transportation infrastructure in the large EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, and the ..... excludes the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and London Underground projects. .... Germany. Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) System. 1000.0. 2004. Hungary.
FINANCING OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT: A MACROECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE Timo Välilä1, Tomasz Kozluk2 and Aaron Mehrotra3
This paper aims to cover two broad issues in the financing of investment in European transportation infrastructure. First, against the background of a longer-term downtrend in overall public investment, it seeks to describe the evolution of public investment in transportation infrastructure in the large EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, and the UK) and to identify its macroeconomic determinants by means of a panel data analysis. The results of this analysis are contrasted with results of similar analyses for other public service sectors (education and health) and also with an analysis of the determinants of aggregate public investment. Second, the paper offers an overview of the role of publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) in financing road sector investment in the EU. It describes the extent of PPPs in the road sector across countries, with a view to assessing their extent and significance.
1
Economist, Economic and Financial Studies, European Investment Bank, Luxembourg. Researcher, European University Institute, Florence, Italy. 3 Researcher, European University Institute, Florence, Italy. 2
1. INTRODUCTION Total public investment has been on a trend decline in most EU countries for the past three decades. At the same time, the public sector has been the most important—indeed, in some cases the only—provider of transportation infrastructure in general and road infrastructure in particular. Consequently, it is of interest to examine how the downtrend in total public investment has affected public financing and provision of transportation infrastructure. Also, to the extent that public transportation investment has behaved differently from total public investment, it is of interest to study why. Another significant development in the area of transportation investment in general and road sector investment in particular has been the emergence of private financing and provision of such infrastructure through public-private partnerships. While this phenomenon is already a decade old in the UK, its macroeconomic significance both in the UK and other EU countries has been scantly assessed. Consequently, it is also of interest to examine how important are public-private partnerships in the transportation and road sectors. In focussing on these two broad issues—the evolution and determinants of public transportation investment and the significance of private financing of transportation infrastructure—this paper assumes a macroeconomic perspective on issues that have mostly been commented on from a microeconomic perspective. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge no-one has yet attempted a similar approach, trying to patch together an aggregate picture of how the financing arrangements for transportation and road investment have evolved over the past decades. We start off by describing the trends in public transportation investment, contrasting it with total public investment in section 2. The determinants of public investment are examined in section 3, with an analysis of how they differ between the transportation, education, and health sectors, as well as in contrast to total public investment. The focus
2
shifts to public-private partnerships in section 4, where their significance is assessed in general and in the road sector in particular. Section 5 concludes. Before entering the analysis, a caveat concerning the data is warranted. There are significant problems in compiling macro-level data on transportation and road investment that are comparable across countries and time periods, and that have adequate and unchanging breakdowns for long periods of time. To ensure the maximum level of comparability across countries, we have chosen to use data from internationally acknowledged sources such as the OECD and Eurostat. However, the cost of this choice is the insufficient comparability of the data across time periods (due to changes in accounting conventions) and the insufficient availability of appropriate breakdowns. The consequences of these problems are highlighted in the discussion to follow.
2. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT: EVOLUTION Any comparative and longitudinal macro-level analysis of investment in the transportation sector is hampered by lack of adequate data; in the case of roads, such data are virtually non-existent. Even when data exist that are reasonably comparable across countries, they do not cover very long time periods. This complicates both the description of how transport investment has evolved over time, and the analysis of what have been the driving forces behind that evolution. Nevertheless, some data that are useful for these purposes do exist, and they are described below. To start with, let us put public transport investment in a broader perspective. To this end, consider the evolution of total investment by the general government—comprising not only the central government but also regional and local governments—in the four large EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, and the UK). As shown in Figure 1, aggregate public investment in these countries fell on average from 4 percent of GDP in the early 1970s to 2.2 percent of GDP in recent years. The fall has been particularly pronounced in the UK, where public investment peaked at 5 percent of GDP in the early 1970s; fell to
3
some 2 percent of GDP by the early 1980s where it hovered for a decade, only to continue sliding thereafter toward 1 percent of GDP.
Figure 1. Gross fixed capital formation by the general government in large EU countries (in percent of GDP), 1970—2003. 6 5 4 UK France Italy Germany
3 2 1 0 1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Source: OECD To what extent has this trend decline in total public investment been reflected in public investment in the transportation sector? The evolution of public transport investment— including also public communication investment as no further disaggregation is available—in the four large EU countries during 1970-1995 is depicted in Figure 2. There is a clear downtrend only in Germany, where public transportation and communication investment fell from 1.7 percent of GDP in the early 1970s to 0.6 percent of GDP by the mid-1990s. In the other countries, public transportation and communication investment remained stable at 0.5-0.8 percent of GDP.
4
Figure 2. Gross fixed capital formation in transportation and communication sectors by the general government in large EU countries (in percent of GDP), 1970—1995.
2.0
Germany France Italy UK
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Source: Eurostat. It is important to acknowledge that we do not know to what extent movements in the composite variable have been driven by its two components (public transportation and communication investment). Consequently, all conclusions will only relate to the combination of public transportation and communication investment, as indicated in what is to follow. However, the fact that public communication investment only comprises grants and subsidies (see below) suggests that public transportation investment dominates the composite variable and that the problem may not be all that grave for the subsequent analysis. The time series ends in 1995, and no comparable data exist for more recent years. The reason for this is the move to a new classification system for national accounts. The data shown above follow the classification in the 1979 version of the European System of Accounts (ESA79). The move to ESA95 changed, among other things, the classification of public investment expenditure, and in the new classification system transportation is
5
included alongside eight other sectors in public investment in “economic affairs”, with no further breakdown readily available. Focussing therefore on the quarter-century ending in 1995, the ESA79 data shown above comprise public investment in roads, non-commercial inland waterways and ports, and other transportation and communication. Road investment includes also bridges, tunnels and carparks, but only those for which no toll is charged. In the case of roads and inland waterways and ports, also maintenance expenditure is included. Other transportation and communication investment expenditure, in turn, comprises public investment grants and subsidies to these sectors. Consequently, the extent of public communication investment—which we would ideally want to exclude altogether—is rather limited, comprising indeed only grants and subsidies. Most of the total investment in communication infrastructure is thus recorded as private which, in turn, reduces the analytical problems caused by lumping the two sectors together in published statistics. As a comparison of Figures 1 and 2 suggests, transportation and communication investment accounted for about one-quarter of total public investment during most of the sample period; however, there are considerable differences across the sample countries. The share was well above 30 percent in Germany for most of the 1970s, but it fell to about 25 percent as transportation and communication investment fell more rapidly than total public investment. In France transportation and communication investment has accounted for some 15 percent of total public investment throughout, while in Italy its share fell from close to 30 percent in the early 1970s to 20 percent in the early 1980s, only to rebound to 25 percent and even above by the mid-1990s. Finally, in the UK transportation and communication investment accounted for some 15 percent of total public investment in the late 1970s, but that share increased to over 30 percent by the 1990s, thereby defying the steep downtrend in total public investment. How has the evolution of public transportation (and communication) investment, as depicted above, affected overall economic performance? Most empirical studies suggest that public transportation investment has a positive and statistically significant impact on
6
output, or negative and statistically significant impact on production costs.4 This relationship appears somewhat stronger in the case of public transportation investment than for aggregate public investment. However, the results from empirical studies relate to the average productivity of public transportation investment, while they do not reveal anything about the marginal productivity of such investment. This means that one cannot conclude that falling public transportation investment is necessarily detrimental; it could simply reflect economically sensible adjustment to declining marginal productivity of capital. Of course, the figures above relate to gross investment and, in the absence of information about depreciation and net investment, we do not know exactly to what extent gross investment has been sufficient to cover depreciation and add to the existing capital stock. However, the stability of public transportation and communication investment relative to GDP since the early 1980s suggests that gross investment must have grown at approximately the same rate as nominal GDP. This, in combination with the relatively long life span of transportation assets and hence slow rate of depreciation, suggests that the stock of public transportation assets is unlikely to have declined; indeed, it has almost surely continued expanding. And given the likely declining marginal productivity of capital in the transportation sector, there would seem to be no particular reason to be concerned that the observed evolution of public investment in the transportation sector would have had a detrimental impact on economic performance at the macrolevel.
3. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT: DETERMINANTS Having described the evolution of public transportation and communication investment in our sample, let us turn to the analysis of its macroeconomic determinants. To this end, we estimate a simple model using panel data for the large EU countries for the period 19771992. To contrast the determinants of public transportation (and communication) investment against other sectors and against aggregate public investment, we estimate the
4
See Sturm et al. (1998) for a survey.
7
same model also using public education and health investment as the dependent variable, as well as using aggregate public investment as the dependent variable. The model specification used in the panel data analyses is as follows:5 gfcft = α + β1yt-1 + β2 rt-1 + β3 debtt-1 + β4currect-1 + β5curdist-1 +ut where the dependent variable gfcf denotes gross fixed capital formation of the general government (either at sectoral or aggregate level). The explanatory variables include real GDP (y); real long-term interest rate (r); public debt (debt); current revenues (currec); and current expenditure (curdis).6 One can not determine the expected signs of all coefficients ex ante. If the dependent variable increases with the level of income and behaves procyclically, the coefficient for the output variable (β1) will assume a positive sign, while in the opposite case a negative sign will result. The interest rate variable, measuring financing costs, is expected to have a negative coefficient (β2), as is the case for the public debt variable (β3). The coefficients for the revenue and expenditure variables can assume either sign, depending on whether or not the dependent variable is used to support discretionary fiscal policy efforts (negative β4 and positive β5); in other words, whether or not public investment (in transportation and communication, education, health, or at the aggregate level) is used as a tool in generating or withdrawing fiscal stimulus beyond the effect of automatic stabilisers. The data used in the estimation was obtained from Eurostat’s New Cronos database (sectoral public investment data) and from the OECD’s Economic Outlook Database No. 75 (all other data). The following data transformations were made: 5
For the justification of the model, see Turrini (2004) as well as Mehrotra and Välilä (2004). According to the OECD data structure, net lending by the general government can be disaggregated into current receipts, less current disbursements (excluding gross interest payments), less net capital outlays. In our case, capital outlays are the dependent variable. Current receipts include direct and indirect taxes, social security contributions, other current receipts and property income paid by government. Government current disbursements include government final consumption expenditure, property income paid by government, subsidies, social security benefits paid by government, and other current payments paid by government. 6
8
•
All public investment variables as well as public debt, current revenues, and current disbursements are measured in relation to trend GDP, so as to reduce spurious correlation and multicollinearity.7
•
To address potential endogeneity problems, all explanatory variables are lagged by one period. The lagged value of the dependent variable was not included among explanatory variables as this could cause estimator bias in the fixed effects panel estimation.
•
The output variable, measured in logs, is not adjusted cyclically, but all fiscal variables (debt, revenues, expenditures) are. Consequently, we can interpret the results as informing us about the sensitivity of public investment to business cycle fluctuations and to discretionary changes in tax and public expenditure policies.
The dependent variables were tested using the Levin-Lin-Chu panel unit root tests and found to be trend stationary. The model was estimated using OLS fixed effects, with country-specific coefficients and time trends. The results are reported in Table 1 below.
7
Trend GDP is calculated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter.
9
Table 1. Determinants of sectoral public investment. Panel estimation results, OLS fixed effects, 4 large EU member states. all sectors education y 0.0561 0.0122 (6.02) (4.07) r 0.0113 -0.0069 (0.69) (-1.31) debt -0.0166 0.0127 (-2.81) (6.64) current receipts 0.0120 0.0023 (0.40) (0.23) current disbursemen 0.0361 -0.0002 (1.23) (-0.02) adjusted R2 0.87 0.93 observations
73
72
health 0.0014 (0.61) -0.0094 (-2.38) 0.0018 (1.25) 0.0078 (1.07) -0.0084 (-1.18) 0.63
transport 0.0127 (2.93) -0.0111 (-1.46) 0.0187 (6.79) 0.0071 (0.51) 0.0080 (0.58) 0.94
73
73
Note: Dependent variable gross fixed capital formation of the general government, as a share to trend GDP (first column) and sectoral investment, as a share to actual GDP (second, third and fourth columns). Country-specific time trends and constants are not displayed. All explanatory variables are lagged by one period. t-values in parentheses (significance at the 10% level is indicated in bold).
As regards public transportation and communication investment, the output variable appears to be its most important determinant. The coefficient for output suggests that, ceteris paribus, every one percent growth in real GDP increases public transportation and communication investment by 0.01 percentage points of GDP. This translates into an increase of 1.5 percent, if the average annual public transportation and communication investment in our sample during 1990-1995 is used as a benchmark. Notably, public transportation and communication investment moves in unison with fluctuations in real GDP, thereby increasing with the level of national income and behaving pro- rather than countercyclically.
10
The other explanatory variables offer few additional insights into the determination of public transportation and communication investment. The coefficient for the public debt variable, while statistically significant, does not have the expected sign, so its impact cannot be interpreted in an economically meaningful way. Furthermore, neither financing costs nor discretionary fiscal efforts seem to be significant determinants of public transportation and communication investment. In other words, public transportation and communication investment does not seem to be hit during episodes of discretionary fiscal contraction, nor does it seem to receive a boost during episodes of discretionary fiscal expansion, nor respond to fiscal sustainability considerations. So how does the determination of public transportation and communication investment compare with public investment at the aggregate level and in other sectors? At the aggregate level, public investment is determined by output, with a stronger impact than in the case of transportation and communication investment, and it also smoothes out movements in public debt, but it is immune to financing costs and discretionary fiscal measures. The determination of public education investment is strikingly similar to the transportation and communication sector—as is the high explanatory power of our model for these two sectors. Public investment in the health sector follows a distinctly different pattern, being determined by financing cost considerations. To sum up, public investment in transportation (and communication) is, in our sample, chiefly determined by output, with neither financing costs not broader budgetary or fiscal sustainability considerations playing a statistically significant role. The main reason for why public transportation and communication investment has defied the long-term downtrend in total public investment seems to be that public transportation and communication investment has been insensitive to fiscal sustainability considerations, while total public investment has not. Why this would be so is a topic for another study.
11
4. SIGNIFICANCE OF PPPS IN THE ROAD SECTOR We have so far concluded that as regards publicly financed transportation (and communication) investment in the four large EU member countries, it makes up about one-quarter of total public investment; it has defied the downtrend in aggregate public investment except in Germany, and it is chiefly determined by GDP developments. In other words, seen from a macroeconomic perspective, there has been no major structural change in publicly financed transportation and communication investment; if anything, its relative importance compared to public investment in other sectors has tended to increase. But what about privately financed transportation investment, especially in the road sector? The emergence of public-private partnerships in the past decade has constituted a structural change, at least qualitatively speaking. But how significant is such privately financed road infrastructure from a quantitative perspective? Before focussing on the road sector, let us pin down the size of public-private partnerships in a broader perspective. In the UK—which has been the clear frontrunner in using public-private partnership structures for infrastructure provision—overall investment through public-private partnerships has amounted to 10—25 percent of total annual public investment.8 While comparable data do not exist for other countries, one can nevertheless estimate—using data on signed public-private partnership contracts— that public-private partnerships have been much less important, with the possible exception of Portugal.9 This conclusion is based on the data underlying Figure 3, which shows the average relationship between signed public-private partnership contracts (a stock variable) and annual public investment (a flow variable) for a number of countries.
8 9
Based on HM Treasury budget reports. Based on own calculations using data from the ProjectWare database.
12
Figure 3. Signed value of public-private partnership contracts in percent of total public investment (average 1995-2003). 25
20
15
10
5
0 Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
UK
Note: The UK figure excludes London Underground. Including it would raise the UK figure to 32.6 percent. Source: HM Treasury (UK), ProjectWare database (other countries).
While public-private partnerships therefore remain a relatively small source of overall infrastructure finance in most countries, they are most frequently used in the transportation sector, especially outside the UK. The transportation sector accounts for only some 20 percent of all public-private partnerships projects in the UK (by value),10 while its share in other countries is as high as 95 percent. Out of public-private partnerships in the transportation sector, in turn, roads account for 50 percent. In other words, public-private partnerships in the road sector outside the UK account for almost one-half of the total value of all public-private partnerships.
10
This figure excludes the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and London Underground projects. With them included and counted as transportation sector investment, the figure would be as high as 57 percent.
13
The road sector is therefore important for public-private partnerships, but how important are public-private partnerships for the road sector? Figure 4 shows that in Portugal during 1995-2002, the average signed value of privately financed road sector investment projects (again a stock variable) was one-third of annual investment in the transportation, storage, and communication sectors (a flow variable) by both public and private sectors.11 To get a rough idea of what this might imply in terms of investment flows—i.e., what is the share of privately financed road investment in total transportation, storage, and communication investment—let us assume that the average construction period is four years and that the investment flows from a project are equally distributed over the construction period. In that case, privately financed road investment would have amounted to 10—45 percent of total transportation, storage and communication investment in Portugal during 1995-2002; to some 20 percent in Greece during 19961999, and not exceeded a few percent in the other countries. Figure 4. Signed value of PPP contracts in the road sector in percent of total investment in transportation, storage and communication (average 1995-2002). 32.3
10.0
9.6
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0 1.1 0.3
0.0 Austria
Greece
Portugal
UK
Note: Excluded are bridges, tunnels, and refinancing contracts. Sources: HM treasury (UK), ProjectWare database (other countries). 11
There is no data available on road sector investment alone for the total economy that would be consistent across countries. Investment in transportation, storage and communication sectors is the lowest available level of disaggregation. This is a major drawback, especially as there are good reasons to believe that different components of this measure (e.g., communication investment) behave very differently across countries.
14
Notably, while there have been many privately financed road sector projects in Portugal, there has only been one in Greece. All in all, the figures for Portugal represent 13 projects, while the Essi motorway project, signed in 1996, is the only one in Greece. More generally, although the road sector is dominant among public-private partnerships in value terms, that dominance is in most cases the result of a small number of projects. Apart from Portugal, only the UK (15 road projects) has a double-digit number of road projects. Spain has had 6 privately financed road projects and Ireland 3, but all of them have had financial closure in 2003-04 and do not therefore appear in the figures presented above. In the case of Spain, the average project size has been about €530 million (approximately the same as in Portugal), while in Ireland it has only been €180 million (See Attachment for details). In sum, private financing of road infrastructure remains quite small. Only in Portugal have public-private partnerships played a large role in financing road infrastructure, both in terms of the number of projects and their significance in overall transportation, storage, and communication investment. In the UK a large number of privately financed road projects have been undertaken, but they have accounted for only a very small share of overall transportation, storage, and communication investment. In all other countries private financing of road infrastructure is either limited to a small number of projects or they remain a very recent phenomenon.
5. CONCLUSIONS We set out to examine the evolution and determinants of publicly financed transportation investment, as well as to assess the macroeconomic significance of privately financed road investment. Despite the lack of data that could have allowed us to compare likes with likes throughout, we arrived at some insights that should not be excessively sensitive to data problems.
15
As regards publicly financed transportation and communication investment in the four large EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, and the UK), we found that except for Germany, it has defied the general downtrend in overall public investment, at least during the quarter-century through 1995. In staying relatively stable in relation to GDP, gross public transportation and communication investment has almost surely translated into continued growth of the public capital stock in this sector. Given the likely decreasing marginal productivity of transportation investment, there would seem to be no particular concern arising from the observed evolution of public transportation investment as regards its impact on economic growth. So what accounts for the behaviour of public transportation and communication investment? Using a simple model specification, estimated using panel data from the four large EU countries, we found a similar pattern of public investment determination in transportation and communication and education sectors, with output developments driving changes in public investment in these sectors. Aggregate public investment reacts additionally to fiscal sustainability considerations, smoothing out movements in public debt, which is a key insight in explaining why aggregate public investment and public transportation and communication investment have behaved so differently. These findings contrast with those for public investment in the health sector, which seems to be chiefly explained by financing considerations. Turning to the significance of privately financed infrastructure, it was found that the overall significance of public-private partnerships remains small, except in the UK and Portugal. The road sector is important for public-private partnerships—after all, half of all privately financed infrastructure outside the UK is in the road sector—but publicprivate partnerships appear important for the road sector only in Portugal. There a total of 13 road projects have been undertaken using private finance, with the total value of these projects corresponding to a third of all investment in transportation, storage, and communication. In the UK the number of privately financed road projects is large (20), but their relative significance is small. Finally, a number of countries have undertaken a few privately financed road projects, but their systemic impact remains small.
16
In sum, our analysis suggests that there has been no major structural change in public financing of transportation investment in the large EU countries—at least not for the worse—but there has been a major structural change in private financing of road infrastructure in Portugal. Apart from Portugal, privately financed road infrastructure has emerged alongside publicly financed in the UK, but there, as in other countries, its significance in a longer-term perspective remains yet to be established.
LITERATURE Mehrotra, Aaron and Timo Välilä (2004): “Determinants of Public Investment”. Unpublished manuscript. Sturm, Jan-Egbert, Gerard H. Kuper and Jakob de Haan (1998): “Modelling Government Investment and Economic Growth on a Macro Level: A Review”. Chapter 14 in Market Behaviour and Macroeconomic Modelling by Steven Brakman, Hans van Ees and Simon K. Kuipers (editors). Turrini, A. (2004): “Public Investment and the EU Fiscal Framework”. European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Economic Papers, 202.
17
ATTACHMENT: Road sector PPP projects included in the figures in section 4 Country
Project
Austria
Ebelsberg bypass
Austria
Austria's Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) System
Germany
Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) System
Hungary Ireland Ireland
Capital value (€ mill)
Financial closure
100
1997
285.8
2004
1000.0
2004
M5 Toll Motorway Refinancing
205.0
2003
N4/N6 Kilcock-Kinnegad
232.5
2003
N1/M1 Dundalk Western By-pass
142.7
2004
168.0
2004
8000.0
2003
Ireland
N8 Fermoy By-pass
Italy
Autostrade Acquisition Long Term Financing
Netherlands
A59 PPP Project
Netherlands
N31 Leeuwarden - Drachten PPP project
145.5
2003
78.0
2003 2003
Norway
E39 Klett-Bardshaug Road Project
200.0
Portugal
Vasco de Gama/Second Tagus Bridge
615.8
1995
Portugal
Western Concession (Real Toll)
650.0
1998
Portugal
Northern Concession (Real Toll)
1375.4
1999
Portugal
SCUT Algarve Shadow Toll Motorway
276.9
2000
Portugal
Beira Interior Shadow Toll Motorway
746.0
2000
Portugal
SCUT Costa da Prata (Shadow Toll)
473.7
2000
757.0
2000
Portugal
SCUT Interior Norte (Shadow Toll)
Portugal
SCUT IP5 Beiras Litoral e Alta Shadow Toll
Portugal
1189.5
2001
SCUT Algarve Refinancing
283.1
2001
Portugal
Scut Norte Litoral (Shadow Toll)
330.0
2001
Portugal
Western Toll Highway Concession Additional Financing
58.0
2002
Portugal
SCUT do Grande Porto (Shadow Toll)
Portugal
Vialitoral Expansion (Madeira)
Spain
R-4 Toll Road Concession
700.0
2003
Spain
R-3, R-5 and M50 Toll Motorways
860.0
2003
Spain
Autopista Central Gallega
318.5
2003
Spain
M45 - Section C Refinancing
Spain
Access Road for Madrid-Barajas Airport
Spain
Pamplona to Logrono Shadow Toll Road
UK
A30/A35 Exeter to Bere Regis DBFO
UK
A69 Carlisle to Newcastle DBFO
UK
776.5
2002
85.0
2002
80.9
2003
422.7
2003
363.0
2004
GBP75
1996
GBP9
1996
A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester DBFO
GBP49
1996
UK
A1(M) Alconbury to Peterborough DBFO
GBP128
1996
UK
A50/A564 Stoke-Derby Link DBFO
GBP21
1996
UK
M1 - A1 Link Road (Lofthouse to Bramham)
UK
M40 Junctions 1 to 15
UK
M6/A74
UK
A55
UK
A130 (A12-A127)(LA)
GBP214
1996
GBP65
1996
GBP96
1997
GBP100
1998
GBP90
1999 1999
UK
Lloyd George Avenue
GBP45
UK
A13 Thames Gateway
GBP146
2000
UK
Traffic Control Centre
GBP85
2001
UK
Newport Southern Distributor Road
GBP57.1
2002
UK
A1 Darrington to Dishforth
GBP245
2003
Sources: HM Treasury (UK), ProjectWare (other countries)
18
