te of new construction spending will lose out to other public/private spending and investment options. However, it should be noted that the increased Big 5, developing and non-OECD-industrialised new construction rates (percentage of GDP) remain significantly below OECD- industrialised rates - and that the road capital stock-to-GDP ratios also remain well below OECD-industrialised ratios. In fact, it must be remembered that the actual road capital stock-to-GDP ratios fall for all regions - which reminds us that there are inevitable future costs just to maintain existing large stocks of road capital. If there is one aspect of the road model that may overstate new construction forecasts of requirements, it may be how the replacement capital requirement is estimated. The model has effectively assumed that 1/30th of the 10-year lagged road capital stock must be replaced per year. Better minor maintenance practices and management could make that an overstatement. The road capital stock value consistent with these results grows from USD 5 370 billion in 2000 to USD 7 130 billion in 2030, a cumulative growth of only 33% over 30 years. The ratio of road capital stock-to-GDP falls from 9.7% to 6.1% over this period, SO the overall elasticity and observed downward trend of this ratio is certainly captured (for industrialised countries). The corollary of these results is that the productivity of road infrastructure continues to rise. Ex post elasticities for road capital stock This model began with the ex ante Fay-Yepes-type elasticities (with respect to GDPpc) of 0.25 (high-income countries) and 0.15 (low-income countries). However, two significant modifications have been made: a) to adjust for rising road new construction costs (per route-km); and b) with convergence over time towards high-income ratios of road capital stock to GDP. The application of these adjustments resulted in ex post elasticities (with respect to GDP) for the entire 2000-30 period of: 0.20 (high-income countries); INFRASTRUCTURE TO 2030: TELECOM, LAN