Abstract
Currently, there is an urgent need for an alternative route that would ensure safer and faster freight transport between China and Europe amidst increasing global tensions and trade conflicts. The Middle Corridor can be considered as such a route. The Asian Development Bank's Time-Cost-Distance methodology was used as the basis for assessing the Middle Corridor. The calculation of the Logistic Performance Index (LPI) helped to identify the main challenges which face this corridor. The future value method was used to evaluate potential road construction projects across the Caspian See. By comparison this corridor with the Northern Corridor and the Maritime Corridor, this article demonstrates its role as the shortest and relatively safe route between China and Europe and analyses its prospects. The importance of the Middle corridor will steadily increase due to geopolitical circumstances, as well as more favorable geographic and climatic conditions compared to the Northern corridor. The article examines the current situation regarding the further development of this corridor, measures taken by various participants, assesses their consequences, and also proposes the construction of a semi-submersible floating bridge in the event of an increase in cargo flows in the future, when this will be justified from the point of view of traffic safety, ecology and economic efficiency.
Introduction
In recent years, land trade routes between Asia and Europe have faced a few disruptions to transit goods, ranging from port closures, COVID-related congestion, and various sanctions imposed by the West against Russia due to its military aggression in Ukraine. In addition, the EU has imposed a ban on the transit of sanctioned goods, including dual-use and military goods, through Russia to third countries. This has made the delivery of goods through Russia unsafe (Kaleji, 2023).
On the other hand, due to the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip, the Houthis began to attack ships carrying goods for Israel, making shipping through the Suez Canal unsafe (CBS News, 2024). Because of this, ships from China to Europe and back must go around Africa, which takes more than 10 days of transit time for shipments and costs 2.5 times more money. If earlier the price for transporting a 40-foot container from Asia to the Mediterranean was $2,900, now when going around Africa it has risen to $7,100 (Govans, 2024). The introduction of trade tariffs on many countries by US President Trump on April 2, 2025, could also help boost mutual trade between Europe and Asia.
Thus, there is an urgent need for freight shippers to find an alternative route, if any, that would allow them to transport their cargo safely and at low cost. The Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) or the “Middle Corridor” could be considered as such a route. The route provides access to global markets for Central Asian and Caucasus countries and is also an important alternative route for shippers from Europe and China, allowing for “diversification of trade routes and increased economic resilience by reducing dependence on corridors through Russia (Forbes Kazakhstan, 2023).”
TITR began operating in 2017. The length of the route is 7.0 thousand km. A single tariff is set on the entire route, the “single window” principle is implemented, and container trains are running successfully. The current throughput is 6 million tons per year. In a short time, this route has become in high demand among shippers, as it meets the requirements for the speed and cost of cargo delivery in comparison with alternative routes. In 2024, compared to 2017, the volume of cargo transportation along the TITR increased by 2.5 times and reached 3.3 million tons (Figure 1). Transportation Volume Along TITR, thd. Tons. Source: TITR Association (2024)
Container shipping grew 3.7 times from 2017 to 2022. However, in 2023, they plummeted by 40% for two main reasons: high tariffs and a slowdown in freight transport due to increased demand and insufficient road capacity in narrow sections (Panchenko, 2024). But these problems were temporary and are now being resolved. Therefore, from 2017 to 2024, container shipping volumes increased by 6.2 times (Figure 2). Container Cargo Flows Via TITR, Thousand TEU. Source: TITR Association (2024)
The Middle Corridor competes with other corridors connecting Europe and Asia. For European and Asian companies, this corridor allows goods to move between Europe and Asia either much faster or with much less risk than is currently the case via the Northern, Southern, or Maritime Corridors. For EU countries, it also provides an opportunity to secure supplies of natural resources, including fossil fuels and minerals, from Central Asia, which is very important given the restrictions it has imposed on imports from Russia. This not only gives the EU greater security in terms of raw materials supplies but also gives it some leverage in its often tense relations with Russia (Bussières, 2023). For China, this land corridor provides access to energy resources, which determines the survival of its economy in crisis conditions, in contrast to the Maritime transport route, where the United States and its allies have obvious military dominance. For the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, this corridor offers them the opportunity to develop freely and successfully in the future by diversifying their trade away from the Russian-dominated Northern Corridor. This is of particular importance for these countries, which are seeking to reduce geopolitical risks and have chosen the Middle Corridor for its potential to improve infrastructure and boost intra-regional trade (Irakli, 2023). It also allows them to earn more revenue from transit trade.
Its main competitor is the Northern Corridor, which passes through Russia. Previously, it was the main land road between Europe and Asia. Now it is experiencing problems related to the ban by European countries on the import of sanctioned goods, including dual-use goods and military goods, through Russia to third countries. The use of the Southern land Corridor is complicated by sanctions against Iran. The use of the Maritime Corridor, due to attacks by the Houthis, who demand an end to Israeli bombing of Gaza, has led to the need to go around Africa, which takes 2.5–3 times longer and accordingly increases the cost of transporting goods. Under these conditions, the Middle Corridor began to develop rapidly, as it assumed safer and faster movement of goods due to a significantly shorter route. At the same time, the cessation of imports of cheap Russian energy resources to Europe increased its demand for the countries of Central Asia, rich in energy resources and minerals.
The Middle Corridor thus represents more than just an alternative for cargo transit; it offers a unique opportunity to change the geopolitical and economic landscape of the Eurasian region. Achieving this vision requires concerted efforts by all stakeholders—be they national governments, private investors, or regional and international organizations. By addressing the complex challenges ahead, the Middle Corridor has the potential to serve as a catalyst for regional stability and a facilitator of global economic cooperation (Bussières, 2023).
The purpose of this study is to identify the reasons for the increasing role of the Middle Corridor as an important transport artery connecting Europe and Asia, assess the transport potential of the corridor, its strengths and weaknesses, compare it with alternative transit corridors, such as the Northern Corridor through Russia and the Maritime Corridor bypassing Eurasia, increase its attractiveness, as well as identify and neutralize the factors hindering its successful future development.
The article consists of the following sections: literature review, methodology, results, and discussion. The methodology section examines various methods and indicators that can be used to determine the comparative advantage of a particular transport route. The results section assesses the advantages of various corridors for transporting different types of cargo and for different types of consignees. The discussion section examines ways to increase the attractiveness of the TITR by eliminating its main bottlenecks that limit its transit capacity, and therefore its attractiveness for shippers.
Literature Review
There is currently a large literature on this issue.
The TITR is one of the routes being developed under the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Programme (CAREC), which was adopted in 2017. “However, it wasn’t until 2020 that the first train utilizing the Middle Corridor trade route reached China from Türkiye (CPC, 2024).”
Transit between Asia and Europe via and from Central Asia has always been a viable commercial option but has long struggled to compete with other already established routes like the Northern Route and shipping routes through the Red Sea and Suez Canal (Aguiar, 2025). The low interest in this direction to date can be attributed to the fact that the capacity of the corridor is insufficient to provide the entire volume of cargo, and the Middle Corridor passes through the territory of many countries. However, in the face of increasing demand, countries have become more active in improving the infrastructure of the route and facilitating many customs processes” (Vasa & Barkanyi, 2023).
In the rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, the TITR stands as a transformative force, reshaping traditional trade and connectivity routes. It will profoundly shape the geopolitical dynamics of the region (Urciuolo, 2024). Its importance has increased in recent years due to the rapid change in the geopolitical situation.
Despite differences in approach, many authors agree that the TITR is of crucial importance in Asia-Europe trade (Palu & Hilmola, 2023). The route not only reduces transit time but also addresses issues related to the EU ban on cargo transit through Russia, making it an attractive choice for companies exploring new trade routes and markets (Ismayilova, 2025). The role of this route is to improve regional integration and stimulate economic growth through increased trade (EBRD, 2022).
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Houthi attacks on merchant ships have led to a significant shift in cargo flows from northern to southern routes in an East–West direction, making traditional transport routes such as the Northern Corridor less relevant and creating demand for alternative transport routes such as the TITR, also called the Middle corridor. By the end of 2023, transit via the Northern Route had been reduced by approximately 40%, while Red Sea capacity had been reduced by 20% (Urciuolo, 2024).
Another reason for the increasing role of the TITR is the tariff policy of US President Donald Trump, who in April 2025 introduced high tariffs against EU countries (20%) and prohibitive tariffs against China (145%). This could lead to a reorientation of trade between Europe and China towards more mutual trade. However, this process will not be quick. It is complicated by the fact that China’s exports exceed the EU’s imports by €300 billion in 2024 (Wintor, 2025).
Of course, the impact of these short-term factors will largely cease when the situation or current policies change. However, there are also long-term factors at work. “Not only the states through whose territory the routes pass are interested in implementing such large-scale initiatives, but also key external players, depending on the directions” (Ma’no Research Initiatives Center, 2025). The corridor has become a point of intersection of economic and political long-term interests of China, the European Union, Turkey, the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Despite Russia’s suspicions and hostility towards routes that bypass it, the Middle Corridor has every chance of success, as the project is led, invested in and actively supported by China (Sharashenidze & Cherkezishvili, 2025). “From a European perspective, it also offers access to the growing markets of Central Asia and the Caucasus region, as well as faster access to the Middle East, North Africa and the European Mediterranean region via the ports in Georgia and Turkey” (Walter, 2022). Also, the EU views TITR as an important project that can provide the Union with direct access to key resources in Central Asia (ERAI, 2025), increase the resilience of European supply chains and diversify European energy supplies. “Strengthening Eurasian connectivity would also work to balance Russian, Chinese, and Iranian influence in Central Asia” (Eldem, 2022, p. 2).
The Middle Corridor “can not only facilitate interregional trade between China and Europe but also promotes trade development within Central Asia, Caspian and adjacent regions” (Vasa & Barkanyi, 2023). In fact, the project helps landlocked Central Asian countries gain access to external markets, Caucasus countries receive needed investments, and Turkey strengthens its role as a regional leader.
The growing importance of the Middle Corridor is that it has a transformative impact on regional trade and transport dynamics. The corridor improves connectivity, reduces trade costs and promotes economic growth (Vasa & Barkanyi, 2023). It can be seen as a strategic tool for economic diversification and job creation (Sharashenidze & Cherkezishvili, 2025). “While the Middle Corridor will not be able to fully replace the Northern Corridor, regional integration along the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route is likely to increase its potential at the expense of Russia in the long-term” (Eldem, 2022, p. 1).
Although this trade route has been under development for some time, its full potential remains largely untapped (Sharashenidze & Cherkezishvili, 2025, p. 3).
The biggest challenge is its low capacity, which is currently estimated to be only about 5% of the capacity of the Northern Corridor. There is a shortage of transport vessels on the Caspian Sea and locomotives and wagons in Azerbaijan and Georgia. The increased volume of traffic has led to delays that jeopardise the time advantage over alternative routes. Another challenge is the unstable price development. Due to the increased demand, transport prices have risen sharply (Walter, 2022).
Therefore, to fully exploit the potential of the Middle Corridor, it is necessary to address infrastructure, capacity and logistics bottlenecks along this multi-modal route spanning several countries, including the vulnerability of the Caspian section to weather conditions and climate change. The development of this corridor requires a careful assessment of all factors affecting its effectiveness. (Rasa & Haq, 2023). This requires good governance, trade facilitation, and infrastructure development (Vasa & Barkanyi, 2023). “The overall picture of the geographical features of the Central Asian countries shows the need to develop as many alternative transport routes as possible” (Ma’no Research Initiatives Center, 2025).
Despite these obstacles, the potential development prospects for the corridor are also encouraging. The World Bank expects that trade volumes along the Middle Corridor could triple by 2030, from 3.7 million tons in 2022 to 11 million tonnes, largely due to improved infrastructure and policy coordination (The World Bank, 2023).
Methodology
Some researchers for the analysing of the trade and freight flows projections within the transport corridor use a trade origin-destination matrix approach, which is based on gravity models.
Their calculation suggests that larger economies and countries located closer to each other will trade more with each other than smaller countries located far away from each other. This is very similar to how gravity works in physics, where the force of attraction is greater the larger the bodies and the closer, they are to each other.
The gravitation model is widely used to study the effects of trade flows and trade policies (Figure 3). Trade Origin-Destination Matrix Approach on the Base of the Gravitation Model. Source: (World Bank, 2023, p. 21)
To calculate the models, various factors are used: regional (GDP size in comparable prices, distance between countries, presence of common borders, institutional factors, cultural proximity, customs barriers), global factors (world prices for key raw materials, world currency rates, business activity), transportation costs (cost of cargo delivery, including storage, insurance, transshipment).
Then, based on the models created a scenario calculation of trade flows in large regions and around the world is carried out depending on the expected change in certain factors. This allows for the design of the expected scenario of foreign trade, both global and transit.
Based on previously obtained projections of trade volumes, as well as historical data and measures for corridor development, the calculation of trade volumes for specific transport corridors is then carried out. In this case, the total transportation costs (TTC) will be calculated as the sum of transportation prices plus transportation time plus transportation reliability. Each of these elements will be considered as a separate factor in gravity models and introduced for specific connections to represent the impact of transport parameters. However, the use of this approach requires a large array of macro- and microeconomic information data over long periods of time.
Some authors (Watanabe et al., 2021) have developed the GLINS (global, logistics, intermodal network, and simulation) model for modeling the impact of TITR on the annual number of containers transported by land from China to other countries for different scenarios. These scenarios include not only infrastructure development measures but also reductions in ferry and railway costs, as well as reductions in barriers between the countries.
The simulation model of Zhumanov et al. (2024) allows estimating the impact of infrastructure parameters of the railway track on the movement time of a container train along the TITR.
Another methodology to assess and classify the railway network performance is presented in the work of Stoilova et al. (2020).
It includes the following steps: 1. Determination of the criteria used to assess the railway transport. 2. Ranking the countries by a multi-criteria decision making. 3. A sensitivity analysis regarding each objective and determining their allowable range of variation. 4. Using cluster analysis for verification of results obtained by the Sequential Interactive Modeling for Urban Systems.
However, this methodology is more applicable to urban systems and requires a large array of information on 22 criteria related to infrastructure, economics, and technology to assess the level of rail transport in the corridor.
Among the generally accepted methods for assessing transit corridors, such as TRS, NELTI and the TRACECA Route Attractiveness Index (ADB, 2014, p.18), the most attractive, according to ADB experts, is the Time-Cost-Distance (B3D) methodology developed by ESCAP. This methodology determines the costs and components of time for a vehicle to move “door-to-door” along a transport corridor, and tracks delays at borders and other control points along the corridor. It requires the following information: the route from the point of departure to the point of destination, including border crossings, the mode of transport for each stage of the journey, the distance traveled, the time of travel and the costs associated with each stage or mode of transport.
These indicators, as well as the speed of movement, can be used to assess the freight density, the quality of roads, as well as the efficiency of freight transportation. Regular measurements of these indicators will allow a better understanding of the characteristics of each corridor and the main influencing factors, as well as help identify bottlenecks and find adequate ways to correct or eliminate them.
Therefore, in our study, we used the methodology B3D of the Asian Development Bank as a basis for assessing transit transport corridors (ADB, 2014).
The transit transport corridors are selected based on the following criteria: • Ability to link key economic regions, • Current traffic volumes, • Projected growth in freight flows, • Potential to reduce traffic delays, • Economic and financial sustainability.
The following indicators are commonly used to compare different routes. For freight transport, these are route length, transit time, traffic volumes, and capacity utilization. For container transport, an important indicator is also added to measure the capacity of freight vehicles, such as traffic volumes in thousands of twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU). These indicators made it possible to draw a conclusion about the comparative advantage of a particular transport route. However, there are certain difficulties in obtaining data reflecting changes in travel times, the state of transport infrastructure and other additional indicators.
In addition, one should not forget about the limitations of the B3D methodology, which limits the measurement of transport corridors to time and cost factors only. Therefore, to obtain a more complete picture, it is advisable to consider other complementary factors, such as “reliability of transit corridors; stability, frequency and quality of service; competition among service providers; balance of freight flows by direction (frequency of empty return runs); predictability of costs; informal controls and checkpoints; transport safety” (ADB, 2014, p. 20). Other factors may be used to assess the performance of rail transport such as railway safety, infrastructure, equipment, operational efficiency and green development (Zhang et al., 2023). However, this requires the collection of additional data and information. In our current study, such opportunities were not available, so we focused on assessing the main indicators for key transport corridors for which relevant information was available.
Another important method for identifying the challenges and opportunities that countries face in their trade logistics activities, and the steps they can take to improve their performance, is the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) developed by the World Bank. The LPI is an interactive benchmarking tool created to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in their performance on trade logistics, covering 139 countries (The World Bank, 2025).
The logistics performance index (LPI) is the weighted average of the country scores on the six key dimensions: 1. Efficiency of the clearance process (i.e., speed, simplicity and predictability of formalities) by border control agencies, including customs. 2. Quality of trade and transport related infrastructure (e.g., ports, railroads, roads, information technology). 3. Ease of arranging competitively priced shipments. 4. Competence and quality of logistics services (e.g., transport operators, customs brokers). 5. Ability to track and trace consignments. 6. Timeliness of shipments in reaching their destination within the scheduled or expected delivery time.
The use of this index reveals the strengths and weaknesses of road logistics. To do this, it is necessary to calculate the average weighted index for countries using a particular transport corridor, based on six dimensions. A higher score will indicate the corridor’s competitiveness in this parameter, and a low score will indicate its absence.
The Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, signed on August 12, 2018, is of great importance for determining the delivery routes of the underwater tunnel or semi-submersible bridge. It makes it possible to access new energy projects, including underwater gas and oil pipelines, to be planned and executed on a bilateral basis in the agreement with the state the infrastructure or facility would cross, although the details of the project should be communicated to the other parties (CMS, 2018). Compliance with environmental standards is a mandatory condition for laying underwater pipelines along the bottom of the Caspian Sea.
For this purpose, the future cost method can be used to evaluate various projects for constructing a road across the Caspian Sea. Its calculation formula is as follows
Comparison of Corridors
The Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) was created in 2017 with the participation of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Georgia. Later, Ukraine, Romania, and Poland joined the project. The “Middle Corridor” is the shortest route from the Pacific coast of China to Europe. It crosses China, Kazakhstan, the waters of the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and then extends to Turkey and European countries (Figure 4). Routes From China to Europe. Source: Taken With Some Changes From Eldem (2022)
Based on the above criteria and proposed indicators, three alternative corridors were selected linking Europe and Southeast Asia: The Northern Corridor via Russia, the Middle Corridor via Central Asia, the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus, and the Maritime Corridor bypassing Eurasia.
As the results of our analysis show, the main corridor between Europe and Asia is currently the sea corridor, through which 91.4% of all cargo is transported, along the Northern Corridor—8.5%, along the Middle Corridor—0.1%.
As for time used, cargo transportation by sea is the slowest—approximately 40–50 days, along the Northern Corridor—15–20 days (MixLogistic, 2025), and along the Middle Corridor—14–18 days (Satubaldina, 2023). All three corridors are economically and financially stable.
Comparison of Transport Corridors From China to Europe
Note. TEU is usually the volume of a standard 20-foot shipping container. Source: compiled or estimated by the author on the base of COHAP (2021), Prime Minister (2023), UNCTAD (2022), OECD (2023), the TITR Association (2024), World Bank (2023), Mussayev and Ichshanova (2024), and Metal Service (2024).
However, it should be noted that today the Middle Corridor cannot be considered a serious competitor to the Northern Transit Route in the near future (5–10 years), as it currently accounts for only about 1.5 million tons or about 1% of the volume of cargo transported along this route. Even in 2030, the situation will not improve dramatically, as the Middle Corridor will account for only 35 million tons or 5% of the volume of cargo transported along the Northern Corridor.
The situation is similar with container shipping. In 2022, the Middle Corridor accounted for 33.6 thousand TEU or 2.6% of the volume of container cargo transportation along the Northern Corridor, and in 2030 it will account for 100 thousand TEU or 3%.
This means that the Middle Corridor is now complementary to all main routes between Asia and Europe. It cannot yet become an alternative to the Maritime or the Northern Corridors, where incomparably larger volumes of cargo are transported. But it is a good option for cargo owners who want to diversify their supply chains. TITR is still in the process of revealing its potential (Panchenko, 2024).
Thus, in the short term (10 years), the Middle Corridor can still be considered as an auxiliary route, which accounts for a small share of transit land transportation between Europe and China. Its use does not introduce significant changes to the existing structure of land transportation in this direction, where the main route continues to be the Northern Corridor through Russia.
In this regard, it is also worth noting an econometric study conducted by Uzbek researchers. Based on the model of transport services exports for 2005–2022, they found that with an increase in the total GDP of Eurasian countries by $1 billion, the total volume of transport services exports of Eurasian countries grows by an average of $0.16 billion (Ma’no Research Initiatives Center, 2025).
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Corridors Between Europe and Asia
Pros and Cons of the Southern Maritime Corridor
Source: developed by the author.
The Advantages and Drawbacks of the Southern Maritime Corridor
Logistic Performance Positioning of the Middle Corridor (2023)
Notes. The higher the score, the better the situation. The maximum score is 5 points. The data on Azerbaijan is not available.
Source: Author’s compilation based on World Bank data.
However, if the weight of the vessel exceeds 210,000 tons, then it must round the Cape of Good Hope in Africa. In this case, transportation will require 36 days. Due to Israel’s bombing of Gaza and the Houthi attacks on merchant ships in the Red Sea, at least 90% of the container ships that had been going through the Suez Canal are now rerouting around the tip of Africa.
As a result, the length of the Maritime Corridor from Lianyungang to Istanbul has grown from 16,000 to 30,000 km. The cost to ship a standard 40-foot container from China to Northern Europe has jumped from $1,500 to $4,000, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany (Bonnell & Mchugh, 2024).
The Results on the Calculation LPI Index for the Middle Corridor
Based on the analysis of the LPI 2023 index (Table 3), it can be concluded that the Middle Corridor has the following key weaknesses: customs, infrastructure, tracking and tracing, which need to be addressed first.
However, the average scores do not reflect the overall picture, but they become evident when analyzing the scores of individual countries. For example, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan received very low scores for customs services, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan for infrastructure, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan for international transport, Kyrgyzstan for logistics competence, and Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan for tracking and tracing.
The index identifies key areas that are hindering further development of the corridor and that countries need to work on.
Northern Corridor
Advantages of the Northern Corridor
Pros and Cons of the Northern Corridor (Transsib and BAM)
Source: developed by the author.
In 2020, Russian Railways managed to achieve an average daily speed for container trains at the level of 1,231 km/day. The plans include 1,400 km/day in 2024 and 1,600 km/day in 2035. This is achieved through a whole range of measures: a special schedule for container trains, the introduction of a paperless document processing system, and the modernization of the railway track, which allows it to maintain high speed even for very long and heavy trains (up to one hundred 40-foot containers) (COHAP, 2021).
The cost of delivering a container from Asia through the ports of the Far East to the west of Russia is now 30% lower than through the Suez Canal, and the transportation speed is twice as fast. Reducing the number of cargo shipments to a minimum decreases the costs of cargo owners and prevents the risk of accidental damage to cargo during transportation. The growth of container transportation was also facilitated by the development of technology for loading them into gondola cars, the renewal of the locomotive fleet and the organization of double trains. According to calculations, CO2 emissions during transportation by rail are approximately five times lower than during sea transportation (COHAP, 2021).
Transportation along this corridor is subsidized by the governments of Russia and China. State support for the domestic segment of container transportation in the form of a program to subsidize the railway transit of container cargo was adopted in Russia in August 2020. The cost of transporting a 20-foot cargo container from Xi’an to the UK by rail is approximately $4,500, but considering subsidies, it will cost carriers $3,000. And by sea, such a container can be sent along the same route for $1,250 (Chinalogist.ru, 2020).
Disadvantages of the Northern Corridor
These include permafrost, short summers, marshy soils, rocky ground, complex logistics, and remoteness from large settlements, which slows down the speed of expansion of the route. Russia is now solving these problems by using new technologies, building second tracks, and populating the territories. But this requires significant time and huge investments. The construction is also complicated by the active traffic on the existing railway, even though builders have learned to carry out work during breaks in train traffic (Paramonova, 2023).
Another problem is bottlenecks on this route, which increases delivery times and reduces competitive advantages over sea transport. The Trans-Siberian Railway operates at the limit of its capacity, the length of the “bottlenecks” is measured in thousands of kilometers. The infrastructure of the ports of the Far East was not ready for the growing volume of cargo coming from China to Europe. Due to excess demand, ships are processed longer, which causes accumulation of cargo at the ports of departure. The fastest shipment is carried out in 10 days, at the busiest terminal—more than 30 days (ERAI, 2021).
Due to the imbalance of export-import transportation and the limited capacity of the Trans-Siberian Railway, empty containers, and railway platforms began to accumulate in the center of the country, while in the Far East there was an acute shortage of them for the export of imported goods (Kobelev, 2023).
Infrastructure development requires significant investments in terminals, border crossings, and receiving terminals at destinations.
Middle Corridor
Advantages of the Middle Corridor
Pros and Cons of the Middle Corridor
Source: developed by the author.
This route allows for the diversification of trade routes and increased economic resilience by reducing dependence on corridors through Russian territory. The return of the historical territories of Karabakh to Azerbaijan, Russia’s forced withdrawal from the Caucasus, the high interest of China and the EU in mutual trade along safe routes, as well as the great interest of the countries of Central Asia and Kazakhstan in a safe and shortest route for exporting their goods solves many political and economic problems that previously seriously hindered the development of this corridor.
Kazakhstan, a key player on the Middle Corridor, saw significant growth in cargo volumes, more than doubling compared to 2022 and reaching 1.5 million tons. In stark contrast, the Northern Corridor has seen a 34% decline in traffic due to increased geopolitical instability around Russia (Bussières, 2023). In 2024, it amounted to 3.3 million tons, which is 2.5 times more than in 2017.
The rate of transportation of standard 20-ton containers along this corridor is also growing quite quickly. During 2015–2022, the volume of container transportation along the “Middle Corridor” increased from 4.9 to 33.6 thousand containers. After the completion of the second tracks on the Jinghe–Khorgos section, its throughput capacity will be 56 million tons of cargo. The launch of the Bakhty–Tacheng checkpoint will increase the capacity of the border railway infrastructure to 76 million tons of cargo.
The increase in freight traffic leads to a decrease in tariffs. Since 2017, tariffs on the TITR have been reduced by 60% from the base level for wagon transportation (10 items), for container transportation by feeder vessel (23 directions) and ferry service (11 directions) from China, Kazakhstan, Central Asian countries to Turkey, Romania, Ukraine, and Poland, and in the opposite direction. Today, a significant part of the cargo flow is represented by a wide range of Kazakhstani export products, namely petrochemical products, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, coal, ferroalloys, grain, oilseeds, legumes, and many other types of cargo (KTZ, 2021).
The specific investment in expanding this corridor per kilometer of the route is significantly lower than in the Northern Corridor, since the route runs through flat terrain and, as a rule, does not experience extreme operating conditions such as permafrost, marshy terrain, numerous rocky soils, extremely low temperatures, etc.
This corridor is beneficial for all countries located along the corridor. For example, before the pandemic, Kazakhstan received about a billion dollars a year from Chinese transit. Now these transit revenues have increased by about twofold times (ERAI, 2021). With the growth of cargo transportation, income from transit can increase many times over, which is very important for oil-producing countries that need to diversify their revenue base.
The prospects for the Middle Corridor are very promising and encouraging, but their implementation requires large-scale systematic work by all participating states to expand and modernize the corridor, bring it into line with modern technological requirements, and eliminate existing bottlenecks.
To eliminate multiple cargo checks, coordinate the interaction of various infrastructure elements such as railways, warehouses, ports, barges, customs, borders, simplify processes and procedures, and reduce delivery times, it was necessary to implement a single, coordinated logistics policy along the entire route between all participating countries and companies. In this regard, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia have established in 2023 a single operator operating on the “one-stop shop” principle and registered a joint venture Middle corridor Ltd. In essence, this is like the creation of the United Transport and Logistics Company with Russia and Belarus in 2013, which made the Northern Corridor a leader in land transportation between China and Europe. China Railway Container Transport Corporation (CRTC) joined this joint venture in 2024 (Abbasova, 2024).
To simplify trade procedures and e-business management standards, the EU Electronic Cargo Information Regulation was implemented as the best practice in all TMTD countries, so that by 2027 all economic operators can submit all cargo information in a standard form. This measure helps to overcome the fragmentation and uncoordinated digitalization efforts in different countries (Bukeeva, 2024).
Disadvantages of the Middle Corridor
This corridor is still in its infancy. The main line is usually single-track and non-electrified. The state of wear of the tracks reaches 57%. There are bottlenecks in some sections of the corridor. For example, in the Caucasus in Georgia, the minimum throughput capacity is 4.5–5 million tons per year, while in other sections it is 10–12 times greater. All these factors sharply reduce the capacity of the entire corridor, reduce speed, and increase the risks and cost of transporting goods.
The modernization of the corridor requires major investments in expanding its capacity, eliminating bottlenecks and updating existing infrastructure. According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development estimates that 18.5 billion euros in investment are needed for overcoming the Middle Corridor’s logistical and infrastructural bottlenecks (Mussayev & Ichshanova, 2024). These range from developing high-capacity freight terminals to modernizing existing railway systems, and implementing advanced tracking and monitoring technologies.
The small capacity of the corridor makes it difficult to actively use and quickly leads to its overload. According to expert estimates, up to 1.6 billion tons of cargo are transported annually from China to Europe by sea (Omirgazy, 2023). Only 0.1% of all sea cargo in this direction is transported through Kazakhstan. In comparison, this is only 1% of the cargo transported along the Northern Corridor.
Even for Kazakhstan, this route is not the main one. In 2023, only 14% of all cargo from China to Europe and back was transported through it (KTZ, 2023). It is estimated that the corridor’s capacity will increase 6-7 times in the future (Prime Minister, 2023). However, even in 2030, the Middle Corridor will account for only 5% of the cargo volume and 6.7% of the number of containers transported along the Northern Route.
The features of the corridor that hinder its future development are its multimodal nature, where two main types of transport are involved at once—rail and sea, and the presence of many participating countries, which implies multiple border crossings, customs control, and multiple changes of transport. This significantly increases the cost and time of transporting goods compared to the case where all transportation is coordinated by one participant and there is no change in transport modes. For all these reasons, the Middle Transport Corridor is not a competitor to other transit routes between Europe and China. This corridor only complements the Southern Maritime and Northern Corridors, providing new opportunities for all participants in transportation, but does not replace other corridors.
Different roads are intended for different types of cargo and different economic entities. The presence of different routes is beneficial to all participants, allowing them to meet their needs for the transportation of different types of cargo from different places in the best and most economical way. The presence of many corridors gives them the opportunity to transport cargo - with minimal costs and risks. For neighboring countries, this means that at present the TMTR transport corridor does not pose a significant threat: neither economic nor political but only brings them economic benefits.
Discussion
Unlike the Northern Corridor, there are virtually no restrictions on the expansion of the Middle Corridor’s capacity, except for some mountainous road sections in the Caucasus, as almost the entire corridor runs through flat areas. Consequently, expanding the capacity of the main part of the corridor requires significantly less investment per kilometer of road, as the route runs mainly through flat terrain in northern latitudes with favorable natural conditions and low building density. According to EBRD estimates, the expansion and modification of the Middle Corridor would make freight transportation 35% faster and 40% cheaper than along the Northern Corridor, creating an attractive alternative (Sammons, 2023).
The only serious obstacle that currently significantly limits and slows down the transportation of goods along this corridor is the need to transship goods across the Caspian Sea. It requires a change in the mode of transport from rail to sea and back, which significantly slows down and increases the cost of cargo movement. In addition, the unsatisfactory state of the port and ferry infrastructure: the ports of Aktau and Kuryk in Kazakhstan, Baku and Aliyat in Azerbaijan, Turkmen Bashi in Turkmenistan, Batumi and Poti in Georgia, Ro-Ro rail and car ferries and an insufficient number of modern heavy-duty tankers require significant investment in their modernisation or construction.
The EBRD estimates (Mussayev & Ichshanova, 2024) that the immediate investment needs for upgrading the Middle Corridor infrastructure are around 18.5 billion euros. Investments are needed to modernize the railway infrastructure, including the development of the railway network, which is not always optimal, the creation of second tracks and their electrification, deepening and increasing the capacity of ports, and purchasing modern heavy-duty tankers, which will substantially increase the speed and reduce the cost of transportation.
In January 2024, at the Global Gateway Investors Forum for the European Union – Central Asia Transport Connectivity in Brussels, the European financial institutions expressed their readiness to invest around 10 billion euros (US$10.2 billion) in the development of the TITR (European Commission, 2024). As part of this, the European Investment Bank Global has signed memorands of understanding for project co-financing with Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, and the Development Bank of Kazakhstan worth 1.47 billion euros (US$1.6 billion). This includes the modernization of container handling equipment and the development of a container terminal at the Aktau Port, double tracking, the electrification of the national railway network, and the development of key roads.
Due to the future shallowing of the Caspian Sea, constant dredging of ports and sections of the sea will be required. According to Wesseling and Lattuada (2020), the Caspian Sea basin loses 7 cm of water every year, so by the end of the century the Caspian Sea will be 9 to 18 m lower.
Comparison of Different Alternatives for Crossing the Caspian Sea
Note. *—estimated data. CS—Caspian Sea.
Sources: Historical inflation data are taken from the World Development Indicators (2025).
Given the width (193 km) and depth of the sea (about 200 m) at the narrowest point of the sea, two options for its construction are possible in the future: a submerged floating tunnel and a floating bridge (Figure 5). Map of the Depths of the Caspian Sea (Mityagina et al., 2019)
Both options will not impede shipping in any way and will not have negative environmental consequences. Therefore, they do not violate the provisions of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea (2018).
The first way is to build a submerged floating tunnel. However, it is very expensive. There are two already implemented projects of interest here.
The world’s longest tunnel is an underwater segment of Seikan (Kopylov, 2021). It connects two Japanese islands—Honshu and Hokkaido. The length of this tunnel is 53.85 km, and the underwater part is 23.3 km. The tunnel goes down to a depth of about 240 m (100 m below the seabed). The tunnel was designed for 9 years and built for 24 years—from 1964 to 1988.
At that time, its value was $3.6 billion. In modern prices, this is about $4.4 billion. Considering that the length of the Caspian Sea from Baku to Turkmen Bashi is 193 km, a similar project would cost about $37 billion at current prices.
Another project is the Eurotunnel, that is, a two-track railway tunnel about 51 km long connecting France and Great Britain, of which 39 km pass under the English Channel. The average depth of the strait is 50 m; the maximum is 75 m. The tunnel under the English Channel consists of three parts: two railway tunnels almost 8 m in diameter at 25 m from each other and one service tunnel almost 5 m in diameter. Each section is about 50 km long. In general, this is a complex project in terms of its technological implementation and operation. It was built in 1994 and cost investors $22.4 billion. In today’s prices, it would cost $40 billion. Considering the length of the Caspian section of the road, the cost of its construction could rise to $198 billion in current prices, which would put a big cross on its implementation.
The second method is the construction of a semi-submersible floating bridge (Floating Bridge). The project was developed by Norwegian companies Reinertsen, Olsen, and others (Wynne, 2016). In Norway, this method was proposed for the construction of the E39 highway from Kristiansen to Trondheim. It is 1,100 km long, which means the time to cover it is 21 h and cross 7 ferry crossings. The Norwegian government would like to reduce this time to 11 h, which would cut transport costs by 50%. The cost of the project itself is estimated at €40 billion at current prices.
The realization of the project involves using technology from the Norwegian offshore industry, especially the floating oil platforms, that make it possible to anchor a floating construction at depths up to 30–100 m below sea level. According to the developers, such a tunnel should consist of two concrete pipes—one for movement in each direction, securely fastened with strong cables. These cables are supposed to be attached either to the seabed or to massive pontoons floating on the surface. These pontoons will be located at a large distance from each other, without interfering with shipping. The idea is that waves and currents at a depth of 30 m are not as powerful as on the surface. And they cannot affect the speed of vehicles in any way. Floating tunnels also minimize the impact of the highway on the landscape. Much of its infrastructure is underwater, out of sight, and, unlike traffic on a bridge, it does not create noise and is not affected by weather conditions (Dunham, 2016).
Considering the length of the Caspian Sea from Baku and Turkmen Bashi, it will cost investors approximately $7.9 billion in the current 2024 price. This option is much cheaper than the first but will only pay for itself with significant volumes of cargo transportation. However, questions arise about the safety and maturity of technology. Therefore, this option can only be implemented if the Norwegian experience proves successful.
The construction of such a floating bridge across the Caspian Sea, the construction of second lines and their electrification along the entire Middle Corridor, as well as the construction of new modified and straightened routes will significantly increase the capacity of the corridor and the average speed of freight movement along it. Under these conditions, it will be able to compete much more successfully with the Northern Corridor, as well as attract a significant portion of sea transit cargo from the Maritime route.
Thus, if the above conditions are met, this corridor can become a powerful catalyst for the development of not only countries participating in international trade between Europe and Asia, but primarily countries located along the Middle Corridor, such as Turkey, the countries of the North Caucasus, Central Asia, and Kazakhstan.
These predominantly landlocked countries will finally get a direct, shortest, and cheapest route not only to the markets of Europe and Asia but also to the markets of neighboring countries. All this can dramatically accelerate the pace of their economic development and will also contribute to a significant increase in volumes and more balanced supplies of goods in both directions. In turn, the scale effect will reduce the cost of transportation and further increase the attractiveness of the corridor.
Conclusion
Nowadays, the Middle Transport Corridor cannot be considered as a competitor to other alternative routes between Europe and China. Rather, it simply complements other transit corridors, providing new transport options for all participants, but does not replace them. The corridor creates more competitive conditions for shippers, as they can use different transport corridors to deliver cargo depending on their preferences, capabilities, and customer requests.
However, the situation may change dramatically in the longer term. A detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of various corridors between Europe and Asia shows that the Middle Corridor has high growth potential in the medium and long term. This is because it runs mainly through flat terrain in favorable natural conditions with a low degree of space population, which allows the use of modern technologies, optimization of the route location and significant reduction in subsequent costs for expanding its capacity.
The importance of the Middle Corridor will grow steadily due to geopolitics. The war between Russia and Ukraine does not seem to have a quick solution and threatens to escalate into a long, slow war. This also applies to the conflict in Gaza. Israel’s bombing of Gaza civilians and the razing of their settlements to the ground will not lead to a quick end to the conflict, but to its intensification. In addition, the unpredictable foreign trade policy of the current administration is reducing the attractiveness of the United States as a reliable trade and financial partner, which can lead to the formation of global free trade zones without the direct participation of US companies. All this will force shippers and carriers to increasingly use the Middle Corridor for the fast and safe delivery of goods between Europe and Asia. This will lead to a rapid increase in cargo flows, especially transit, along this route.
In the medium term, it is necessary to modernize the railway infrastructure, including through the development of the railway network, which is not optimal, the creation of second tracks and their electrification, deepening, and increasing the capacity of ports, as well as the purchase of modern heavy-duty tankers, which will significantly increase the speed and reduce the cost of transportation. This is quite realistic, given the previously stated readiness of various trading partners to invest additionally in the development of this road.
In the long term, with sufficient traffic volumes, there may be a need to build a tunnel or bridge across the Caspian Sea. One of the economically feasible options could be the construction of a semi-submersible floating bridge across the Caspian Sea, which would allow for a multiple expansion of the corridor’s capacity, a significant increase in the average speed of cargo movement along the corridor, and a substantial reduction in the cost of cargo transportation.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.