This section briefly describes the general performance of the rail sector in Mexico. It comprises an industry assessment, a spatial analysis and an international comparison. The industry review focuses on the economic performance, the product analysis and the market share assessment of the rail sector. The spatial analysis aims at identifying the main rail commercial corridors in the country, as well as their dynamics. Finally, the international analysis provides a general overview of the rail sector within the international arena.
Regulatory Governance of the Rail Sector in Mexico
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--00fed4ad-205d-4136-a51b-a9ac2903965e/25.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
2. Performance of the rail sector of Mexico
Abstract
Industry analysis
This section aims to outline a general profile of the rail freight transportation in Mexico since the restructuring of the industry, based on its economic performance. In general, the restructuring of the rail freight industry was successful, as it turned the decreasing tendency on economic performance exhibited during the state control. The economic activity of the rail sector recovered its dynamism. It increased slightly but steadily both its share of freight transported and the tonnage of freight transported. Moreover, the restructuring brought investment again and improved the freight service in comparison with the previous years.
Compared to other modes of transportation, the competitive advantage of the rail transportation is more evident for long hauls. At the same time, rails are usually dependent on connectivity with other modes of transportation to deliver products. For this reason, economic performance is dependent on the degree of connectivity of the rail network, the productivity in logistics and the quality of the infrastructure; but also on the competition playing field that rail firms or corridors (origin – destination segments) face with another railway firms or transportation competitors from other modes. In what follows, the economic profile of the industry is presented.
Economic performance
In 2017, the total tonnage transported in Mexico accounted for 982 million. The freight transported by road was the most important mode with 546.6 tonnes, which represented 55.7% of the sector. The second most important was maritime with 307.6 millions of tonnes, about 31.3%. Rail transportation in contrast, moved 126.6 million of tonnes during 2017 (about 12.9% of the total) and the remaining 0.7 million were moved by air (0.1% of the total).
Railways in Mexico also transport passengers in a unique line for mid distances. In 2017, 56 million people used the Sub-urban Train, which represented 1.5% of the total in the country – approximately 1.475 million of passengers per kilometre (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1. Freight and passenger by transportation mode
Millions in 2017
Mode of transport |
Tonnes |
% |
Passengers |
% |
---|---|---|---|---|
Road |
546.6 |
55.7 |
3 701 |
95.8 |
Rail |
126.6 |
12.9 |
56 |
1.5 |
Water |
307.6 |
31.3 |
17 |
0.4 |
Air |
0.7 |
0.1 |
90 |
2.3 |
Total |
982 |
100 |
3 864 |
100 |
Source: SCT (2018[1]), Estadística Básica 2017 [Basic Statistics 2017], http://www.sct.gob.mx/transporte-y-medicina-preventiva/autotransporte-federal/estadistica/2017/ (accessed 5 March 2019).
The evolution of the tonnage moved by the type of transport is presented in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.2. As it can be observed, the four modes experienced an increasing tendency. In principle, the gross tonnage increased 62.0% from 606 million tonnes to 982 million for the period 1995-2017. The air transport presented the highest increase of the period with 193.7%, although this mode has the lowest share in terms on tonnage. The rail transport raised 141.2% from 52 million tonnes to 127 million, followed by maritime transportation with an increase of 65.2% from 186 million tonnes to 308 million.
Regarding the share in terms of tonnage, road transportation has had the biggest proportion. In 2017, the road share was 55.7%, a slightly decrease with respect to 1995 with 60.6% (see Table 2.2). Rail transportation in comparison had a 12.9% share in 2017, which gained a steadily increase since 1995 with 8.7%. The maritime share of tonnage rose from 30.7% in 1995 to 31.3% in 2017. Finally, the air transportation showed a share of 0.1% in 2017 from 0.05% in 1995. In general, the information of Table 2.2 shows that the train freight transportation gained share, measured by the tonnage reported between 1995 and 2017. Besides, the data seems to suggest that rail gained share at the expense of road transportation.
Figure 2.1. Evolution of the freight transport
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--e94bff13-8752-487f-bda3-9bebaea60f16/image2.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: SCT (2018[1]), Estadística Básica 2017 [Basic Statistics 2017], DOF, CDMX, http://www.sct.gob.mx/transporte-y-medicina-preventiva/autotransporte-federal/estadistica/2017/ (accessed 5 March 2019).
Table 2.2. Freight transportation by year and mode
Million tonnes and percentage
Years |
Road |
Rail |
Maritime |
Air |
Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1995 |
367 |
52 |
186 |
0.3 |
606 |
% |
60.6 |
8.7 |
30.7 |
0.0 |
100 |
1996 |
383 |
59 |
209 |
0.3 |
651 |
% |
58.9 |
9.0 |
32.1 |
0.0 |
100 |
1997 |
332 |
62 |
220 |
0.3 |
614 |
% |
54.1 |
10.0 |
35.8 |
0.1 |
100 |
1998 |
381 |
76 |
237 |
0.4 |
695 |
% |
54.8 |
10.9 |
34.2 |
0.1 |
100 |
1999 |
394 |
77 |
231 |
0.4 |
703 |
% |
56.1 |
11.0 |
32.9 |
0.1 |
100 |
2000 |
413 |
77 |
244 |
0.4 |
735 |
% |
56.2 |
10.5 |
33.2 |
0.1 |
100 |
2001 |
409 |
76 |
244 |
0.4 |
730 |
% |
56.0 |
10.4 |
33.5 |
0.0 |
100 |
2002 |
411 |
80 |
253 |
0.4 |
745 |
% |
55.2 |
10.8 |
34.0 |
0.1 |
100 |
2003 |
416 |
85 |
265 |
0.4 |
766 |
% |
54.3 |
11.1 |
34.5 |
0.1 |
100 |
2004 |
426 |
88 |
266 |
0.5 |
781 |
% |
54.6 |
11.3 |
34.1 |
0.1 |
100 |
2005 |
436 |
90 |
284 |
0.5 |
810 |
% |
53.8 |
11.1 |
35.0 |
0.1 |
100 |
2006 |
445 |
96 |
287 |
0.5 |
829 |
% |
53.7 |
11.5 |
34.7 |
0.1 |
100 |
2007 |
474 |
100 |
273 |
0.6 |
847 |
% |
55.9 |
11.8 |
32.2 |
0.1 |
100 |
2008 |
484 |
100 |
265 |
0.5 |
849 |
% |
57.0 |
11.7 |
31.2 |
0.1 |
100 |
2009 |
451 |
90 |
242 |
0.5 |
784 |
% |
57.5 |
11.5 |
30.9 |
0.1 |
100 |
2010 |
470 |
105 |
273 |
0.6 |
848 |
% |
55.4 |
12.3 |
32.2 |
0.1 |
100 |
2011 |
486 |
108 |
283 |
0.6 |
877 |
% |
55.3 |
12.4 |
32.2 |
0.1 |
100 |
2012 |
498 |
112 |
283 |
0.6 |
894 |
% |
55.7 |
12.5 |
31.7 |
0.1 |
100 |
2013 |
502 |
112 |
289 |
0.6 |
903 |
% |
55.6 |
12.4 |
32.0 |
0.1 |
100 |
2014 |
511 |
117 |
287 |
0.6 |
916 |
% |
55.8 |
12.8 |
31.3 |
0.1 |
100 |
2015 |
523 |
120 |
293 |
0.7 |
936 |
% |
55.9 |
12.8 |
31.3 |
0.1 |
100 |
2016 |
536 |
122 |
297 |
0.7 |
955 |
% |
56.1 |
12.8 |
31.1 |
0.1 |
100 |
2017 |
547 |
127 |
308 |
0.7 |
982 |
% |
55.7 |
12.9 |
31.3 |
0.1 |
100 |
Source: SCT (2018[1]), Estadística Básica 2017 [Basic Statistics 2017], DOF, CDMX, http://www.sct.gob.mx/transporte-y-medicina-preventiva/autotransporte-federal/estadistica/2017/ (accessed 5 March 2019).
In financial terms, roads in Mexico contributed to 88.3% of the transport value added, measured in Mexican pesos, between 1994 and 2017, followed by air transport with 5.1%, rail with 3.7% and maritime with 2.9% – see Table 2.3. The dominance of the road transport services for cargo is well known. The industry dynamics however, has modified slightly in recent years, as the participation of the rail services has increased. A key point for this result has been the growth in turnover since the restructuring of the state owned monopoly railway.
Table 2.3. Freight transport by mode
As % of the transport GDP
Year |
Air |
Rail |
Water |
Road |
---|---|---|---|---|
1995 |
6.0% |
3.0% |
4.3% |
86.8% |
1996 |
6.7% |
3.6% |
4.0% |
85.7% |
1997 |
5.4% |
3.4% |
3.2% |
88.0% |
1998 |
5.2% |
3.5% |
2.9% |
88.4% |
1999 |
5.3% |
2.9% |
3.1% |
88.8% |
2000 |
5.1% |
3.4% |
2.9% |
88.6% |
2001 |
5.6% |
2.9% |
3.0% |
88.5% |
2002 |
5.5% |
3.1% |
3.1% |
88.3% |
2003 |
5.0% |
3.4% |
3.4% |
88.2% |
2004 |
4.6% |
4.5% |
3.8% |
87.0% |
2005 |
4.8% |
4.6% |
3.2% |
87.3% |
2006 |
5.5% |
4.6% |
3.0% |
87.0% |
2007 |
5.4% |
4.3% |
3.1% |
87.2% |
2008 |
4.9% |
4.1% |
3.0% |
88.1% |
2009 |
5.3% |
4.0% |
2.6% |
88.0% |
2010 |
5.2% |
3.8% |
2.6% |
88.3% |
2011 |
5.3% |
4.1% |
2.8% |
87.8% |
2012 |
4.6% |
4.1% |
2.8% |
88.6% |
2013 |
4.3% |
3.9% |
2.7% |
89.1% |
2014 |
4.3% |
3.6% |
2.5% |
89.6% |
2015 |
4.5% |
3.5% |
2.5% |
89.5% |
2016 |
4.6% |
3.4% |
2.4% |
89.6% |
2017 |
4.8% |
3.4% |
2.1% |
89.7% |
Periods’ average |
5.1% |
3.3% |
2.0% |
89.5% |
Source: INEGI (n.d.[2]), PIB y cuentas nacionales, https://www.inegi.org.mx/temas/pib/ (accessed 1 June 2019)
The rail sector in Mexico experienced significant changes since the restructuring of the industry in 1994. Private capitals boosted the railways by improving the quality of the freight services and increased the investments over infrastructure and the participation in the economic activity within the sector – see Figure 2.2 for the evolution of investments in rail lines.
Figure 2.2. Investment by main rail concessionaires in Mexico
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--31cb3aab-18ea-45f7-93c8-94693c965ff9/image3.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: Gobierno de México (2019[3]), Instituto Mexicano del Transporte (Mexican Transport Institute), Queretaro, https://www.gob.mx/imt (accessed 5 March 2019).
Figure 2.3 presents the average growth in gross domestic product (GDP) of the rail transport in percentage for the period 1994-2017. The growth of the railways was the highest of the transport sector with 4.1%; it was 0.1% larger than roads, which is the most important transportation mode in Mexico.
Figure 2.3. Average growth in gross domestic product (GDP) of the freight transport in Mexico between 1994 and 2017
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--2c535d6f-0319-4583-88f6-86708c7539a6/image4.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: Elaborated with data from INEGI (2019[4]), Banco de Información Económica (BIE) (Economic Information Bank), https://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/bie/ (accessed 5 March 2019).
Figure 2.4 shows GDP growth of the transport sector on a yearly basis for the period 1994-2017. In general, the data shows there is no clear path in the performance of the rail system. Between 1994 and 2003, the rail sector exhibited periods of sharp growth in economic activity, combined with falls. In this period, in the years of positive growth, the rail transportation mode outperformed transport services as a whole. In contrast, from 2004 to 2017, the year-to-year growth of the railways performed below the national freight industry, with the exception of 2009 and 2010. Overall, it seems that the high rates of growth in the GDP of the rail industry in the immediate years following the 1994 restructuring account for the difference in performance between the freight transport as a whole, and the rail sector between the period 1994‑2017.
Figure 2.4. Year to year growth in GDP of the freight transport in Mexico between 1994 and 2017
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--2e1158a0-3236-42da-b2e7-ea2f76f8492e/image5.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: Elaborated with data from INEGI (2019[4]), Banco de Información Económica (BIE) (Economic Information Bank), https://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/bie/ (accessed 5 March 2019).
The volume of freight transported by railways increased steadily from 2007 to 2017, see Figure 2.5 and Table 2.4. Figure 2.5 shows the behaviour of the freight moved by rail between 2007 and 2017. In general terms it shows there has been an overall increasing tendency, although with periods of falls in 2007-09 and 2011-13.
Table 2.4 shows that in absolute terms, cargo grew from 99.8 million of tonnes in 2007 to 126.9 million in 2017 – an increase of 27.2%, which implied a 2.4% in average per year. Also, the tonne-kilometres carried passed from 77 169 million to 86 332 – an increase of 9 163 million, equivalent to a growth of 11.9% – for the whole period, which represented about 1.1% in yearly basis.
Table 2.4. Rail freight transportation in Mexico
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tonnes (million) |
99.8 |
99.7 |
90.3 |
104.6 |
108.4 |
111.6 |
111.9 |
116.9 |
119.6 |
122.0 |
126.9 |
Tonne-km (million) |
77 169 |
74 582 |
69 185 |
78 770 |
79 728 |
79 353 |
77 717 |
80 683 |
83 401 |
84 694 |
86 332 |
Source: Elaborated by the OECD with data from ARTF (2018[5]), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 (Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017), https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 31 January 2018).
Regarding the cost of freight services, Figure 2.6 presents the evolution of averaged tariffs from 1960 to 2010 for Mexican, Canadian and US lines. The period comprises the breakpoints of the US deregulation, the Canadian privatisation and the granting of private concessions in Mexico. For the Mexican case, there is a gap in statistical information from 1987 to 1998; thus, there are no records of tariffs for such period.
Before the concessions in Mexico, the tariffs paid by customers labelled as Nacionales de Mexico (NdeM) (freight only) were lower than the average in the US and Canada. While the Mexican state-national railway firm was in charge of the operation of the freight services, the federal government had to grant a subsidy to cover the negative balance of the firm. For instance, the real tariffs composed by the payment of customers and the subsidies were in average higher than services in Canada during the period before 1987 and, than in the US in some years.
Figure 2.5. Freight moved by rail
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--9e914c1f-af4b-4893-8bb3-5389aa0ec955/image6.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: Elaborated by the OECD with data from ARTF (2018[5]), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 [Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017], https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 2 March 2019).
Figure 2.6. Average tariffs of rail freight
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--705c72af-af4a-4585-998b-1b78e36be5eb/image7.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Notes: National Railways of Mexico was composed of three railways: Nacionales de Mexico (NdeM), Ferrocarril Chihuahua-Pacifico (Chepe) and Ferrocarril del Pacifico (FdelP). The data reported here is for NdeM only but representative of FNM given the small scale of FdelP and Chepe operations.
Source: (ITF, 2014[6]), Freight Railway Development in Mexico, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvzjd60kb-en, updated to add 2013-16 data based on AAR “Railroad Facts” and US BEA GDP series.
It stands out that Canadian and American rail tariffs had a decreasing path, contrary to the Mexican case that showed an incremental tendency. In 1987, the real Mexican average tariff was 48.5% higher than the American and 67.7% higher than the Canadian.
In the years after the Mexican concession, the national tariffs dropped in comparison with the previous years. Notwithstanding, they were still higher than the US and Canadian levels. For some years however, the Mexican tariffs followed an opposite trend, which contrasts to the American and the Canadian tariffs that were still decreasing. By 2002, the Mexican rail tariffs reversed the increasing tendency at the same time that the US and Canadian tariffs reversed their downward trend, so that Mexican tariffs got closer to the US and Canadian fares.
A tariff analysis of the Mexican railway should be carried out on a regular basis, but it requires detailed information. Currently, the ARFT only has information on the maximum fares, as the concession holders must register such information by product on yearly basis. This information however, does not reflect the real prices charged to costumers, which are different from the maximum fares. Therefore, a comprehensive tariff analysis of the Mexico case cannot be undertaken.
Product analysis
The share of the freight transported by rail by type of product, measured in tonnes, practically did not change for the last 10 years. Table 2.5 presents the tonnes carried by rail and its relative weight with respect to the total freight from 2007 to 2017 as well as the total volume of freight by product. The industrial products went from 48.8 million tonnes in 2007 to 59.8 million in 2017 – a 22.5% increase. The agricultural products grew 22.8% – from 26.3 million to 32.3 million. The mineral products on the other hand, went up about 30.6% and the oil by‑products experienced an increase of 120.8%, the most relevant of the period. In contrast, the inorganic goods decreased 1.7% in the ten years.
As can be seen in Table 2.6, the most important products for the rail mode of transport are the industrial‑related, as they represent more than 46.0% of the total tonnage for each year – 47.8% in average for the whole period. The second most relevant type of product is agricultural-related, as they accounted between 22.5% (2013) and 27.9% (2009). In addition, the third type are mineral-related, representing between 10.9% (2016) and 14.0% (2013).
It is worth to mention that the three most relevant categories of products carried by rail represented between 84.5% (2014) and 87.6% (2008) of the total tonnage for the period – 85.8% in average. The oil‑related products, the fourth in relevance, are those that have changed the most in its proportion, moving from 5.2% in 2008 to 9.2% in 2014 and 2017.
Table 2.5. Rail freight transportation by group product, in tonnes
Million tonnes, yearly
Group of products |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Industrial |
48.8 |
47.7 |
41.7 |
49.0 |
50.9 |
53.4 |
54.9 |
56.5 |
57.6 |
58.9 |
59.8 |
Agricultural |
26.3 |
26.3 |
25.2 |
27.0 |
26.5 |
26.7 |
25.2 |
27.1 |
29.8 |
31.8 |
32.3 |
Mineral |
12.1 |
13.3 |
10.9 |
13.7 |
15.2 |
15.4 |
15.7 |
15.2 |
14.7 |
13.3 |
15.8 |
Oil |
5.3 |
5.2 |
6.4 |
7.7 |
8.4 |
8.7 |
9.2 |
10.8 |
10.7 |
11.0 |
11.7 |
Inorganic |
5.9 |
5.7 |
4.8 |
5.6 |
6.0 |
5.9 |
5.4 |
5.8 |
5.2 |
5.5 |
5.8 |
Forest |
1.1 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
Animal |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
Total |
99.9 |
99.6 |
90.2 |
104.4 |
108.5 |
111.7 |
111.9 |
117 |
119.6 |
122 |
126.9 |
Source: Adapted from ARTF (2018[5]), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 (Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017), https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 31 January 2018).
Table 2.6. Rail freight transportation by group of product
Percentage, yearly
Group of products |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Industrial |
48.9% |
47.8% |
46.2% |
46.8% |
47.0% |
47.8% |
49.1% |
48.3% |
48.2% |
48.3% |
47.1% |
Agricultural |
26.4% |
26.4% |
27.9% |
25.8% |
24.4% |
23.9% |
22.5% |
23.2% |
24.9% |
26.1% |
25.5% |
Mineral |
12.1% |
13.3% |
12.1% |
13.1% |
14.0% |
13.8% |
14.0% |
13.0% |
12.3% |
10.9% |
12.5% |
Oil |
5.3% |
5.2% |
7.1% |
7.4% |
7.7% |
7.8% |
8.2% |
9.2% |
8.9% |
9.0% |
9.2% |
Inorganic |
5.9% |
5.7% |
5.3% |
5.4% |
5.5% |
5.3% |
4.8% |
5.0% |
4.3% |
4.5% |
4.6% |
Forest |
1.1% |
1.0% |
0.9% |
0.9% |
0.9% |
1.0% |
1.0% |
1.0% |
1.0% |
0.9% |
0.9% |
Animal |
0.4% |
0.4% |
0.4% |
0.5% |
0.5% |
0.4% |
0.4% |
0.3% |
0.3% |
0.3% |
0.3% |
Total |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Source: Adapted from ARTF (2018[5]), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 (Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017), https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 31 January 2018).
Shares of the rail sector
Table 2.7 presents the distribution of the freight between railway firms in Mexico for the fiscal year 2017. From the 126.9 million of tonnes transported in the country, Ferrocarril Mexicano (Ferromex) moved approximately 46.0% (58.3 million) of freight, Kansas Southern of Mexico (KCSM) 33.9% (43.1%) and Ferrosur 14.9% (18.9 million). These three lines concentrated 94.8% of the total freight in 2017. In fact, the consortium Ferromex-Ferrosur accounted for 60.9% of the total tonnage. The remaining four short lines Coahuila-Durango (LFCD), Ferrocarril y Terminal del Valle de México (Ferrovalle), Ferrocarril del Istmo de Tehuantepec (FIT) and Administradora de la Vía Corta Tijuana-Tecate (Admicarga) accounted for 6.6 million tonnes, which represented 5.2% of the total amount.
Regarding the total tonne-kilometres, Ferromex summed up 45.6 billion tonnes-km, approximately 52.9%; KCSM billed 30.4 billion tonnes-km, which represented 35.2%; and Ferrosur, 8.8 billion tonnes‑km, 10.2%. Thus, the three lines had 98.3% of the total of tonne-km during 2017. The four short lines gathered 2% of the share of tonnes-km with 1.5 billion.
Table 2.7. Distribution of the cargo remitted by concessionaires and assignees in Mexico
2017
Concessionaires/ assignees |
Tonne |
Tonne-km |
Loaded cars |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Million |
Share |
Thousands of million |
Share |
Number of units |
|
Ferromex |
58.3 |
46.0% |
45.6 |
52.9% |
956 591 |
KCSM |
43.1 |
33.9% |
30.4 |
35.2% |
881 880 |
Ferrosur |
18.9 |
14.9% |
8.8 |
10.2% |
279 614 |
LCD |
3.2 |
2.6% |
0.8 |
0.9% |
37 885 |
FTVM |
2.6 |
2.1% |
0.1 |
0.1% |
29 274 |
FIT** |
0.6 |
0.4% |
0.6 |
0.7% |
7 121 |
ADMICARGA |
0.2 |
0.1% |
0.0 |
0.0% |
2 633 |
TOTAL |
126.9 |
100% |
86.3 |
100% |
2 194 998 |
* Considers the traffic of the railway companies (local and remitted).
** Derived from the modality imposed by the Ministry of Communications and Transports (SCT), the tracks of Chiapas and Mayab were operated by Ferrocarril del Istmo de Tehuantepec (FIT) during 2016.
Source: Adapted from ARTF (2018[5]), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 (Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017), https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 31 January 2018).
Spatial analysis
Table 2.8. In Mexico, railway transportation of goods – measured as millions of tonnes – has been increasing steadily since 2010. Before 2014, this growth was driven by local transportation of products; however, in 2014 the tendency reversed and the flow of imports through the Mexico-USA border was the main source of progress (ARTF, 2018[5]).
In 2017, the Northeast line (under KCSM management) was the corridor with the greatest traffic density by kilometre – 7.16 million ton-km/km. The former derives from the importance of the Mexico-USA crossing, especially through Piedras Negras, Coahuila and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas. In 2017, terrestrial trade represented 71% of the total international cargo. On the other hand, the most important ports for the rail industry are Veracruz and Manzanillo, which serve the Atlantic and Pacific coast of Mexico, respectively. The two ports accounted for 63% of the 23.2 millions of tonnes that were moved by ship in 2017 (ARTF, 2018[5]).
Figure 2.7. Cargo distribution of freight rail by destination in Mexico
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--ecafcf9b-84ec-4fbc-baab-e5cfc7cac5d8/image8.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: (ARTF, 2018[5]) Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 (Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017), https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 31 January 2018).
The impact of the transport industry can be seen in those cities that are relevant from a logistics standpoint. These cities are located in the Mexico-USA border or have important ports, but do not manufacture the transported goods. For example, in the case of Colima and Tamaulipas, activities related to transport, mail and storage accounted for 11% and 10% of their 2017 GDP, respectively (INEGI, 2019[4]). These shares are the highest among all Mexican states and five out of the eight cities considered in Figure 2.8 rank on the top 10% in this indicator.
Garcia Ortega and Martner Pyrelongue (2018[7]) analysed the geographical flow of the rail freight in Mexico using data from 2016. The objective of the research was the identification of freight distribution across the rail network and usage of commercial corridors. The cargo was differentiated between local traffic, interlineal-sent and interlineal in transit. Local traffic refers to the freight moved by one operator or railway firm. In 2016, the local traffic was about 89.2% (109.3 million tonnes) of the total freight in the country (122.4 million). Interlineal sent refers to the freight that is handled by two operators; thus, it passes through a connection node between the network of the origin concession holder and the network of the destination licence – it accounted for 12.7 million and 10.3% of the 2016 total cargo. Finally, the interlineal in transit involves three firms; origin, destination and in-between. This type of cargo accounted for 0.4% with 441 thousands of tonnes.
Table 2.8 shows the total freight according to the type of traffic by firm. The traffic involving more than two rail networks – interlineal in sent traffic – with respect of the total volume is low, only 0.3% of the total traffic. Ferrosur is the line with the largest proportion of its cargo involving more than two rail firms with 215 091 tonnes transported, which represents 29.1% of the total interlineal in transit traffic. Taking interlineal sent traffic and interlineal in transit traffic together, Ferromex is the major player with 4.9 million tonnes transported.
Figure 2.8. Share of international rail cargo by international crossing and port in Mexico
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--e10d4141-b264-4330-b48c-e9cc31e55d0f/g2-8.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: ARTF (2018[5]), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 (Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017), https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 31 January 2018).
Table 2.8. Freight according to the type of traffic in Mexico
Tonnes
Firms |
Local traffic |
% across type of traffic |
Interlineal sent traffic |
% across type of traffic |
Interlineal in transit traffic |
% across type of traffic |
Total by firm |
% across firms |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ferromex |
51 396 044 |
91.1 |
4 832 316 |
8.6 |
156 377 |
0.3 |
56 384 737 |
46.0 |
Ferrosur |
12 031 841 |
70.9 |
4 717 491 |
27.8 |
215 091 |
1.3 |
16 964 423 |
13.8 |
KCSM |
39 486 366 |
94.1 |
2 376 038 |
5.6 |
69 711 |
0.2 |
41 932 115 |
34.2 |
FIT-CH-M |
1 305 227 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 305 227 |
1.1 |
LCD |
2 630 544 |
76.9 |
787 285 |
23.0 |
0 |
0 |
3 417 829 |
2.8 |
TFVM |
2 453 064 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 453 064 |
2 |
Traffic |
109 303 085 |
89.2 |
12 713 130 |
10.3 |
441 179 |
0.3 |
122 457 394 |
100 |
Source: Reproduction of García Ortega and Martner Pyrelongue (2018[7]), “Análisis Geográfico de los Flujos de Carga Ferroviaria en México con Datos de 2016 [Geographic Analysis of Rail Freight Flows in Mexico with 2016 Data]”, https://imt.mx/archivos/Publicaciones/PublicacionTecnica/pt521.pdf (accessed 1 March 2019).
Table 2.9 shows the main nodes or terminals for local rail traffic, which in 2016 distributed 109 million tonnes of cargo in Mexico. Garcia Ortega and Martner Pyrelongue (2018[7]) analysed 348 nodes of distribution from the side of the origin and 412 nodes receiving cargo (destination). From these, 25 origin nodes summed up 74% of the total outgoing freight and 27 concentrated 60% of the incoming cargo. As concluded, the integration of the 42 most important origin-destination nodes resumes 78.8% of the outgoing and 62.3% of the incoming cargo. In fact, they also conclude that these 42 nodes are located along the three main commercial rail corridors of México.
1. The Centre - North corridor which connects Mexico City and two border crossings in the United States, Nuevo Laredo in Tamaulipas and Piedras Negras in Coahuila. As it can be seen in the Table 2.9, these are the most important nodes in terms of local traffic.
2. The west transverse corridor connecting the Pacific through the port of Manzanillo and Mexico City.
3. The east transverse corridor connecting the Gulf of Mexico through the port of Veracruz and Mexico City.
Garcia Ortega and Martner Pyrelongue (2018[7]) identified that with few exemptions (Monterrey, Pantaco and Ciudad Frontera) the bigger nodes are located in ports or border crossings. Besides, in these terminals, origin movements were bigger than destinies, as they are imports distributed across the national territory through the main corridors of each concession holders – with the exemption of Guaymas. At the contrary, the inland nodes presented more destination movements.
In summary, the authors concluded that for local traffic, 35% of the total cargo was moved through nine crossing nodes and were related to international trade. Ten more nodes were associated to the production and consumption of the major urban areas and 23 more nodes (19% of the freight) were linked to specialised cargo.
Table 2.10 presents the main nodes with interlineal sent traffic. As mentioned before, in 2016, the cargo handled by two operators summed up 12.6 million tonnes. This freight was distributed through 167 origin nodes and 197 destination terminals. The nodes disclosed in the Table 2.10 however, represented 86.2% and 78.5% of origin and destination nodes.
The authors concluded that this type of cargo is concentrated in the central region of the country. More specifically, the following corridors:
1. Manzanillo - Guadalajara – Cortazar – Queretaro – Bojay
2. Coatzacoalcos – Jaltipan – Tuxtepec – Molino – Panzacola – Puebla
3. Veracruz – Cd. Sahagún – Pantaco – Metepec – Toluca
One third of the cargo was linked to other corridors and cities as Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey, Quimica del Rey and Piedras Negras, which added 12.1% of the interlineal sent traffic.
The most representative nodes with interlineal traffic in transit are listed in the Table 2.11. From the total cargo involving more than three operators (441 178 tonnes), nine terminals concentrated 92.1% of the total freight in origin movements and ten added 88.3% of the cargo in destination nodes. In general, this type of flow is mostly unidirectional, which implies that terminals with this type of logistics are mainly recipients or issuers. Nonetheless, it stands out that freight traveling across three or more operators is infrequent in Mexico.
In general terms, the local traffic is the most representative on the rail industry as interlineal requires agreements between firms to share infrastructure.
Table 2.9. Main freight nodes for local traffic in Mexico
Nodes |
Origin (tonnes) |
% |
Destination (tonnes) |
% |
Total (tonnes) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nuevo Laredo |
18 015 349 |
16.5 |
4 272 489 |
3.9 |
22 287 838 |
Piedras Negras |
10 853 824 |
9.9 |
5 735 430 |
5.2 |
16 589 254 |
Monterrey |
1 298 643 |
1.2 |
8 712 609 |
8 |
10 011 251 |
Veracruz |
7 157 720 |
6.5 |
674 994 |
0.6 |
7 832 713 |
Lazaro Cardenas |
3 853 651 |
3.5 |
2 443 357 |
2.2 |
6 297 009 |
Ciudad Juarez |
4 473 766 |
4.1 |
1 215 833 |
1.1 |
5 689 599 |
Pantaco |
860 506 |
0.8 |
4 661 326 |
4.3 |
5 521 831 |
Manzanillo |
4 312 294 |
3.9 |
1 173 240 |
1.1 |
5 485 534 |
Cd Frontera |
1 147 104 |
1 |
4 021 639 |
3.7 |
5 168 742 |
Matamoros |
3 609 844 |
3.3 |
1 535 084 |
1.4 |
5 144 928 |
Tlalnepantla |
446 491 |
0.4 |
3 694 152 |
3.4 |
4 140 643 |
Rio Escondido |
2 071 409 |
1.9 |
1 873 891 |
1.7 |
3 945 301 |
Nogales |
2 167 474 |
2 |
1 501 419 |
1.4 |
3 668 893 |
Altamira |
3 056 726 |
2.8 |
230 798 |
0.2 |
3 287 524 |
Guadalajara |
389 542 |
0.4 |
2 770 727 |
2.5 |
3 160 268 |
San Luis Potosi |
314 524 |
0.3 |
2 703 095 |
2.5 |
3 017 618 |
Cd Industrial |
1 997 730 |
1.8 |
767 931 |
0.7 |
2 765 662 |
Cuautitlán |
435 664 |
0.4 |
2 189 660 |
2 |
2 625 324 |
Guaymas |
310 762 |
0.3 |
2 131 687 |
2 |
2 442 449 |
Torreon |
879 558 |
0.8 |
1 351 935 |
1.2 |
2 231 493 |
Minatitlan |
2 191 878 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 191 878 |
San Juan De Los Lagos |
11 068 |
0 |
2 136 102 |
2 |
2 147 169 |
Tecoman |
2 031 214 |
1.9 |
10 |
0 |
2 031 224 |
Huehuetoca |
1 875 512 |
1.7 |
27 331 |
0 |
1 902 843 |
Silao |
1 259 380 |
1.2 |
608 107 |
0.6 |
1 867 488 |
Salinas Victoria |
440 240 |
0.4 |
1 397 478 |
1.3 |
1 837 717 |
Tula |
1 396 670 |
1.3 |
288 070 |
0.3 |
1 684 740 |
San Juan Del Rio |
24 848 |
0 |
1 555 312 |
1.4 |
1 580 160 |
Moyotzingo |
0 |
0 |
1 521 295 |
1.4 |
1 521 295 |
El Castillo |
46 112 |
0 |
1 381 244 |
1.3 |
1 427 357 |
Tepeaca |
1 280 543 |
1.2 |
93 648 |
0.1 |
1 374 191 |
Lecheria |
161 219 |
0.1 |
1 124 693 |
1 |
1 285 913 |
Gómez Palacio |
14 675 |
0 |
1 231 947 |
1.1 |
1 246 622 |
Zapotiltic |
1 112 430 |
1 |
127 709 |
0.1 |
1 240 139 |
Querétaro |
5 250 |
0 |
1 217 747 |
1.1 |
1 222 997 |
Las Palmas |
1 110 720 |
1 |
104 237 |
0.1 |
1 214 957 |
Pedro C. Morales |
1 190 880 |
1.1 |
20 813 |
0 |
1 211 693 |
Cananea |
1 173 489 |
1.1 |
18 693 |
0 |
1 192 182 |
Ahorcado |
219 |
0 |
1 168 856 |
1.1 |
1 169 075 |
Tamuin |
0 |
0 |
1 070 317 |
1 |
1 070 317 |
Palau |
1 044 125 |
1 |
565 |
0 |
1 044 690 |
Tampico |
1 001 459 |
0.9 |
27 105 |
0 |
1 028 564 |
Subtotal |
85 024 512 |
77.8 |
68 782 574 |
62.9 |
153 807 086 |
Total |
109 303 085 |
100 |
109 303 085 |
100 |
Source: García Ortega and Martner Pyrelongue (2018[7]), “Análisis Geográfico de los Flujos de Carga Ferroviaria en México con Datos de 2016 (Geographic Analysis of Rail Freight Flows in Mexico with 2016 Data)”, https://imt.mx/archivos/Publicaciones/PublicacionTecnica/pt521.pdf (accessed 1 March 2019).
Table 2.10. Interlineal sent traffic in Mexico
Nodes |
Origin (tonnes) |
% |
Destination (tonnes) |
% |
Total (tonnes) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Veracruz |
1 293 508 |
10.3 |
292 137 |
2.3 |
1 585 645 |
Xoxtla |
181 694 |
1.4 |
1 205 009 |
9.6 |
1 386 703 |
Cortazar |
360 983 |
2.9 |
877 576 |
7.0 |
1 238 559 |
Ing A Lira Arciniega |
376 668 |
3.0 |
813 584 |
6.5 |
1 190 252 |
Nuevo Laredo |
757 839 |
6.0 |
301 875 |
2.4 |
1 059 713 |
Bojay |
582 054 |
4.6 |
430 027 |
3.4 |
1 012 081 |
Queretaro |
48 872 |
0.4 |
711 043 |
5.6 |
759 915 |
Manzanillo |
726 839 |
5.8 |
227 |
0.002 |
727 066 |
Quimica del Rey |
713 859 |
5.7 |
1 735 |
0.01 |
715 593 |
Piedras Negras |
369 456 |
2.9 |
329 576 |
2.6 |
699 032 |
Jaltipan |
584 429 |
4.6 |
34 601 |
0.3 |
619 029 |
Monterrey |
261 937 |
2.1 |
320 547 |
2.5 |
582 484 |
Guanomex |
549 731 |
4.4 |
1 577 |
0.01 |
551 308 |
Coatzacoalcos |
369 284 |
2.9 |
68 744 |
0.5 |
438 028 |
Puebla |
118 744 |
0.9 |
311 431 |
2.5 |
430 175 |
Salamanca |
364 452 |
2.9 |
62 685 |
0.5 |
427 137 |
Tecoman |
421 774 |
3.3 |
0 |
0.0 |
421 774 |
Lazaro Cardenas |
363 977 |
2.9 |
32 739 |
0.3 |
396 716 |
Guadalajara |
6 982 |
0.1 |
384 334 |
3.0 |
391 316 |
Ciudad Juarez |
214 706 |
1.7 |
166 471 |
1.3 |
381 177 |
Kmb170 |
377 899 |
3.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
377 899 |
Morelia |
60 |
0.0005 |
358 977 |
2.8 |
359 037 |
San Luis Potosi |
84 956 |
0.7 |
259 132 |
2.1 |
344 087 |
Panzacola |
213 356 |
1.7 |
89 637 |
0.7 |
302 993 |
Molino |
44 534 |
0.4 |
245 217 |
1.9 |
289 752 |
Pantaco |
0 |
0.0 |
271 164 |
2.2 |
271 164 |
Durango |
33 586 |
0.3 |
215 122 |
1.7 |
248 708 |
San Juan del Rio |
208 457 |
1.7 |
33 693 |
0.3 |
242 150 |
Xalostoc |
2 504 |
0.02 |
237 260 |
1.9 |
239 764 |
Altamira |
227 151 |
1.8 |
6 425 |
0.1 |
233 576 |
Guasave |
202 232 |
1.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
202 232 |
Paula |
5 278 |
0.04 |
194 876 |
1.5 |
200 154 |
Metepec |
0 |
0.0 |
184 471 |
1.5 |
184 471 |
Tres Valles |
62 610 |
0.5 |
108 457 |
0.9 |
171 067 |
Toluca |
468 |
0.0 |
166 465 |
1.3 |
166 933 |
Cd Frontera |
5 392 |
0.04 |
159 948 |
1.3 |
165 341 |
Cangrejera |
144 236 |
1.1 |
19 608 |
0.2 |
163 845 |
Cd Sahagun |
121 892 |
1.0 |
40 808 |
0.3 |
162 700 |
La Junta |
36 919 |
0.3 |
111 670 |
0.9 |
148 588 |
Pedro C. Morales |
147 208 |
1.2 |
600 |
0.005 |
147 808 |
Centauro |
22 806 |
0.2 |
114 911 |
0.9 |
137 717 |
Tuxtepec |
102 969 |
0.8 |
30 818 |
0.2 |
133 788 |
Víctor Rosales |
13 318 |
0.1 |
118 628 |
0.9 |
131 947 |
Rio Escondido |
0 |
0.0 |
128 088 |
1.0 |
128 088 |
Vito |
22 974 |
0.2 |
104 327 |
0.8 |
127 301 |
Pabellon |
0 |
0.0 |
126 796 |
1.0 |
126 796 |
Gomez Palacio |
119 626 |
0.9 |
2 358 |
0.02 |
121 984 |
Apaseo |
0 |
0.0 |
113 116 |
0.9 |
113 116 |
Tlacote |
1 566 |
0.01 |
100 906 |
0.8 |
102 472 |
Subtotal |
10 869 786 |
86.2 |
9 889 394 |
78.5 |
20 759 180 |
Tota |
12 605 135 |
12 605 135 |
Source: García Ortega and Martner Pyrelongue (2018[7]), “Análisis Geográfico de los Flujos de Carga Ferroviaria en México con Datos de 2016 (Geographic Analysis of Rail Freight Flows in Mexico with 2016 Data)”, https://imt.mx/archivos/Publicaciones/PublicacionTecnica/pt521.pdf (accessed 1 March 2019).
Table 2.11. Interlineal traffic in transit in Mexico
Nodes |
Origin (tonnes) |
% |
Destination (tonnes) |
% |
Total (tonnes) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cortazar |
101 768 |
23.1 |
19 917 |
4.5 |
121 684 |
Mérida |
19 572 |
4.4 |
97 987 |
22.2 |
117 559 |
Quimica del Rey |
75 674 |
17.2 |
449 |
0.1 |
76 123 |
Ing. A Lira Arciniega |
67 371 |
15.3 |
0 |
0 |
67 371 |
Miramar |
0 |
0 |
63 326 |
14.4 |
63 326 |
Toluca |
449 |
0.1 |
60 161 |
13.6 |
60 610 |
Coatzacoalcos |
51 192 |
11.6 |
0 |
0 |
51 192 |
Ing. Roberto Ayala |
370 |
0.1 |
47 554 |
10.8 |
47 924 |
Bajio |
32 606 |
7.4 |
0 |
0 |
32 606 |
Veracruz |
0 |
0 |
32 606 |
7.4 |
32 606 |
Durango |
4 405 |
1 |
16 095 |
3.6 |
20 501 |
Vito |
19 138 |
4.3 |
0 |
0 |
19 138 |
San Juan Del Río |
0 |
0 |
18 860 |
4.3 |
18 860 |
Lazaro Cardenas |
17 572 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
17 572 |
Arriaga |
0 |
0 |
16 464 |
3.7 |
16 464 |
Centauro |
16 244 |
3.7 |
0 |
0 |
16 244 |
Temascalapa |
0 |
0 |
16 190 |
3.7 |
16 190 |
Subtotal |
406 362 |
92.1 |
389 610 |
88.3 |
795 971 |
Total |
441 178 |
441 178 |
Source: García Ortega and Martner Pyrelongue (2018[7]), “Análisis Geográfico de los Flujos de Carga Ferroviaria en México con Datos de 2016 (Geographic Analysis of Rail Freight Flows in Mexico with 2016 Data)”, https://imt.mx/archivos/Publicaciones/PublicacionTecnica/pt521.pdf (accessed 1 March 2019).
International Comparison
In Mexico, freight transportation by railways represents 25% of the total terrestrial cargo – while the OECD’s average is of 38% (ITF, 2018[8]). Although the country’s use of railways is close to the average use in OECD member countries, it lags behind in density of rail lines. Mexico has 1.37 km of rail lines per 100 sq.km (Figure 2.9) (ITF, 2018[8]).The scarce coverage of rail lines makes road transportation particularly attractive, as in some areas of the country it is the only option available (ITF, 2018[8]).
The use of railways is mainly determined by the type of products that are transported and the distance covered. For example, in the United States an important share of the freight transportation by rail is determined by the large volumes of bulk commodities that are carried over long distances. In line with the previous statement, and according to the ITF, approximately 80% of the world cargo transportation by rail is done in three countries: People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation and the United States (OECD and IFT, 2017[9]).
There is a strong correlation between a country’s GDP growth and its use of railways – particularly as rails are mainly used to carry out commodities (OECD and IFT, 2017[9]). Nonetheless, as the value of goods produced increases, products are more likely to be transported by road instead of freight, largely reflecting changes in product mix as a country’s economy grows.
Figure 2.9. Rail lines density
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--9249c8b7-6f33-4961-a602-0568bca5d08a/image10.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: (ITF, 2018[8]), ITF Transport Statistics-Goods Transport, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trsprt-data-en.
It is worth mentioning that growth and investment in rail transportation have been sustained in Mexico and growth trends after restructuring have been favourable in comparison to earlier periods and, to a degree, in comparison to the USA (see Figure 2.10). Moreover, after the private concessions were introduced, the rail tonne-km in Mexico has grown at a faster rate than the GDP. The former implies that the share and importance of the rail sector for the Mexican economy has increased in the last years.
In 2011-2013, the average elasticity of global trade to GDP was 1.4, meaning that foreign trade increases 1.4% for every 1% increase in GDP (OECD and IFT, 2017[9]). Given that Mexico’s share of freight that is destined to the USA and foreign markets has been increasing, the country is most likely to benefit from a global economy.
Figure 2.10. Rail tonne-km vs GDP
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--51229a97-7892-46ed-aaef-556b1139b7f9/image11.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: (STB, 2018[10]), Statistics of Class 1 Freight Railroads, Surface Transportation Board, Washington DC, https://www.stb.gov/Econdata.nsf/M%20Statistics%20of%20Class%201%20Feight%20RR?OpenPage (accessed 5 March 2019); ARTF (2018[5]), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 (Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017), https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797 (accessed 31 January 2018).
Nonetheless, Mexico’s investment in rail infrastructure has been low in comparison to other OECD countries (Figure 2.11). The increase in the freight transported by train is a consequence of the growth in the amount of goods transported, instead of a rise in the kilometers of the rail lines available. Current concession titles do not require companies to make investments in the rail infrastructure; however, some companies have invested in by-passes or other infrastructure projects in exchange of an increase in their exclusivity rights (see Chapter 2 for further details). For example, Ferromex was awarded five more years of exclusivity as exchange for building the Celaya bypass.
Most of the existing railway lines were built during the 20th century and many of the areas where a potential line could build are already invaded. In this sense, critical infrastructure investments are required to improve the scope of the railway in Mexico.
It is important to point out that critical infrastructure investments are needed in areas related to security. In meetings with private stakeholders, concessionaires and members of the chambers representing the users, mentioned the need of investing in boom barriers, as in many cases the train lines pass through cities or congested streets. Moreover, the little investment has been devoted to the rehabilitation of the rail lines, as recently accidents have occurred in segments of the line where trains drive at 10-15 km/h.
Figure 2.11. Rail infrastructure investment as % of GDP
![](/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--ca41893f-11a9-4e54-a0cb-b830db1414dd/image12.png?quality=80&preferwebp=true)
Source: ITF (2018[8]), ITF Transport Statistics-Goods Transport, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trsprt-data-en.
References
[5] ARTF (2018), Anuario Estadístico Ferroviario 2017 [Railway Statistical Yearbook 2017], SCT, https://www.gob.mx/artf/acciones-y-programas/anuario-estadistico-ferroviario-2017-152797.
[7] García Ortega, G. and C. Martner Pyrelongue (2018), “Análisis Geográfico de los Flujos de Carga Ferroviaria en México con Datos de 2016 [Geographic Analysis of Rail Freight Flows in Mexico with 2016 Data]”, No. 521, Instituto Mexicano del Transporte, Sanfandilla, Querétaro, https://imt.mx/archivos/Publicaciones/PublicacionTecnica/pt521.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2019).
[3] Gobierno de México (2019), Instituto Mexicano del Transporte [Mexican Transport Institute], Querétaro, https://www.gob.mx/imt (accessed on 5 March 2019).
[4] INEGI (2019), Banco de Información Económica (BIE) [Economic Information Bank], https://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/bie/ (accessed on 5 March 2019).
[2] INEGI (n.d.), PIB y cuentas nacionales, https://www.inegi.org.mx/temas/pib/ (accessed on 1 June 2019).
[8] ITF (2018), ITF Transport Statistics-Goods Transport, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trsprt-data-en.
[6] ITF (2014), Freight Railway Development in Mexico, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvzjd60kb-en.
[9] OECD and IFT (2017), ITF Transport Outlook 2017, https://doi.org/10.1787/25202367.
[1] SCT (2018), Estadística Básica 2017 [Basic Statistics 2017], http://www.sct.gob.mx/transporte-y-medicina-preventiva/autotransporte-federal/estadistica/2017/ (accessed on 5 March 2019).
[10] STB (2018), Statistics of Class 1 Freight Railroads, Surface Transportation Board, Washington DC, https://www.stb.gov/Econdata.nsf/M%20Statistics%20of%20Class%201%20Feight%20RR?OpenPage (accessed on 5 March 2019).