09.11.2013 Views

PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

440<br />

Figure A.1 TINA Needs 2000-2015 vs. IFI TINA Network Loans 1990-2000 3<br />

TINA Needs Poland 2000-2015<br />

(€36.42 billion)<br />

Air & Sea<br />

11%<br />

Rail<br />

40%<br />

Terminals<br />

0%<br />

Road<br />

49%<br />

IFI Loans TINA Network Poland 1990-2000<br />

(€ 2.79 billion)<br />

Rail<br />

24%<br />

Air & Sea<br />

6%<br />

Road<br />

70%<br />

TINA Needs Hungary 2000-2015<br />

(€10.16 billion)<br />

Air & Sea<br />

8%<br />

Rail<br />

40%<br />

Terminals<br />

7%<br />

Road<br />

45%<br />

IFI Loans TINA Network Hungary 1990-2000<br />

(€1.13 billion)<br />

Air & Sea<br />

Rail<br />

2%<br />

29%<br />

Road<br />

69%<br />

Source: Own compilation using data from the CEE Bankwatch Network, the World<br />

Bank, the EBRD, the EIB, and the TINA Final Report<br />

3 The calculation of total international funds for TINA networks excluded all IFI loans for public transit,<br />

since these are not relevant for TINA. Also, World Bank funds are somewhat underestimated in the<br />

calculated totals, since IBRD credits disbursed in US$ were translated into € at a simple 1$=1€ exchange<br />

rate. Since most IBRD funds were road or public transit funds, this means that the actual balance is even<br />

more strongly biased in favor of road infrastructures.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!