University of Groningen

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces Groote, Peter ; Ciccarelli, Carlo

Published in: Scienze Regionali: Italian Journal of Regional Science

DOI: 10.14650/90221

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2018

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA): Groote, P., & Ciccarelli, C. (2018). The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: a GIS Approach. Scienze Regionali: Italian Journal of Regional Science , 17(2), 189-224. https://doi.org/10.14650/90221

Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 02-10-2021 Il Mulino - Rivisteweb

Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach (doi: 10.14650/90221)

Scienze Regionali (ISSN 1720-3929) Fascicolo 2, maggio-agosto 2018

Ente di afferenza: Universit`adegli Studi di Roma ”Tor Vergata” (Uniroma2)

Copyright c by Societ`aeditrice il Mulino, Bologna. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Per altre informazioni si veda https://www.rivisteweb.it

Licenza d’uso L’articolo `emesso a disposizione dell’utente in licenza per uso esclusivamente privato e personale, senza scopo di lucro e senza fini direttamente o indirettamente commerciali. Salvo quanto espressamente previsto dalla licenza d’uso Rivisteweb, `efatto divieto di riprodurre, trasmettere, distribuire o altrimenti utilizzare l’articolo, per qualsiasi scopo o fine. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote

Abstract: In a Geographical Information System (GIS), we built a complete digital geodatabase containing each railway line opened in from 1839, when the first short trunk connecting Naples to Portici was opened, to 1913, when the national network was essentially completed. The data presented in this paper consist of an entirely new series on the railway extension in Italian provinces (NUTS 3 level) on annual bases. Given the importance of early infrastructural development for subsequent regional and urban growth, the proposed database aims at further stimulating the debate among regional economists interested in the Italian case. The article ends by suggesting directions for future research. Keywords: Italy, GIS, railway, provinces, regions. JEL classification: R12, R4, N73.

1. Introduction

Recent contributions in this Journal have summarized the literature on long-term statistical reconstructions at the regional level in terms of GDP and its sectoral composition for the case of Italy (Ciccarelli, 2015; Felice, 2015; see also Cainelli, Stampini, 2015). The topic was analyzed in a session of the recent XXXVII AISRe conference held in Ancona. The present study further expands the set of data available to researchers investigating the historical roots of the long-lasting Italian regional divide. The focus of the paper is on railways. We built a complete digital geodatabase of each railway line opened in Italy from 1839, when the first short trunk connecting Naples to Portici was opened, to 1913, when the national network was essentially completed. The paper provides a detailed description of the sources and methods used to build the database1, which distinguishes between standard and narrow

Carlo Ciccarelli: Department of Economics and Finance, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Columbia 2, 00133 Rome, Italy. E-mail: [email protected], corresponding author Peter Groote: Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Department of Cultural Geography, University of Gron- ingen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

1 The full database is available at http://bit.do/italianrailways. Ciccarelli and Groote (2017) discuss the main features of the data in light of the economic history literature.

ISSN 1720-3929 Scienze Regionali, vol. 17, 2/2018, pp. 189-224 © Società editrice il Mulino gauge lines, and between main railways and light railways. Hundreds of lines were opened in the period considered. The new data on the kilometers of new lines opened, grouped at the provincial level (approximately NUTS3 level) at 1913 borders, are reported in the Appendix to this paper. Admit- tedly, the importance of the paper lies more in the new data that it provides than in the story it tells. However, a section illustrates preliminary results based on ongoing research. This study is motivated by the growing interest among economists in the space-time effects of (transport and information) infrastructure devel- opments. It is not by chance that many scholars focus on the nineteenth century, when railroads and related infrastructures started to spread. Glaeser and Kohlhase (2004) consider the tremendous reduction in transport costs that occurred over the twentieth century and consider its implications for the economic development of cities and regions in the USA. Acemoglu et al. (2016) expand their existing line of research on the relevance of institu- tions to economic growth. Using historical data (1804-1899) on the creation of post offices at the local level in the USA, the authors show that counties with post offices were relatively more exposed to circulation of ideas and information positively affecting patent and inventive activity. Donaldson (2010) uses archival data from colonial India to construct a dataset on out- put, prices and trade flow at the district level and a digital map of India’s railroads in which each 20 km stretch is coded with its year of opening. The study quantifies the positive contribution of railroad development in terms of lowering transport costs, reducing price differential among districts, and increasing trade flows. Ciccarelli and Fachin (2017) estimate a conditional convergence model at the provincial level for the growth of productivity in the Italian manufacturing industry in its early stage of development and find no significant effect of infrastructures (approximated by provincial endow- ment of railways and post offices) on productivity growth in manufacturing. However, as the authors point out, the finding may only reflect the fact that much of the Italian railway network was developed during the investigation period of the study (1871-1911). Geographers and economic historians have also contributed to the literature. Groote et al. (2009) analyze the relation between the development of transport network and biological standard of living in the Netherlands during the nineteenth century. Atack and Margo (2011) use a new GIS-based transportation database linked to county-level census data for nineteenth-century century USA, and estimate that at least a quarter of the increase in cultivable land can be linked directly to railroad extension to the Midwest. Hornung (2015) uses GIS techniques to evaluate the causal effect of railroad access on urban growth in nineteenth-century Prussia. The relation between infrastructure development and regional and urban growth is efficaciously summarized by Isard (2003), who considers the USA and notes that

190 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote […] the canals in the late 1820s up to the 1840s, the early local railroads from the very late 1840s through the 1850s, the interregional transport development from the late 1860s to the early 1870s, the transcontinental rail development from the late 1870s through the 1880s, finally the street and electric railway construction boom in the late 1890s and the first decade of the 20th century, each led to the opening up of new areas for economic develop- ment (Isard, 2003, p. 4).

The Erie Canal was built between 1817 and 1825, and it is considered one of the most important engineering works of the nineteenth century. Its construction led to tremendous growth in a number of cities along its course (Isard, 2003). The fortune of New York city itself, as is well known, is closely related to the construction of the Erie Canal. However, the rising economic centrality of New York city was partly obtained at the expense of the city of Philadelphia. Like the Erie Canal for the USA, the early construction of certain railroad lines in Italy in the 1850s also altered the relative central- ity of certain cities and regions. It contributed in particular to shifting the center of economic activities and commercial flows from the eastern to the western side of the country. Effectively, the opening in 1853 of the railway line connecting Genoa, with its major port on the Mediterranean Sea, to the city of Turin contributed to reducing the economic centrality within Europe of major ports on the Adriatic Sea, like Venice and Trieste, then part of the Habsburg Empire Our contribution to the literature is twofold. On the one hand we provide for the very first time annual data on railroad expansion at the provincial level from 1839, when the first trunk line was opened, to 1913. On the other hand by geo-referencing the data we lay the bases for a proper regional analysis of the effects of railroad developments on urban and regional growth in Italy. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 illustrates the sources and methodology used to build the GIS-database. Section 3 provides summary statistics on the spatiotemporal diffusion of the network at the provincial level and compares the proposed estimates with existing ones at the regional and national level. Section 4 concludes and suggests directions for future research.

2. Sources and Methods

This section provides a detailed description of the historical sources and methodology used to build the new 1839-1913 geodatabase of Italian railways, and the related provincial series reported in the Appendix Tables A1 and A2. There are of course many sources and contributions that analyze the development of the Italian railway network. Standard references include Kalla-Bishop (1971), Schram (1997), Fenoaltea (2011), and Maggi (2013). Ferrovie dello Stato (1996) provides a detailed long-term analysis (1839-1995) including a wide set of time series from 1905 (when the public company Fer-

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 191 rovie dello Stato was founded) to 1995. The database in Ferrovie dello Stato (1996) includes in particular series at the national level on various related items, ranging from the extent of the network to traffic statistics concern- ing both goods and passengers, and the acquisition of rolling stock. In this section, however, we will focus on the sources effectively used to obtain the estimates reported in the Appendix Tables A1 and A2.

2.1. Historical Sources

The core of our dataset is a newly-created ArcGIS (version 10.3) geoda- tabase containing the routes of all railway lines built in Italy before 1914. The geodatabase was constructed from non-spatial data on Italian railway trunks as reported in the historical source Ministero (1927, pp. 11-55). The data include the exact date of opening and the name (in from-to format) of each individual segment of a route, as well as its length in kilometers. The trunks and lines included are those operated by the Ferrovie dello Stato (the national Italian public company instituted in 1905), as well as lines operated by other companies. The latter were classified in the source as secondary lines. For both the main and secondary lines, the source further differenti- ated between standard (1,435 mm) and narrow gauge.

2.2. Methods of Building a Digital GIS-Database of the Italian Railway Network, 1839-1913

We digitized the railway lines as line features. All segments were digitized in as much detail as possible, and attributes were added, giving an identifica- tion code, year of opening, from-to name, gauge, main/secondary classifica- tion, and length as reported in the main source. Digitizing also automatically created a shape length attribute indicating the length of the segment in the GIS-software according to the coordinate system used. In order to be as accurate as possible, we used auxiliary data. Historical five-year maps (1861, 1866, 1871, 1876, 1881, 1886, 1891, 1896, 1901, 1906, and 1909) provided sketches of the routes of all (then) existing railway lines in black, and the lines built in the preceding five-year time frame in red. The eleven maps were all scanned, georeferenced, and added to the ArcGIS project (see Atack, Margo, 2011, p. 8). The retrospective maps are those reported in Ferrovie dello Stato (1911), and discussed in the online supplementary material of Ciccarelli and Nuvolari (2015), who analyzed the influence of non-tariff trade barriers and other policy measures on the development of the locomotive industry in Italy. The fact that the maps are reported in the same historical publication was of great help to us in retrieving temporally homogenous information. If a railway line was still in existence in 2016, the route could be traced using a streaming ArcGIS online service of current Italian railway

192 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote lines2. ArcGIS supports tracing in the «create features» window if one clicks the trace button and sets the correct tracing options. For railway lines with numerous twists and turns, the number of vertices in the regular streaming service proved too large to allow tracing, and we had to use the streaming service of the more generalized network of Italian railway lines. Another ArcGIS online service that proved very useful was Open Street Map (OSM). It enabled us to check, and if necessary correct, the routing of the lines as traced and digitized before. When dealing with railway lines that have been abandoned since 1913, and are consequently not included in the ArcGIS online streaming service of current railway lines, we had to draw the lines manually. In order to de- termine the exact routes of these lines, we started from the geo-referenced 5-year maps. We were extremely fortunate that the Ferrovie Abbandonate website gives details on virtually every dismantled railroad in Italy with a zoomable map included3. With the OSM layer enabled in ArcGIS, this allowed us to draw these lines with a certain degree of accuracy. The satellite view in Google Maps sometimes displayed the routes of former railway lines as well. While tracing and drawing, snapping options were turned on in order to make sure that newly digitized lines were linked to already existing ones. The total number of lines or segments of lines digitized as such was 843. The shortest segment measured just 172 meters, the longest 154 kilometers (the Ortona-Foggia line opened in 1864).

2.3. Error Checking and Correcting

After the initial phase of digitizing railway lines by tracing and drawing, we undertook the following phases of error checking and resolving. 1) Visual inspection to check whether tracing had proceeded correctly. In routes with numerous twists, turns, or corkscrews, tracing may have skipped some corners or may have jumped from one part of the line to another. This may have happened especially in mountainous stretches. If necessary, we corrected or fine-tuned manually with the use of the OSM layer. 2) Comparison of the length of the drawn line in ArcGIS (the automat- ically-created attribute shape_length) with the length of the line as given in the underlying database. For this purpose, we matched the original data reported in Ministero (1927) to the ArcGIS attribute table of the digitized railway lines, and added a calculated field measuring the difference between the shape-length and the length as reported in the source. This brought out a number of issues. Some were related to the simple mistyping of attribute

2 Feature service class Ferrovie_Italiane (and FerrovieItaliane for a less detailed version), made available in ArcGIS online by Pierluigi Centomini, whom we thank for this. 3 http://www.ferrovieabbandonate.it/index.php last accessed, August 2016; we are grateful to all those who participated in creating this website.

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 193 data, e.g. a wrong code resulting in an incorrect join. Other errors were related to tracing errors that still existed or to incorrect start or end points of lines. We investigated such issues further with the OSM layer enabled. As OSM also gave the exact locations of (current) railway stations, we could often correct such errors by splitting drawn lines and then merging the split parts with the next section. A fourth category of errors resulted from unclear track names in urban areas. In particular railway yards and intra-urban linkages between railway stations were often unclear in the Ministero source. Because these issues play a negligible role in the analysis of interurban connectivity, we decided to set most of them aside, because the costs of adding them or correcting errors would not have outweighed the benefits for the analysis. A fundamental issue was that in the Ministero source the to-from label- ling for tracks was linked to the railway stations of departure and arrival of the trains using the specific tracks. The length of new trunks as reported was based on this station-to-station measurement. Often, however, newly- built tracks split from or rejoined already-existing tracks at some distance from these stations. Because it was unclear from the source whether a new trunk really involved the laying of new tracks from one station to the other, or included the shared use of already existing tracks, we decided to follow the Ministero source to the letter and digitize from station to station. It is evident that this may have sometimes resulted in double counting of those parts of the track now in shared use, but this double counting would also be present in the original source. After error correction the differences between all trunks in our geodatabase and the original data in the Ministero database were, as we will document, marginal. The final average difference in length between the shape length in our geodatabase and the length as given in the source was -50.8 meters (N = 843 lines). After drawing and error correction was completed, a correct topology was added in ArcGIS. This means that all lines linking to each other in reality also did so in the digitized network. This made it possible to use network tools such as routing or service area analysis. With the ArcGIS topology er- ror inspector, all remaining errors were solved. The rules defined to create a correct topology were «must not have dangles», «must be single part», and «must be larger than cluster tolerance». Figure 1 illustrates the evolution of the network for selected years. In 1861 the main cities of the North (Venice, , Turin, and Genoa) but also Bologna and Ancona (with its important port on the Adriatic Sea) were connected. Tuscany had a small regional network. In 1871 the main coastal lines connecting the North and the South, and the lines crossing the central Apennines were operating. By 1881 the skeleton of the network was essentially built and the major islands had a proper local network. The map for 1891 reflects the construction and opening of minor lines during the 1880s. The new lines opened after the turn of the century continued to fill the gaps.

194 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote Figure 1: The diffusion of railways in Italy, 1851-1911. Source: See text.

A next step in the error inspection and correction was linked to the pur- pose of this paper, which in terms of analysis, focuses on providing reliable estimates of the length of tracks by year and by province. A comparison between our new estimates and existing estimates, for the years that these are available, would allow further inspection of possible issues. In order to arrive at the annual provincial estimates we could apply the «tabulate intersection» tool in ArcGIS (available in the «analysis toolbox», under «statistics»). This tool aggregates the length of those parts of railway lines that are present in each zone of a polygon feature (in our case a Province). To do so, we needed a polygon feature representing the 1913 areas of Ital- ian Provinces. The Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) provides digital maps (ArcGIS shapefile format) of Italian Provinces on the SISTAT section of its website4. These are available for the years 1861, 1871, 1881, 1921, 1936, and for each decadal benchmark year in 1951-2011. We used the shapefile of 1881 because it best represents the borders of the Italian provinces in 1913. These borders changed only marginally during 1871-1913.

4 Last accessed August 2016. SISTAT, created in 2011 (http://sistat.istat.it) stands for Sistema Informativo Storico delle Amministrazioni Territoriali (Historical Informative System on Territorial Administrative Units).

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 195 We further note that the 1881 shapefile uses post-Unification names for the Italian Provinces, in contrast to the 1871 version, which indicates the Southern provinces with their old pre-unification names, so that, for example, the province of Chieti is denoted as Abruzzo Citeriore, and the province of Salerno as Principato Citeriore. Unfortunately, the 1881 shapefile turned out to have been generalized on a relatively high spatial scale, so that our railway lines were often more detailed than the borders of Provinces, or indeed the Italian coastline. In the case of railway lines running close to provincial borders or the coastline, we corrected the ISTAT 1881 shapefile if necessary. Again, the Open Street Map layer provided the spatial information to do so. Also, the international borders of Italy indicated in the 1881 shapefile proved to be not fully coherent with the true Italian borders of the nineteenth century. The provinces of Alto Adige, Gorizia, and Trieste were still included, but labelled as Territori Stati Esteri and could easily be excluded from analysis. More complicated was that the borders of Udine and Cuneo did not reflect partial territorial border changes with, respectively, Austria-Hungary and France. We manually edited these international borders. We also noted that a small number of provincial border changes that had occurred between 1868 and 1880 and should have been incorporated in the ISTAT shapefile in fact had not been so. We corrected these manually. The only corrected area that involved railways was the move of the Presenzano area from Campobasso to Caserta (12 kilometers of railway). An example of a provincial border change that did not involve railway lines is the one that occurred between Bologna and Ravenna in 1884. For the sake of completeness, the Appendix provides an exhaustive list of these minor cases of changing provincial borders.

3. The New Provincial Estimates of Railway Extension

To validate our ArcGis-based reconstructions we compared the pro- vincial figures with those reported for the benchmark years 1861, 1886, 1909 in Ferrovie dello Stato (1911) and for the year 1915 in Collegio degli Ingegneri Ferroviari Italiani (1916). The provincial figures proposed in this paper should of course be treated with caution. Our estimates do not, for instance, separate out double tracks, nor do they account for gradients. Similarly, technological progress in the construction and quality of railway tracks, with e.g. steel replacing iron, are not visible. Such changes would make it possible, other things being equal, to carry more weight at higher speeds, and to give higher reliability.

3.1. Comparison with Existing Datasets

The statistical reconstructions described so far were compared with a set of existing estimates. At present, provincial estimates are available for a very

196 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote Figure 2: Comparison with existing estimates of the Italian railway networka. a The upper panels illustrate the kilometers of new lines opened; the lower panels the annual differences. Source: Ciccarelli and Fenoaltea (2009), Ministero Comunicazioni (1927), and Tables A1-A2. limited number of benchmark years. This is why we started with a compari- son of the outcomes at the national level. Figure 2, panel A compares the data reported in the historical source Ministero (1927) and the ArcGIS data grouped at the provincial level as reported in Tables A1-A2 of this paper. The comparison concerns in particular the totals obtained by aggregating at the national level (at 1913 borders) the data on new lines opened during 1839-1913. The estimates in the upper panel appear essentially identical. Indeed, the differences (in kilometers) illustrated in the lower part of Panel A show that the annual differences are within a small range, with a maxi- mum difference of 16 kilometers in 1892, when more than 500 kilometers of new lines were opened. Figure 2, panel B makes a similar comparison. The upper part compares the national estimates obtained by aggregating the data in Tables A1-A2 with the national sums obtained by aggregating the

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 197 regional (NUTS2 units) figures for 1861-1913 presented in Ciccarelli and Fenoaltea (2009), Tables TB005 and TB006. The lower part of panel B shows the calculated differences, which with very few exceptions are of negligible size. The maximum discrepancy (about 28 kilometers) is registered for the year 1894, when more than 400 kilometers of new lines were opened5.

3.2. Provincial Patterns of the New Railways Estimates

The new estimates are reported in Tables A1-A2. For reason of space, Table A1 reports the data for the period 1839-1875, while Table A2 refers to 1876-19136. For the sake of exposition, the provincial time series are grouped into 16 regional frames. By cumulating the data on the new kilometers of rails opened in each province, one can obtain the provincial endowment of railways at a specific point in time. Figure 3 illustrates the temporal evolution in terms of density: that is, the provincial endowment of railways measured in kilometers, scaled by 1,000 square kilometers of provincial territory. To be noted is that the maps have different legend scales, so that, for instance, a density above 14 in 1860 results in a dark color in the map, while only values above 73 results in dark colors in the 1910 map. Also to be noted that density maps can be produced for each year of our investigation period 1839-1913. The maps confirm that the northern regions, Tuscany, and the province of Naples registered above-average values after 1860. In addi- tion, the territorial spread, with a North to South gradient is also evident. It is important to stress, however, that by using data disaggregated at the provincial level one can appreciate the substantial amount of within-region heterogeneity in terms of railway endowment (the case of Piedmont in the North-West illustrates this clearly) and the relative low density of railways registered by provinces of the Southern Apennines. Table 1 complements Figure 3 in that it also refers to provincial railway density at different points in time. Cols. 1-4 report standard descriptive statistics. Col. 1 shows that during the 70 years considered, the average provincial density of railroads increased from essentially zero to roughly 60, with increases especially pronounced during the 1860s and the 1880s. Cols. 2-4 show that the dispersion also increased over time. In 1910, the province of Naples registered the highest national value (217.94) against the minimum value (14.51) registered in the province of Belluno, in the North-East.

5 We also checked our 1839-1913 data reported in Tables A1-A2 against those for the years 1839- 2010 reported at the national level on the web page of the ISTAT, the Italian National Institute of Statistics (http://seriestoriche.istat.it/ last accessed 13 October 2016). As a further check, we compared our figures against the provincial data reported in Ferrovie dello Stato (1911). The result of these comparisons, fully reassuring, are not reported only for reasons of space. 6 For reason of space the Appendix Tables do not distinguish between standard and narrow gauge lines, and between main railways and light railways. Disaggregated provincial data are available upon request.

198 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote Figure 3: Density of railway in Italian provinces (kilometers of rails per 1,000 square kilometers of provincial territory).

Table 1: The evolution of railway density in Italian provinces, 1840-1910 (km of rail per 1,000 km2 of territory)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) mean st. dev. min max prov. with rails 1840 0.20 1.27 0.00 9.82 2/69 1850 3.23 7.61 0.00 43.98 16/69 1860 8.50 12.22 0.00 49.04 31/69 1870 23.55 19.53 0.00 89.13 60/69 1880 32.94 19.46 0.00 106.99 67/69 1890 49.82 24.19 14.51 142.40 69/69 1900 58.01 25.22 14.51 167.84 69/69 1910 64.04 29.13 14.51 217.96 69/69

Source: See text.

Column 5 finally shows that already in 1890 the network covered the entire country, and each of the 69 provinces at the time had at least one line opened. Once again, the 1860s appear as a period of rapid railway expansion, with the number of provinces with railway lines doubling in the decade (from 31 to 60).

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 199 4. Directions for Future Research

Ongoing research based on the new geodatabase of Italian railways is considering changes over time of the centrality of the nodes in the Italian urban network. There is a hint of this approach already in Gambi (1974), who considered the total revenues of Italian railways stations in the early 1880s as an indicator of the centrality of the main Italian urban centers. Gambi noted for instance that the cities of Rimini, Pescara and Terni, but also La Spezia and Taranto benefited particularly from the creation of a national railway network although they were not important administrative centers (defined by Gambi in terms of being the location of a courthouse, a chamber of commerce, a real estate registry office, a custom office, or a military district) before the diffusion of railways, in the early decades of the nineteenth century. The more recent Stelder (2016) describes the construc- tion and analysis of a historical database of European road networks over the period 1957-2012 covering the entire European continent. The study shows that during 1957-1990 many peripheral regions lost accessibility with respect to the center. However, this trend reversed in the more recent decades. Furthermore, Stelder (2016) shows that investment in transport infrastructure is one of the main instruments of regional policy because ac- cessibility is generally considered to be an essential prerequisite for regional economic growth. Based on official railway timetables, Alampi and Messina (2011) propose estimates of railway accessibility of Italian provinces for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 20087. Following this line of research, as a starting point of our analysis, we used the new geodatabase of Italian railways to define the centrality of urban nodes as the costs of travelling to all other nodes in the network. In particular, we computed Origin-Destination (O-D) matrices for each year of the period 1839-1913 in ArcGIS. Rows and columns of the matrix are the urban nodes, and the values give the travel costs, however measured, from each origin to each destination. Summing the rows gives for each node the total costs of travelling to all other nodes. In a first analysis we used all 69 provincial capitals as urban nodes, and travel times as a cost measure (as in Alampi and Messina, 2011). Travel times were based on assumed average speeds, varying over time and by type of railway (main versus secondary lines and normal gauge versus narrow gauge). In a further refinement we added the elevation profiles of all railway lines to the analysis to vary as- sumed speeds further. In ArcGIS it is easy to map the centrality scores for each provincial capital for specific years. A further step was to spatially interpolate the

7 For a review on accessibility and market potential estimates in historical studies see Martínez- Galarraga (2014).

200 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote Figure 4: Accessibility landscape, selected years. Source: See text. centrality scores between these provincial capitals using Empirical Bayesian kriging (EBK). This resulted in an accessibility landscape covering the whole of Italy for each benchmark year (see Figure 4 for exemplary maps for the years 1850, 1880 and 1913). A first iterative inspection of the maps reported in Figure 4 shows that, although the building of the railway network decreased travel times be- tween urban nodes enormously (as revealed by the legends on the maps), it strengthened the existing network rather than challenging it and forged a new constellation. The regions of Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria and Marches were most central, and remained so. The first boom of railway building in the 1860s and 1870s extended this central region northwards and connected the central area more intensely with and Venetia. As such it deepened the North-South divide. After the 1880s, however, the network was further integrated, and connections were added that were at first deemed less profitable and/or more difficult to build due to terrain circumstances. This moved the central area back southwards, and decreased the North-South divide. A more sophisticated analysis with the application of geo-statistical tools would add more insights, but it falls outside the scope of this paper.

5. Conclusions

The development of railways has constituted one of the most important achievements of the recent past. Even when compared to the present day, the achievements of the Italian policy makers of the time, with a national network completed in a few decades, are to be commended. The literature on the matter abounds. However, few studies quantify its development at the sub-national level through a GIS-based approach, with network characteris-

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 201 tics included, and on a year-by-year basis. Often they are available only for benchmark years, based on the availability of historical maps (see e.g. Atack, 2013), or as essentially non-spatial data, and therefore without information about where railways are exactly located, whether different trunks are con- nected to each other, and their attributes such as technical characteristics (standard gauge or narrow gauge; maximum speed possible, etc). Our new geodatabase contains such information in a spatially referenced way, and on an annual basis. As such we have been able to take the step that Atack laments not having been able to take for railways in his US spatial database of transport development (Atack, 2013, p. 325). The availability of such georeferenced data may in itself seem as of only descriptive importance, or a basis for map-making. What is much more important, however, is that it facilitates a series of analyses that historical geographers as well as economic historians and economists have long been waiting to perform, but have found difficult to do so far. These include new estimation models that relate different variables to each other, but also robust- ness checks to existing models. Important examples are historical analyses of the functioning of markets, competition, and economic unification, e.g. as visible in price convergence thanks to market integration. Federico’s (2007) analysis of the effect of transport improvements on wheat prices in Italy al- ready showed results that contradicted the conventional wisdom that wheat prices converged due to large-scale railroad construction in the 1860s. This analysis could be extended, in particular on (sub)regional scales, with the help of our new geodatabase. Also more and easier robustness checks to the models used in such analyses could be carried out. These would be useful, because Herranz-Loncán (2007) has demonstrated that the social savings of the railways, as estimated by numerous authors (e.g. Fogel, 1964, Fremdling, 1985) do not capture the entire impact of the railways due to the difficulty of correctly estimating TFP spillovers. Developments in the financial sector are often related to market integration and price convergence as well. Atack (2013) pointed out that his geodatabase of transport infrastructure would allow closer scrutiny of the spatial correlations between the railways and the developing banking sector. This could be extended to other developments in the financial sector, such as the development of futures markets, as well described in the case of the grain trade from Chicago by William Cronon (1991). Alongside economic growth, railroad construction also influenced popu- lation growth. The geodatabase would allow analysis of this factor on many scales, from local, through municipal and provincial levels, to regional scales. Examples of analyses facilitated by the geodatabase would include popula- tion growth in cities with early links to the railroad network versus those without; urban-rural growth differences; and regional population growth differences, such as Italy’s North-South divide. In light of Italy’s geomor- phology, the contrasts in population growth between the coastal plains and

202 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote the mountainous interior would be extremely interesting given the increased costs of building railways in the latter area, and the consequent time-lag in their development (see the maps in Figure 2). Where population growth and economic growth increase the demand for land, an effect on land prices is obvious (Atack, 2013, p. 331). In fact, railway companies have often been as active in the land and real estate markets as in transportation. The new geodatabase would allow analysis of the relation between land values and the distance to the railway network over time. An important aspect of transport infrastructure often overlooked in non-spatial analyses of its effects relates to its network character. Caruana- Galizia and Martí-Henneberg (2013) have investigated this issue, and point to Donaldson and Hornbeck’s (2015) paper as one of the few that explicitly include network effects. In short, they find that railroad construction may have had negative effects on economic development in places that were not linked to the network. Most standard models that were used to estimate ef- fects of railroad construction simply assumed that places not linked to the network would consequently not be influenced by it. Groote et al. (2009) found network effects also for the Netherlands when they subdivided effects of transport infrastructure on living standards into long-term and short-term as well as close-by and far-off effects. GIS-based databases like the one that we built for Italy’s railway devel- opment may produce data that are necessary as inputs to time-space models which are so complicated that they cannot be run in the GIS-software itself, but only in dedicated econometric analysis. An example could be time-specific spatial weights matrices based on actual travel times. The latter develop over time with the construction of new network links, as well as with technical progress influencing the maximum speeds obtainable for existing links. In this way, the exact «neighboring effects» of historical transport infra- structure development can be analyzed in an integrated time-space frame. The construction of a railway link may have different effects close by and further away, but also in the short run and in the long one, and there may well be interactions between space- and time-effects (Elhorst, 2010, p. 13). Hence the relation between short and long run effects (or between local and regional effects) may differ between a transport network in a nascent state and a mature network.

References

Acemoglu D., Moscona J., Robinson J. A. (2016), State Capacity and American Technology: Evidence from the 19th Century, NBER Working Paper n. 21932. DOI: 10.3386/w21932. Alampi D., Messina G. (2011), Time-is-money: i tempi di trasporto come strumento per misurare la dotazione di infrastrutture in Italia. Banca d’Italia Workshop

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 203 and Conferences Series, 11: 137-174. Available at: https://www.bancaditalia.it/ pubblicazioni/collana-seminari-convegni/2011-0007/7_infrastrutture_italia.pdf. Atack J. (2013), On the Use of Geographic Information Systems in Economic History: The American Transportation Revolution Revisited. The Journal of Economic History, 73, 2: 313-338. DOI: 10.1017/S0022050713000284. Atack J., Margo R. A. (2011), The Impact of Access to Rail Transportation on Agricultural Improvement. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4, 2: 5-18. DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.v.4i2.188. Cainelli G., Stampini M. (2015), A Reconstruction of the Regional Manufacturing Employment in Italy (1911-1991): A Note. Scienze Regionali – Italian Journal of Regional Science, 14, 3: 121-136. DOI: 10.3280/SCRE2015-003007. Caruana-Galizia P., Martí-Henneberg J. (2013), European Regional Railways and Real Income, 1870-1910: A Preliminary Report. Scandinavian Economic History Review, 61, 2: 167-196. DOI: 10.1080/03585522.2012.756428. Ciccarelli C. (2015), Industry, Sectors, Regions: The State of Play on Italy’s His- torical Statistics. Scienze Regionali – Italian Journal of Regional Science, 14, 3: 73-90. DOI: 10.3280/SCRE2015-003005. Ciccarelli C., Fachin S. (2017), Regional Growth with Spatial Dependence: A Case Study on Early Italian Industrialization. Papers in Regional Science, 96, 4: 675-695. DOI: 10.1111/pirs.12217. Ciccarelli C., Fenoaltea S. (2009), La produzione industriale delle regioni d’Italia, 1861-1913: una ricostruzione quantitativa, 1. Le industrie non-manifatturiere. Rome: Bank of Italy. Available at: https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/ altre-pubblicazioni-storiche/produzione-industriale-1861-1913/Ciccarelli_Fe- noaltea.pdf. Ciccarelli C., Groote P. (2017), Railway Endowment in Italy’s Provinces, 1839-1913. Rivista di Storia Economica, 33, 1: 45-88. DOI: 10.1410/86763. Ciccarelli C., Nuvolari A. (2015), Technical Change, Non-Tariff Barriers, and the Development of the Italian Locomotive Industry, 1850-1913. The Journal of Economic History, 75, 3: 860-888. DOI: 10.1017/S0022050715001114. Collegio degli Ingegneri Ferroviari Italiani (1916), Le Ferrovie Italiane al 30 giugno 1915. Il loro sviluppo per provincia e per regione rispetto al 1861 e al 1886. Rivista tecnica delle ferrovie italiane, 5, 9 (primo semestre 1916): 91-103. Cronon W. (1991), Nature’s Metropolis; Chicago and the Great West. New York: W. W. Norton&Co. Donaldson D. (2010), Railroads of the Raj: Estimating the Impact of Transporta- tion Infrastructure. Cambridge, MA, NBER Working Paper Series n. 16487. DOI: 10.3386/w16487. Donaldson D., Hornbeck R. (2015), Railroads and American Economic Growth: A «Market Access» Approach. Mimeo. Retrieved from: http://scholar.harvard. edu/hornbeck/node/29492. Elhorst J. P. (2010), Applied Spatial Econometrics: Raising the Bar. Spatial Eco- nomic Analysis, 5, 1: 9-28. DOI: 10.1080/17421770903541772. Federico G. (2007), Market Integration and Market Efficiency: The Case of 19th Century Italy. Explorations in Economic History, 44, 2: 293-316. DOI: 10.1016/j. eeh.2006.02.003.

204 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote Felice E. (2015), La stima e l’interpretazione dei divari regionali nel lungo perio- do: i risultati principali e alcune tracce di ricerca. Scienze Regionali – Italian Journal of Regional Science, 14, 3: 91-120. DOI: 10.3280/SCRE2015-003006. Fenoaltea S. (2011), The Reinterpretation of Italian Economic History: From Unification to the Great War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511730351. Ferrovie dello Stato (1911), Servizio centrale I. Ufficio statistica. Ferrovie Italiane, 1861-1909. Riproduzione dei lavori grafici presentati all’Esposizione Internazio- nale di Torino del 1911. s. l. Ferrovie dello Stato (1996), Le Ferrovie italiane tra Stato e Mercato. Roma: Albagraf. Fogel R. W. (1964), Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econo- metric History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Fremdling R. (1985), Eisenbahnen und deutsches Wirtschaftswachstum 1840-1879. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungstheorie und zur Theorie der Infrastruktur. Dort- mund: Gesellschaft für Westfälische Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Gambi L. (1974), Il reticolo urbano in Italia nei primi vent’anni dopo l’unifica- zione. Quaderni storici, 9, 27, 3: 735-760. Glaeser E. L., Kohlhase J. E. (2004), Cities, Regions and the Decline of Transport Costs. Papers in Regional Science, 83, 1: 197-228. DOI: 10.1007/s10110-003- 0183-x. Groote P. D., Elhorst I. P., Tassenaar P. G. (2009), Standard of Living Effects Due to Infrastructure Improvements in the 19th Century. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 3: 380-389. DOI: 10.1177/0894439308329764. Herranz-Loncán A. (2007), Infrastructure Investment and Spanish Economic Growth, 1850-1935. Explorations in Economic History, 44, 3: 452-468. DOI: 10.1016/j.eeh.2006.06.002. Hornung E. (2015), Railroads and Growth in Prussia. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13, 4: 699-736. DOI: 10.1111/jeea.12123. Isard W. (2003), History of Regional Science and the Regional Science Association International. The Beginnings and Early History. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-24751-7. Kalla-Bishop P. M. (1971), Italian Railways. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. Maggi S. (2013), Le ferrovie. Bologna: Il Mulino (terza edizione). Martínez-Galarraga J. (2014), Market Potential Estimates in History: A Survey of Methods and an Application to Spain, 1867-1930. EHES Working Paper n. 51. Ministero delle comunicazioni (1927), Sviluppo delle ferrovie italiane dal 1839 al 31 dicembre 1926. Roma: Tipografia ditta Ludovico Cecchini. Schram A. (1997), Railways and the Formation of the Italian State in the 19th Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stelder D. (2016), Regional Accessibility Trends in Europe: Road Infrastructure, 1957-2012. Regional Studies, 50, 6: 983-995. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2014.952721.

The Spread of Railroads in Italian Provinces: A GIS Approach | 205 Appendix. Border Changes: Italian Provinces 1839-1913

The political unification of Italy formally occurred in 1861. However, the regions of Venetia and Latium were only annexed respectively in 1866 (Third Independence War) and 1870 (with the acquisition of Rome at the expense of the Papal States). As documented at http://sistat.istat.it (the SISTAT website), additional changes to provincial borders during 1861-1913 were relatively few. The main one concerns the creation of the province of Man- tua, formally instituted in 1866. In 1868, a total of 38 municipalities were transferred from the neighboring provinces of Brescia, , and Verona to the new . The remaining six cases of provincial borders were of minor importance in terms of land extension and population involved. These are, for the sake of completeness, listed below. 1) Year 1868: the municipality (, in the Italian census) of , formerly belonging to the , was absorbed by the province of Cremona; 2) Year 1871: the municipality of , formerly belonging to the province of Brescia, was absorbed by the province of Cremona; 3) Year 1877: the municipality of Isola Sant’Antonio, formerly belonging to the , was absorbed by the province of Alessandria; 4) Year 1878: the municipality of Presenzano, formerly belonging to the province of Campobasso, was absorbed by the province of Caserta; 5) Year 1880: The municipality of Pareto, formerly belonging to the province of Genoa, was absorbed by the province of Alessandria; 6) Year 1884: The municipalities of Castel del Rio, Fontana Elice, and Tossignano, formerly belonging to the province of Ravenna, were absorbed by the province of Bologna. To give an example of the reduced importance of the above border changes, consider that according to the population census of 1881 the total population of the three munici- palities that changed the province of appurtenance in 1884 amounted to 7,405 inhabitants (against provincial totals in 1881 of Bologna and Ravenna of, respectively, 457,474 and 225,764 inhabitants.

206 | Carlo Ciccarelli, Peter Groote Table A1: New railway lines opened, 1839-1875 (kms)

PIEDMONT LIGURIA Alessandria Cuneo Novara Turin Genoa Porto Maurizio AL CN NO TO GE PM 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 0 0 0 0 0 0 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 16.14 0 0 1849 28.39 0 0 13.59 0 0 1850 55.39 0 0 0 0 0 1851 11.63 0 0 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 4.63 31.50 0 18.89 41.67 0 1854 18.93 19.64 18.86 85.15 0 0 1855 0 16.43 35.32 0 0 0 1856 0 0 91.46 31.86 10.99 0 1857 26.43 13.51 14.63 0 0 0 1858 85.47 0 14.17 32.03 5.63 0 1859 0 0 0.82 0 0 0 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 1861 0 0 0 0 0 0 1862 0 0 0 0 0 0 1863 0 0 0 0 8.09 0 1864 21.39 0 32.17 0 14.74 0 1865 21.57 33.02 0.11 6.89 0 0 1866 0 0 0 15.02 0 0 1867 0 0 0 0 0 0 1868 0 0 8.50 12.86 63.52 0 1869 0 0 0 7.59 0 0 1870 74.33 0 0.28 0 7.47 0 1871 0 0 0 59.78 0 0 1872 0 0 0 0 58.48 58.91 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 1874 32.44 65.52 0 8.39 89.90 0 1875 0 9.26 0 0 0 0 Continue

LOMBARDY Bergamo Brescia Como Cremona Mantua Milan Pavia Sondrio BG BS CO CR MN MI PV SO 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 12.82 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 3.19 0 0 0 0 28.39 0 0 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1849 0 0 11.03 0 0 18.34 0 0 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 0 0 0 12.26 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1854 21.08 65.73 0 0 0 0 41.54 0 1855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1857 21.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1858 0 0 0 0 0 27.72 29.10 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 6.34 9.03 0 1860 0 0 0 0 0 26.15 0 0 1861 0 0 0 0 0 67.21 0 0 1862 0 0 0 0 0 15.38 55.86 0 1863 36.48 0 5.09 55.26 0 0 0 0 1864 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1865 0 0 8.97 0 0 26.79 0 0 1866 0 32.40 0 25.38 0 17.88 31.36 0 1867 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.17 0 1868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1869 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1870 0 0 0 0 0 34.91 20.69 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1872 0 0 0 0 0.64 0 0 0 1873 0.74 0 15.67 0 27.35 12.66 0 0 1874 0 0 0 34.89 29.50 0 0 0 1875 0 0 5.19 0 0 0 0 0 Continue

VENETIA Belluno Padua Rovigo Treviso Udine Venezia Verona Vicenza BL PD RO TV UD VE VR VI 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 12.00 0 0 0 17.03 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 0 12.11 0 0 0 8.12 0 18.29 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1849 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.04 21.75 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 0 0 14.05 0 7.01 20.36 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.57 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1854 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.99 0 1855 0 0 0 40.88 30.75 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.40 0 1860 0 0 0 0 52.97 0 0 0 1861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1862 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1863 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1864 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1866 0 41.14 29.49 0 0 0 0 0 1867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1869 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1875 0 0 0 0 27.92 0 0 0 Continue

EMILIA Bologna Ferrara Forlì Modena Parma Piacenza Ravenna Reggio Emilia BO FE FO MO PR PC RA RE 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1859 30.32 0 0 17.03 35.35 48.98 0 32.59 1860 0 0 0 0 0 5.87 0 0 1861 40.06 0 72.35 0 0 1.07 18.37 0 1862 69.62 18.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1863 30.68 0 0 0 0 0 40.47 0 1864 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1866 0 1.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1869 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1872 0 0 0 24.77 0 0 0 8.94 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Continue

TUSCANY Arezzo Florence Grosseto Leghorn Lucca Massa Pisa Siena Carrara AR FI GR LI LU MS PI SI 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 6.11 0 0 14.20 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.37 0 1846 0 0 0 0 7.17 0 14.46 0 1847 0 21.54 0 0 0 0 6.22 0 1848 0 55.76 0 0 22.48 0 0 0 1849 0 36.95 0 0 0 0 0 26.45 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 15.95 0 0 0 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 0 6.59 0 0 0 1854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 1.53 0 0 0 1857 0 7.80 0 0 2.87 0 0 0 1858 0 0 0 3.54 0 0 0 0 1859 0 1.81 0 0 0 0 0 56.34 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.06 1861 0 0 0 0 16.25 0 15.86 5.98 1862 0 20.27 0 0 6.16 4.07 0 22.21 1863 7.19 29.60 4.34 4.05 0 9.55 125.47 0 1864 0 25.40 88.81 0 0 0 0 0 1865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.67 1866 71.01 0 0 0 0 4.36 0 0 1867 0 0 10.52 0 0 0 0 0 1868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1869 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.67 1872 0 0 34.49 0 0 0 0 15.80 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.92 0 1875 2.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.65 Continue

MARCHES UMBRIA LATIUM Ancona Ascoli Macerata Pesaro Perugia Rome Piceno AN AP MC PS PG RM 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 0 0 0 0 0 0 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 0 0 0 1849 0 0 0 0 0 0 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 0 0 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 1854 0 0 0 0 0 0 1855 0 0 0 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 0 0 1857 0 0 0 0 0 20.90 1858 0 0 0 0 0 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 80.21 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 1861 31.33 0 0 42.50 0 0 1862 0 0 0 0 14.79 108.26 1863 24.04 46.63 20.89 0 0 1.56 1864 0 0 0 0 0 0 1865 0 0 0 0 45.47 60.07 1866 72.05 0 0 0 205.42 3.52 1867 0 0 0 0 0 50.02 1868 0 0 0 0 0 0 1869 0 0 0 0 0 0 1870 0 0 0 0 0 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 1872 0 0 0 0 0 0 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 0 0 32.09 9.91 1875 0 0 0 0 24.12 0 Continue

ABRUZZI CAMPANIA Aquila Campobasso Chieti Teramo Avellino Benevento Caserta Naples Salerno AQ CB Chieti TE AV BN CE NA SA 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.92 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.92 12.07 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.12 18.95 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.99 0 0 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.63 0 5.31 1857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.60 22.77 1861 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.54 0 15.54 1862 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1863 0 0 25.69 51.02 0 0 50.87 0 25.15 1864 0 35.39 48.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1866 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.89 1867 0 0 0 0 1.32 0 16.96 17.99 0 1868 0 0 0 0 17.58 71.51 14.43 0 0 1869 0 0 0 0 18.39 0 0 0 2.63 1870 0 0 0 0 5.66 0 0 0 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1873 19.73 0 32.33 13.40 0 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.61 1875 60.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.44 Continue

APULIA BASILICATA CALABRIA Bari Foggia Lecce Potenza Catanzaro Cosenza Reggio Calabria BA FG LE PZ CZ CS RC 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1862 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1863 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1864 19.32 131.28 0 0 0 0 0 1865 160.39 0 45.67 0 0 0 0 1866 0 0 38.70 0 0 0 17.60 1867 0 32.46 0 0 0 0 0 1868 7.38 35.89 81.81 0 0 0 58.63 1869 0 0 40.22 36.98 0 32.75 0 1870 0 0 1.71 0 0 72.90 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 35.88 1872 0 0 18.30 0 0 0 20.09 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 0 0 49.39 5.71 0 1875 0 0 0 38.15 102.55 0 3.56 Continue

SICILY SARDINIA Caltanissetta Catania Girgenti Messina Palermo Syracuse Trapani Cagliari Sassari CL CT AG ME PA SR TP CA SS 1839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1844 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1846 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1851 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1862 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1863 0 0 0 0 14.06 0 0 0 0 1864 0 0 0 0 17.42 0 0 0 0 1865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1866 0 0 0 47.31 5.17 0 0 0 0 1867 0 42.70 0 4.32 0 0 0 0 0 1868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1869 0 17.42 0 0 24.43 10.39 0 0 0 1870 2.66 66.89 0 0 16.53 0 0 0 0 1871 0 0 0 0 0 58.42 0 50.14 0 1872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81.79 20.17 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1874 0 0 27.46 0 16.81 0 0 0 46.29 1875 0.02 0 14.61 0 0 0 0 Table A2: New railway lines opened, 1876-1913 (kms)

PIEDMONT LIGURIA Alessandria Cuneo Novara Turin Genoa Porto Maurizio AL CN NO TO GE PM 1876 0 0 0 10.94 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 1878 0 0 0 0 0 0 1879 0 0 0 0 0 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 2.93 0 1882 0 0 14.74 16.15 0 0 1883 0 0 34.28 0 0 0 1884 0 39.02 13.93 13.43 0 0 1885 0 22.05 5.58 31.43 0 0 1886 0 14.86 12.56 47.17 1.84 0 1887 17.36 38.11 50.94 18.00 0 0 1888 0 5.80 30.04 0 12.49 0 1889 2.12 24.95 0 0 24.43 0 1890 0 6.27 0 0 0 0 1891 0 11.31 32.04 0 0 0 1892 0 32.35 0 0 0 0 1893 60.61 7.66 0 0 0 0 1894 6.60 0 0 0 33.46 0 1895 8.38 0 0 0 0 0 1896 0 0 0 0 0 0 1897 0 0 0 0 7.08 0 1898 0 0 0 0 0 0 1899 0 0 0 0 1.65 0 1900 0 9.76 0 0 2.91 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 0 7.25 0 0 0 0 1903 0 0.62 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 1905 0 0 101.92 0 0 0 1906 0 0 47.12 15.52 4.42 0 1907 33.22 0 0 5.77 5.42 0 1908 1.68 0 13.66 0 0 0 1909 1.99 0 0 0 0 0 1910 0 0 0 0 0 0 1911 0 0 0 0 0.54 0 1912 31.24 12.41 0 19.29 1.33 0 1913 0 8.74 0 0 0 0 Continue

LOMBARDY Bergamo Brescia Como Cremona Mantua Milan Pavia Sondrio BG BS CO CR MN MI PV SO 1876 0 10.33 3.86 0 0 0 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1878 20.32 11.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 1879 0 0 18.59 0 0 41.49 0 0 1880 0 0 1.03 0 0 2.34 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1882 0 0 45.31 0 0 4.54 53.36 0 1883 0 0 0 0 1.72 0 10.30 0 1884 27.51 0 49.24 15.66 0 18.63 0 0 1885 0 23.44 44.03 0 0 0 0 37.08 1886 0 0 27.96 0 20.38 0 0 20.59 1887 0 0 0 2.11 0 42.72 0 0 1888 0 0 37.81 0 56.71 13.11 0 0 1889 10.13 0 4.82 0 0 2.62 0 0 1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1891 0 0 0 0 0 10.61 0 0 1892 0 0 24.91 0 0 0 0 0 1893 0 31.18 0 2.19 11.48 0 0 0 1894 0 0 27.74 0 0 0 0 0 1895 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1897 0 27.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 1898 0 0 16.02 0 0 2.06 0 0 1899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 0 0 0.79 0 3.17 0 0 25.84 1903 0 0 5.54 0 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 10.51 0 0 15.49 0 0 1905 0 0 11.38 0 0 0 0 0 1906 30.18 0 0 2.43 0 0 0 0 1907 0.30 45.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 1908 1.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1909 0 34.68 0 0 6.54 0 0 0 1910 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.64 0 1911 5.53 19.60 5.88 0 3.91 30.91 0 0 1912 0 0 0 0 3.78 0 0 0 1913 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Continue

VENETIA Belluno Padua Rovigo Treviso Udine Venice Verona Vicenza BL PD RO TV UD VE VR VI 1876 0 0 52.89 0 11.56 0 0 31.29 1877 0 56.73 5.20 28.05 8.22 0 58.15 21.21 1878 0 0 0 0 8.14 0 0 0 1879 0 0 0 13.08 12.96 0 0 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 0 3.01 0 0 1882 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1883 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1884 0 0 11.09 26.08 0 0 0 0 1885 0 24.32 0 39.27 0 27.41 0 22.35 1886 48.60 10.32 0 32.38 14.67 25.22 26.77 0 1887 0 0 8.20 0 0 12.00 0 0 1888 0 0 0 0 62.02 20.58 0 0 1889 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.96 0 1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1892 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1893 0 0 0 0 18.20 0 0 0 1894 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1895 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1897 0 0 0 0 5.57 0 0 0 1898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.76 0 1905 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1907 0 0 0 0 0 2.25 0 10.62 1908 0 7.96 0 17.54 0 17.85 0 8.24 1909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.35 1910 0 0 0 0 19.27 0 0 37.24 1911 0 22.44 0 0 0 1.01 0 0 1912 19.04 0 0 0 9.11 0 10.53 0 1913 15.72 0 0 7.76 20.38 15.79 0 0 Continue

EMILIA Bologna Ferrara Forlì Modena Parma Piacenza Ravenna Reggio Emilia BO FE FO MO PR PC RA RE 1876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1878 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1879 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1882 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1883 0 33.18 0 48.41 33.84 0 0 30.48 1884 0 0 0 20.90 15.35 0 21.42 0 1885 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1886 0 0 2.39 0 4.55 0 5.32 26.37 1887 76.24 13.62 0 5.99 1.83 0 19.71 14.34 1888 9.20 24.54 0 24.72 0 0 21.80 0 1889 7.39 5.41 21.39 5.37 22.41 0 47.73 0 1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1891 0 0 0 1.53 0 0 0 20.54 1892 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 1.38 1893 0 0 0 0 15.49 0 0 0 1894 0 0 0 0 4.62 0 0 0 1895 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1899 1.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 0 0 0 13.78 0 0 0 0 1903 0 21.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1905 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1906 0 0 0 0 13.30 17.42 0 0 1907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1909 0 31.32 0 0 0 0 0 14.52 1910 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.14 1911 10.67 30.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 1912 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1913 0 0 0 0 24.70 0 0 0 Continue

TUSCANY Arezzo Florence Grosseto Livorno Lucca Massa Pisa Siena Carrara AR FI GR LI LU MS PI SI 1876 0 0 0 0 0 18.54 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1878 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1879 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1882 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1883 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1884 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1885 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.34 1886 47.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1888 43.82 3.38 0 0 0 27.51 0 0 1889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1890 0 34.58 0 0 21.36 0 0.74 0 1891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1892 0 12.84 0 0 10.17 0 13.65 0 1893 0 32.37 0 0 0 0 0 0 1894 0 0 0 0 0 13.24 0 0 1895 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1896 0 7.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 1897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1898 0 0 0 0 10.39 0 0 0 1899 0 0 0 0 3.86 0 0 0 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 0 0 23.58 0 0 0 0 0 1903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1905 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.10 0 1907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1910 0 0 0 19.62 0 0 13.65 0 1911 0 1.14 0 0 13.10 21.59 0 0 1912 0 0 0 0 0 3.62 8.01 0 1913 0 32.45 13.02 0 0 0 0 0 Continue

MARCHES UMBRIA LATIUM Ancona Ascoli Macerata Pesaro Perugia Rome Piceno AN AP MC PS PG RM 1876 0 0 0 0 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 1878 0 0 0 0 0 10.73 1879 0 0 0 0 0 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 0 0 1882 0 0 0 0 0 0 1883 0 0 0 0 45.54 0 1884 6.20 0 27.26 0 0 52.53 1885 0 0 7.16 0 0 4.06 1886 0 27.69 16.99 0 88.52 35.77 1887 0 0 0 0 0 38.88 1888 0 0 28.47 0 0 12.24 1889 0 0 0 0 0 28.79 1890 0 0 0 0 0 8.91 1891 0 0 0 0 0 1.55 1892 0 0 0 0 0 129.32 1893 0 0 0 0 0 0 1894 0 0 0 0 0 94.29 1895 26.04 0 0 5.41 0 0 1896 0 0 0 0 0 0 1897 0 0 0 0 0 0 1898 0 0 0 48.38 0 0 1899 0 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 22.63 1902 0 0 0 0 0 0 1903 0 0 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 1905 0 0 0 0 0 0 1906 3.23 0 11.35 0 0 2.11 1907 0 0 0 0 0 0 1908 0 55.30 2.65 0 0 0 1909 0 2.32 0 0 0 1.95 1910 0 0 0 0 0 4.27 1911 0 0 0 0 0 3.04 1912 0 0 0 0 0 45.32 1913 0 0 0 0 0 0 Continue

ABRUZZI CAMPANIA Aquila Campobasso Chieti Teramo Avellino Benevento Caserta Naples Salerno AQ CB Chieti TE AV BN CE NA SA 1876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.68 1878 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1879 0 0 0 0 23.70 0 0 0 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 0 13.67 0 0 0 1882 24.28 54.15 0 0 0 42.57 0 0 3.20 1883 33.56 62.35 0 0 0 1.94 0 0 29.80 1884 0 0 0 25.12 2.55 0 18.20 15.56 0 1885 0 0 0 0 3.19 0 20.55 22.66 0 1886 0 19.54 0 0 7.53 0 8.20 4.77 40.69 1887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.11 1888 104.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.49 18.95 1889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.40 17.46 1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.90 0 1891 0 0 0 0 12.02 10.53 20.51 23.09 0 1892 24.68 0 0 0 3.12 0 58.47 0 5.16 1893 0 0 0 0 26.97 0 0 0 0 1894 0 29.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.48 1895 4.93 0 0 0 69.24 0 7.04 0 0 1896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1897 54.92 42.63 5.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 1898 0 8.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 8.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 37.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.27 1903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.70 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.98 37.82 7.80 1905 0 0 8.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1910 0 0 0 0 5.96 6.47 16.73 0 0 1911 0 0 0 0 3.15 11.21 0 0 0 1912 0 0 54.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1913 0 0 39.86 0 0 4.57 42.67 16.47 0 Continue

APULIA BASILICATA CALABRIA Bari Foggia Lecce Potenza Catanzaro Cosenza Reggio Calabria BA FG LE PZ CZ CS RC 1876 0 0 0 21.75 0 15.65 0 1877 0 0 0 17.13 0 44.45 0 1878 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1879 0 0 0 0 0 9.68 0 1880 0 0 0 72.24 0 0 0 1881 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.08 1882 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1883 0 0 0 0 9.09 0 0 1884 0 12.65 17.73 0 0 0 12.04 1885 0 35.86 16.41 0 0 0 9.11 1886 0 0 69.81 0 0 0 8.59 1887 0 19.75 0 0 0 0 0 1888 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.86 1889 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.13 1890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 1891 0 8.25 0 22.23 4.97 0 12.83 1892 89.56 0 0 72.07 0 0 0 1893 0 0 0 0 14.03 0 0 1894 0 0 0.67 16.66 89.21 2.56 0 1895 64.94 0 0 8.69 17.65 105.12 0 1896 0 0 0 0 7.89 0 0 1897 0 0 0 43.71 0 0 0 1898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1899 0 0 0 0 5.02 0 0 1900 44.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1903 23.70 0 4.29 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1905 42.51 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1907 0 0 87.78 0 0 0 0 1908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1910 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1911 0 0 85.49 0 0 0 0 1912 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1913 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Continue

SICILY SARDINIA Caltanissetta Catania Girgenti Messina Palermo Syracuse Trapani Cagliari Sassari CL CT AG ME PA SR TP CA SS 1876 65.74 1.75 13.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1878 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31.58 1879 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1880 0 0 55.46 0 52.08 0 74.06 90.16 64.02 1881 23.90 0 18.31 0 40.42 0 51.56 0 24.05 1882 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1883 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.34 1884 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1885 6.49 0 0 0 1.07 0 0 0 0 1886 0 0 0 0 66.81 32.23 0 0 0 1887 0 0 0 0 23.42 0.23 0 0 0 1888 0 0 1.95 0 0 0 0 129.09 55.58 1889 0 3.24 0 32.16 0 9.84 0 96.12 68.35 1890 0 0 0 12.83 0 0 0 0 0 1891 26.80 0 9.57 15.78 0 59.34 0 0 9.72 1892 0 53.61 0 7.29 0 1.56 0 0 0 1893 12.43 0 0 25.27 0 77.55 0 110.08 68.92 1894 0 0 0 6.82 15.62 0 0 59.36 0 1895 0 107.34 0 49.47 0 0 0 0 0 1896 0 0.99 0 0.45 0 0 0 0 0 1897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1898 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 0 5.18 0 1899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1903 0 0 0 0 38.39 0 0 0 0 1904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1905 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1910 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.01 0 0 1911 0 0 32.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1912 13.82 1.11 0 0 3.54 0 0 0 0 1913 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0