment deci- NEWRural Road Projects sions.Curt Carnemark, Jaime Biderman, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968; Railways and Energyand David Bovet 3rd printing, 1978. Liviu L. AlstonStaff Working Paper No 241. 1976 92 255 pages. Points out the substantial advantagepages (including annexes, tables). English LC 68-8702. ISBN 0-8018-0653-4, Stock that raldways have for transportingand French. No. JH 0653, $7.50 paperback large volumes of bulk commodities

Stock Nos. WP-0241-E $3. Reviews measures for increasing theefficiency in the use of energy by rail-

Institution Building for Traffic ways Discusses returns on electrifica-NEW Management fion of railways. Presents an analysissuitable for prefeasibility studies for

Economic Appraisal of Rural Urban areas face rising demand for estimating the traffic volume at whichtransport which they must meet with electrfication becomes economicallvRoads: Simplified Operational low cost solutions. This guide offers a viable. Includes nine tables, three fig-Procedures for Screening and flexible approach for organizing the ures, and two annexesAppraisal traffic management function in city Staff Working Paper No 634 1984 94H. L. Beenhakker and A.M. Lago governments. Gives procedures easily pages.

Operational approaches simplify adapted to different needs. Stock No WP 0634 $3screening and appraisal of rural road Technical Paper No 8. 1983 74 pagescomponents and rural development ISBN 0-8213-0136-5. Stock No BK 0136 The Road Maintenanceprojects. Eight economic appraisal $3.Problem and Internationalmethods in simple step-by-step proce-dures especially useful for rural devel- Assistanceopment planners and managers of Examines the road maintenance prob-road construction projects. This paper Port Pricing and Investment lem in developing countnes and de-is based on a review of 15 "tradi- Policy for Developing scnbes the Bank's experience in thistional" Bank rural road projects, five o t field.rural development projects, and rele- Countriesvant literature. Esra Bennathan and A. A. Walters 1981. 71 pagesStaff Working Paper No. 610 1983. 236 Principles of cost-based prices that can Stock Nos BK 9075 (English), BK 9076pages. be used to plan port tanffs and practi- (French), BK 9077 (Spanish) $5ISBN 0-8213-0250-7 Stock No WP 0610 cal ways of introducing tanff schedules Sector and Project Planning in$10 to improve the allocation of resources Transportation

and financial performance.Oxford University Press, 1979. 245 pages Hans A. Adler(including glossary, bibliography, index) The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967,

The Economacs of Road User LC 78-26143. ISBN 0-19-520092-6, Stock 3rd printing, 1973 88 pages (includingCharg es No. OX 520092, $27.50 hardcover; ISBN annex, bibliography)A. A. Walters 0-19-520093-4, Stock No OX 520093, LC 67-28574 ISBN 0-8018-0009-9, StockMarginal cost pricing and consumer $12 50 paperback No. IH 0009, $5 paperback

E The World Bankin Publications Order Form

SEND TO: YOUR LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR OR TO WORLD BANK PUBLICATIONS(See the otkeu sid, of thsu form) P.O. BOX 37525

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013 U.S.A.

Date

Name Ship to: (Enter if different from purchaser)

Title Name

Firm Title

Address Firm

City State_ Postal Code Address_

Country TelephoneI ) City State. Postal Code d

Purchaser Reference No. Country Te-lephone I

Check your method of payment.Enclosed is my M Check H International Money Order O Unesco Coupons O International Postal Coupon.Make payable to World Bank Publications for U. S. dollars unless you are ordering from your local distributor.

Charge my O VISA 7 MasterCard 1 American Express 7 Choice. iCredit cards accepted only for orders addressedto World Bank Publications.)

Credit Card Account Number Expiration Date Signature

O Invoice me and please reference my Purchase Order No. . -

Please ship me the items listed below.

Customer IntemalStock Number Author/ Title Routine Code Quantity Unit Price T Total Amount I

All prices subject to change Prices may vary by country. Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery.

Subtotal Cost STbtal copies Air mail surcharge if desired (s2 00 each) S -

Postage and handling for more than two complimentary items (52 00 each) STotal s

tt)DsSt Thank you for your order.

e4 V)

n�o<

-u u IS,C47'u 9, On S -.g, !r ggLI,4, 7 j � -. i �, g F-�

� g 6rp� Z:

2 e, EAad 9,g A

ZZC3 V

45cg g;

u 26 ci 13, U C-el gt� LAJo', C:

r:

Lu e. C)

<17- tnC) -0 CL.El-LA -U -j

-M.C, �0: > I&L gpi 10

IN-q , WI 6 9 -6CA :9 22, -uo Ep El r.

"j- 'n! om L X4EU CU

A 0 Qe T3 L4.7 ta, V un ozZ9 <

IBRD A18284APRIL 1984

SIC WHUJANG

U S S Rt HUNSN4 /N U

TRANSPORT INTENSITY, RAIL DENSITY 0 N G 0 L I AAND SHARE OF HEAVY INDUSTRY KA OF JTAiwAN

X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ N JN A N CX & CANN

[]Transport Intensity TkmJY-GvlAO r<\\\\t _above notional overageBURMA ! ETNM

Density oS mui per population and e PEOPLEJ' 'are abvenotional overage ( lDw EOU-S

HOvyIdsr utput greater thani /irrueuc "> ) PeupisUPU

Q ) IN H H A IA N D \> SOUTH CHINA SCA

T HILAND

HG3881.5 .W57 W67 no.723 c.3Yenny, Jacques, 1938-Transport in China : acomparison of basicindicators with those of

DATE NAME AND EXTENSION ROOMNUMBER

The World BanEk

Headquarters European Office To!kyo Office1818 11 Street, N W 66, avenue d lena Kokusai BuildingWashington, D C 20433, U S A 75116 Paris, Franec I -I Marunouchi 3-chome

Telephone (202) 477-1234 T-elephone (1) 723-5421 Chryoda-ku, lokyo 100, JapanTelex WUI o4145 WORLDBANK lelex 842-620628 Telephone (03) 214-5001

RCA 248423 WORLDBK Telex 781-26838Cable Address INTBAFRAD

WASHIINGTONDC

ISSN 0253-2115/ISBN 0-8213-0513-1