200 400 600 800 1000
0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
a. b.
Fig. 2 – Evolution of goods maritime transportation within 2000 – 2004, by types of property. (a. mostly state; b. private) (thousands tones). Source: INS
Analyzing the data ((Fig.1 and Fig.2), we can notice a slight increase of the river traffic and a significant decrease of the maritime traffic, considering the fact that the maritime traffic is dominant among private companies. Related to the percentage of ports in the goods maritime traffic, in 2004,
out of 40,5 millions tones, Constanta port had 37,5 mil.t, Mangalia 243 000 tones and Tulcea 179 000 tones. Considering other countries, the traffic from Constanta port, had signifi-
cant roles for France, Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain but also for countries from the Euro-Asian areas, such as Russia, Ukraine, Turkey or Georgia (INS, 2005). It can be noticed a total traffic for maritime ships that entered Roma- nian ports of 2646 and a number of 5800 of ships that got out of Romanian ports, most of them belonging to Turkey, Ukraine, Russia or Bulgaria (INS 2005, 2, pp.31-32). Considering the river ports, those from Dobrogea registered a low rate of goods traffic in 2004, excepting Constanta: Cernavoda – 125 000 t., Basarabi – 420 000 t., Medgidia – 1 420 000 t, Mcin 816 000 t., Mahmudia – 1 796 000 t., Tulcea – 2 047 000 t. and Constanţa – 12 230 000 t. Overall, the traffic reached 31 211 000 t (INS 2005, 2, pp.34). The figures mentioned ear- lier reflect the degree of usage of Danube – Black Sea Channel, but to a lower extent related to the possibilities. The international traffic of goods within ports indicates, in 2004, almost
3 millions tones of goods from EU – 779 000 t (Austria, Germany, Holland, Slovakia and Hungary), the rest being from Bulgaria, Serbia and Ukraine. Loaded freight totalized almost 2,2 million tones directed to European coun- tries, 739 000 to Austria, Germany, Holland, Slovakia and Hungary) , the rest of them being directed to countries such as, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Ukraine. (INS 2005, 2, pp.34)
105
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161