PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Government of Rajasthan Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report for Two- Laning Km 0.0 to km 43.0 of SH-7A comprising of the section from Hanumangarh to Abohar (upto Punjab border) (the Highway – III) in the State of Rajasthan FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT July – 2016 Submitted by: In Association with 9/F, Infinity Tower C, DLF Cyber city, DLF Phase - II, Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana, India Submitted to: Additional Chief Engineer (PPP), Public Works Department (PWD), 1-Jacob Road, Jaipur - 302004 Rajasthan, India
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Government of Rajasthan
Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report for Two-
Laning Km 0.0 to km 43.0 of SH-7A comprising of the section from
Hanumangarh to Abohar (upto Punjab border) (the Highway – III)
in the State of Rajasthan
FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
July – 2016
Submitted by:
In Association with
9/F, Infinity Tower C, DLF Cyber city, DLF Phase - II, Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana, India
Submitted to:
Additional Chief Engineer (PPP), Public Works Department (PWD), 1-Jacob Road, Jaipur - 302004 Rajasthan, India
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (upto Punjab Border) (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 ( i )
CONTENTS
Chapter Nos. Description
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter : 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT APPRECIATION
Chapter : 2 DESIGN STANDARDS
Chapter : 3 ENGINEERING SURVEY & INVESTIGATION
Chapter : 4 TRAFFIC SURVEY AND ANALYSIS
Chapter : 5 IMPROVEMENT / UPGRADING PROPOSALS
Chapter : 6 COST ESTIMATE
Chapter : 7 FINANACIAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMEDATION
Chapter : 8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Chapter : 9 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendices
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (upto Punjab Border) (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 ( ii )
Abbreviation Full Form / MeaningAADT Annual Average Daily TrafficADT Average Daily TrafficBC Bituminous Concrete
DBM Dense Bituminous MacadamDL Double Lane (Carriageway / Road)EIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEMP Environmental Management Plan
ES Earth ShoulderGDP Gross Domestic ProductGoR Government of RajasthanGOI Government of IndiaGSB Granular Sub-BaseIL Intermediate Lane (Carriageway / Road)
IRC Indian Roads CongressIRR Internal Rate of ReturnLCV Light Commercial VehicleMDR Major District RoadNH National Highway
NPV Net Present ValueNSDP Net State Domestic Product
OD Origin DestinationPCI Per Capita IncomePCU Passenger Car UnitsPF Protected Forest
PIA Project Influence AreaPS Paved Shoulder
PWD Public Work DepartmentROW Right of Way
SH State HighwaySIA Social Impact AssessmentSL Single Lane (Carriageway / Road)
ToR Terms of Reference
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 Ex - 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1 BACKGROUND
The work for Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report for upgradation ofHanumangarh to Abohar (upto Punjab Border) section of SH-7A in the State of Rajasthan(Highway-3 – Package 1) [Length 43km] has been awarded to M/s. AECOM by Public WorksDepartment, Government of Rajasthan vide letter no. F-7(3)/PPP/2014-15/Package1/D-1551,dated on 11-6-2014. In line with Terms of references (TOR) the Feasibility Report is beingsubmitted.
0.2 INVESTIGATIONS & EVALUATIONS
0.2.1 Feasibility Study was carried out by AECOM and the report evaluates Financial Viability interms of Financial Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of the homogeneous road sections for optimumupgrading. The above evaluation has been based on various surveys and investigations carriedout during the course of the study and these include traffic, topography, pavement condition,inventory and condition of road/structures and material investigations. Special attention hasbeen given to maximize the use of existing pavement and available land and use of localresources. Beside, due care is also taken to ensure use of modern construction technology toachieve the desired quality and performance requirements and attain the intended level of servicefor the next 25 years.
0.3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTIONS
0.3.1 General
Project Road (SH-7A) starts from Hanumangarh (Bhagat Singh Chowk) at km 0+000 and endsat Abohar (Gadder Khera Village) at km 43+000 (Rajasthan/ Punjab Border). Project road passesthrough Hanumangarh and Ganganagar districts of Rajasthan. The major settlements along theproject highway are Hanumangarh, Satipura, Dholipal, Kararwala. Complete Project Road is 2Lane configuration.
Table 0.1: Project District
Sl.No. Name of Districts
Location Length(Km) Percentage
From (Km) To (Km)1 Hanumangarh 0.000 28.000 28.0 Km. 65.2%
2 Ganganagar 28.000 43.000 15.0 Km. 34.8%Total 43.0 Km. 100%
Note: Design Length = 42.655 km
0.3.2 Traffic Volume
The summary of the Average Annual Daily Traffic for the project stretch is given in Table 0.2.
· I Count in July 2014 (from 22-Aug-2014 to 29-Aug-2014) and
· II Count in March 2015 (from 7-Mar-2015 to 14-Mar-2015)
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 Ex - 2
Table 0.2: Average of 2 counts surveys in Aug 2014 & Mar 2015
Location km 8 km 28Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle 1523 1312
Tractor with trolley carrying non-agricultural produce 0 0
Light Commercial Vehicle, Mini Bus 79 100Bus 125 138
2-Axle Truck 17 563-Axle Truck 118 139
HCM or EME or Multi Axle Vehicle(MAV) (4 to 6 axles) 103 112
0.3.3 Proposed Developmental Plan/Construction features are summarised below:-
a) Development scheme can be summarised as given in Table 0.3.
Table 0.3: Summary of Development Scheme
Sl. No. Description Length (km)
A Only Repair and maintenance 3.000
1 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) 30.705
2 2 Lane reconstruction in BT stretches (Existing 7m) 2.500
3 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) (Rural section)(Newly constructed) 4.500
4 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) (Built-up section)(Newly constructed) 1.000
5 2 Lane Cement Concrete (CC) only (Existing 7.0m )(Built-up section) 0.950
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT 42.655
0.3.4 Bypasses and Realignment
As the existing road geometry follows the manual (IRC: SP-73) requirement and as availableROW is sufficient to fit the proposed cross-section, hence no bypass or realignment is required inthe project road.
0.3.5 IRC: 37-2012 Method of Flexible Pavement Design – for New construction
Pavement composition thicknesses were designed for reconstruction and new constructionsections as per IRC: 37-2012. For strengthening of existing flexible road pavement, overlaythickness were established as per IRC: 81-1997. At Toll Plaza locations provision of rigidpavement is given and pavement composition was determined as per IRC: 58-2002.
The flexible pavement thicknesses required for New Pavement of stretches is given in Table 0.4
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 Ex - 3
& Table 0.5.
Table 0.4: Flexible Pavement Thickness for New pavement and Reconstruction Stretches
Existing Chainage DesignTraffic(MSA)
CBR ofSubgrade
(%)
ViscosityGrade ofBitumen
Proposed Minimum PavementThickness (mm)
From To BC DBM WMM GSB Total
0.000 43.000 20 10 VG 30 40 80 250 200 570
0.3.6 IRC: 81-1997 Method of Flexible Overlay – For Strengthening of Existing Pavement
The average characteristic deflection (Dc) values to be used for design purposes have been workedfrom BBD survey. The thicknesses are deduced from Figure 9 of IRC 81-1997 in terms ofbituminous macadam construction. However to match with the new pavement thickness, overlaythickness proposed are presented in Table 0.5.
Table 0.5: Proposed Overlay Thicknesses on existing lane
Description BC DBM
For Stretches proposed for overlay only 40 mm 80 mm
0.3.7 IRC: 58-2002 Method of Rigid Pavement Design – For Toll Plaza locations
a) Pavement composition thickness for rigid pavements at Toll plaza location is given inTable 0.6.
Table 0.6: Rigid Pavement Composition at Toll Plaza
Material Type Thickness (mm)Pavement Quality Concrete (M-40) 300Dry Lean Concrete (M-15) 150Granular Sub-base 150Subgrade 500
0.3.8 Junction Improvement
All major / minor junctions on the project highway need to be upgraded and merged with Projecthighway carriageway.
0.3.9 Proposal of Bridges, Culverts and other Structures
No major bridge exists. Seven minor bridges exist on the project road and three minor bridgeshave been proposed for widening & rest for rehabilitation. The development proposal for all theexisting bridges is tabulated in Table 0.7.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 Ex - 4
Table 0.7B: Summary of Development of Existing Minor Bridge
Location(Chainage) Span Arrangement Width of carriageway
between kerbs (m) Proposed Upgradation
5.100 3 X 4.2 7.2 Widening9.950 2 X 5.6 12.0 Rehabilitation
16.500 2 X 4.0 12.0 Rehabilitation22.300 2 X 3.2 12.0 Rehabilitation40.260 2 X 3.9 7.0 Widening41.530 2 X 3.8 7.0 Widening42.800 5 X 11.5 8.0 Rehabilitation
Note: Five minor bridges are proposed for widening as the width of carriageway is <7.5m(minimum required as per clause 7.3.2 of manual).
a) Culverts
There are total 56 existing culverts on the project road, out of which 32 are porposed forwidening /Reconstruction. A summary of the existing and proposed (if any) culverts is givenbelow.
Ø 20 nos. existing culverts need to be reconstructed.
Ø 12 nos. existing culverts are proposed to be widened.
Ø Renaming 24 nos. existing culverts are proposed for rehabilitation with minor repair.
b) Railway line crossing
The project road crosses railway tracks at one location only as level crossing. The summary ofexisting level crossing is given below:
Table 0.8: Summary of Existing Level Crossings
Sl.No. ExistingChainage
TrackDetails TVU Data Remarks
1 2+965 BG (Single) 1,39,08930 March 2014
As per IRC 62-1976 the TVUis more than 50,000 and
requires ROB
In view of the site constrain in proposing ROB, a joint site visit was conducted. It was concludedby PWD officials, not to propose ROB at this location.
0.3.10 Proposal for Underpass/Flyover
No underpass or flyover is proposed along the project road.
0.3.11 Bus Shelters
7 nos. of Bus Shelters are proposed along the Project Road.
0.3.12 Toll Plaza
Complete project road has been considered as one tolling Homogeneous Section. And the tollplaza is proposed at km 28. The location and details of the toll plaza is given in Table 0.9.
Table 0.9: Details Toll Plaza
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 Ex - 5
TollingHomogenous
Section #Location Tolling
Length
Bypass/Structure >5
Cr., if anyReason for Selection
THS 1 Km 28.300 42.655km Nil
Between Hanumangarh km 0.00and Abohar (upto Punjab
border) km 42.655
0.3.13 The project cost on above items has been worked out based on development proposal of the projectcorridor. Total Cost of the Project as assessed at this stage is given in Table 0.10.
Table 0.10: Abstract Cost Estimate
S.No. Bill No. Description Amount (%)
1 Bill No 1 SITE CLEARANCE & DISMANTLING 11,36,293 0.3%
2
Bill No 2 EARTH WORKS
2,60,98,176
5.8%
3 Bill No 3 GRANULAR SUB-BASE AND BASECOURSES 3,49,70,320 7.8%
4 Bill No 4 BITUMINOUS & RIGID WORKS 23,13,67,981 51.7%
5 Bill No 5 CROSS DRAINAGE WORKS(CULVERTS) 83,00,700 1.9%
6Bill No 6
STRUCTURAL WORKS (BRIDGES ,UNDERPASSES, FLY OVERS &INTERCHANGE) 1,21,55,040
11 Bill No 11 JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT, BUSSHELTERS 2,62,66,934 5.9%
TOTAL COST FOR CIVIL WORKS 44,77,04,135 100%
Cost for Civil works Per Km 1.05 Crores
0.3.14 Results of Financial Analysis
Ø Based on preliminary financial analysis the project is Viable on VGF, hence theproject is recommended to be developed on Toll Basis.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 Ex - 6
0.3.15 Environmental Impact Assessment
Ø The project road is not passing through any reserve forest; protected forest and wild lifesanctuary. Hence project road does not require forest clearance & wild life clearance.
Ø Further the project road does not require environmental clearance as per the EIAnotification 2006 and its amendment thereafter.
Ø No tree is proposed to be fell for the project upgradation.
0.3.16 Social Impact Assessment
Ø No major social impact is envisaged with the up-gradation of the Project road.
Ø No land acquisition is required for the proposed upgradation of the project road.
Ø 6 CPR (Cultural Property Resource) is under direct impact.
· Government Properties likely to be affected
The survey data shows that there are 5 government properties that are likely to beaffected in proposed project road. The Government properties include 4 nos. BusStand and 1 no. Tax Office.
· Community properties Likely to be affected along the Road
The survey revealed that there is 1 community property likely to be affected due toproposed project road. The community properties include 1 well.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 1 - 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT APPRECIATION ....................................... 1-2
1.6.7 Religious Sensitive Structures ................................................................................ 1-5
1.6.8 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................. 1-5
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Fig. 1.1: Index Map showing Project Road ..................................................................................... 1-3
Table 1.1: District wise of Project Length ........................................................................................ 1-4
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 1 - 2
CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT APPRECIATION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Governor of Rajasthan acting through the Additional Chief Engineer (PPP), PublicWorks Department, Government of Rajasthan (the “Authority”) is engaged in thedevelopment of State Highways and as part of this endeavor, the Authority has decidedto undertake two-laning of following roads through Public Private Partnership onDesign, Build, Finance Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis:
1. Km. 39 to Km. 267 of SH-3 Padampur to Bikaner Highway- I
2. Km. 71 to Km. 231 of SH-6 Dungargarh to Rajgarh Highway- II
3. Km. 0.0 to Km. 43 of SH-7A Hanumangarh to Abohar(upto Punjab border) Highway- III
4. Km. 0.0 to Km. 85 of SH-7B Sadulshahar to Srikaranpur Highway- IV
In order to fulfill the above, PWD, Rajasthan has appointed M/s. AECOM inAssociation with G-Eng., as Consultant to carry out the Feasibility Study fordetermining the technical feasibility and financial viability of the project highway.
1.2 COMMENCEMENT
The work for Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report for Two-laningof Km. 0 to Km. 43 of SH-7A comprising the section from Hanumangarh to Abohar(upto Punjab border)-(Highway-III) in the State of Rajasthan has been awarded to theConsultants vide letter no. F-7(3)/PPP/2014-15/Package1/D-1551, dated on 11-6-2014.
The Consultants have submitted following reports in consonance with Terms ofReference.
Sl. No. Report Date of Submission1. Inception Report 8th August 20142. Supplementary Inception Report 10th September 20143. Alignment report & First Traffic survey 23rd September 20144. Revised Supplementary Inception Report * 12th December 20145. Draft Feasibility Report 9th April 20156. Final Feasibility Report 10th September 20157 Revised Final Feasibility Report 14th July 2016
*Revision was done as per Guidelines for Financial Analysis issued by PWD; vide No ACE/PPP/PA/489dated 25th November 2014.
The Supplementary Inception Report provided the findings of financial viability of theProject on PPP (VGF) basis. Based on financial viability, PWD advised Consultants to goahead for the Feasibility Report vide letter No F.7(3)/PPP/2014-15-Package-1/D-301dated 12th December 2014.
This report deals with the findings of the technical feasibility of the project road in linewith Terms of References (TOR) and after incorporating modifications as concluded
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 1 - 3
during client meetings in Aug 2015 & the letter no 732 dated 29th July 2015 from theoffice of the Addl. Chief Engineer (PPP), this report is finalized as “Final FeasibilityReport”.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project Road (SH-7A) starts from Hanumangarh (Bhagat Singh Chowk) at km0+000 and ends at Abohar (Gadder Khera Village) at km 43+000 (Rajasthan/ PunjabBorder). Project road serve as an important highway linking two Hanumangarh withPunjab state.
Project Road passes through Hanumangarh and Sri Ganganagar districts of Rajasthan.The major settlements along the project highway are Hanumangarh, Satipura, Rorawali,Dholipal, Kheruwala, Hathiyanwala, Kararwala. The index map depicting the projectroad is presented in Fig. 1.1.
Fig. 1.1: Index Map showing Project Road
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The objective of this consultancy is to undertake technical feasibility studies andprepare a Feasibility Report of the Project Highway for the purpose of firming up theAuthority’s requirements in respect of development and construction of the ProjectHighway and Project Facilities and enabling the prospective bidders to assess theAuthority’s requirements in a clear and predictable manner with a view to ensuring:
i. enhanced safety and level of service for the road users;
ii. superior operation and maintenance enabling enhanced operational efficiency ofthe Project Highway;
iii. minimal adverse impact on the local population and road users due to roadconstruction;
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 1 - 4
iv. minimal adverse impact on environment;
v. minimal acquisition of land; and
vi. Phased development of the Project Highway for improving its financial viabilityconsistent with the need to minimize frequent inconvenience to traffic that may becaused if additional works are undertaken within a period of seven years from thecommencement of construction of the Project Highway.
1.5 SCOPE OF SERVICES
As per the Terms of Reference (TOR) the scope of services for the project includes thefollowing:
i. Traffic survey and demand assessment
ii. Engineering surveys and investigations.
iii. Location and layout of toll plazas.
iv. Location and layout of bus shelters.
v. Social Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment
vi. Preliminary design of roads, bridges and structures etc.
vii. Preparation of Land Plan schedules and Utility Relocation Plans.
viii. Preparation of Indicative Bill of Quantities and Rough Cost Estimate.
ix. Preparation of Schedule A, B, C, D & H of the Concession Agreement.
1.6 PROJECT APPRECIATION
1.6.1 Project District
Project Road (SH-7A) starts from Hanumangarh Town (km 0.000) and ends at Abhor(Rajasthan/ Punjab Border Km. 43.000). The project road passes through Hanumangarhand Ganganagar districts of Rajasthan.
Table 1.1: District wise of Project Length
Sl.No. Name of Districts Location Length
(Km) PercentageFrom (Km) To (Km)1 Hanumangarh 0.000 28.000 28 Km. 65%2 Ganganagar 28.000 43.000 15 Km. 35%
Total 43 Km. 100%
The project district fall in the dry desert climate, with huge variation in temperature andscanty rainfall.
1.6.2 Terrain and Land use
The Project Highway passes through plain terrain. Land use along the project highwayis predominantly barren & agriculture land.
1.6.3 Carriageway Configuration
The project road is completely 2-lane configuration.
1.6.4 Existing Pavement Condition
During reconnaissance survey visual condition of the project road reveals that Projectroad is in fair to good condition. However poor condition of the road is also found but
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 1 - 5
at very few section. The carriageway is predominantly flexible pavement, with aroundone km as CC pavement.
1.6.5 Environmental and Social Sensitive Areas
Trees and Forest
Along the Project Road, there are “Revenue Plantation” comprising trees of Kikar,Neem, Totlis, and Bair.
1.6.6 Environmental Sensitivity
The project alignment is not in environmental sensitivity zone.
1.6.7 Religious Sensitive Structures
As such there is no major religious structure situated along the project road. Andupgradation of the project road has no direct impact on any of the religious structure.
1.6.8 Purpose of this Report
Submission of this Report contains all necessary technical and financial implications forexecution of the Project. The report has been prepared as per various terms andconditions of the “TOR” and after incorporating modifications as concluded duringclient meetings & office letters, including below mention letter,
However based on revised BSR 2016, consultant revised the costing and revisedfeasibility is being submitted in July 2016.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
2.9 DRAINAGE SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 2-5
2.10 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN STANDARD FOR STRUCTURES .............. 2-5
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 2.1: Categorization of Elements for Design Standards ........................................................ 2-2
Table 2.2: Proposed Design Volume of Highway in PCUs per day ............................................. 2-3
Table 2.3: Geometric Design Standards for the Project Corridor .................................................. 2-3
Table 2.4: Recommended Slopes in Various Elements for Proper Surface Drainage .................. 2-5
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 2
CHAPTER-2: DESIGN STANDARDS
2.1 GENERAL
The formulation of the design standards is required in order to avoid any inconsistencyin design from one section to the other and provide desired level of service and safety.For this project it is proposed to follow Design Standards given in IRC codes, guidelinesand special publications. IRC:73-2007 “Two-laning of highways through Public PrivatePartnership” Manual of specifications and standards published by PlanningCommission and orders issued as per GoR, Administrative Reform department ordersare followed.
2.2 ITEMS DETAILED FOR DESIGN STANDARDS
The design standards of all the elements of a highway corridor can be grouped into thefollowing categories as given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Categorization of Elements for Design Standards
Category Design element
Design CapacityDesign service volume standardsDesign capacity standards
The width of carriageway is decided based on the following “Projected Traffic Volume”as on the date of commencement of the Project:
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 3
Table 2.2: Proposed Design Volume of Highway in PCUs per day
Sl. No. TrafficVolume PCUs Carriageway width (in M) Maximum Capacity
(PCUs per day)1 Upto 1000 Single Lane (3.75m) 20002 1000 – 2500 Intermediate Lane (5.50m) 60003 2500 – 7500 Two Lane (7.0m) 150004 Above 7500 Two Lane + Paved Shoulder (10.00m) 18000
Source: As per GoR, Administrative Reform (Group) Department (order no. F-6(25)AR/Gr.3/2014 dated 27-8-2014)
2.4 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS
2.4.1 Design Standards
Design Standards for major features have been extracted from IRC: SP-73-2007standards conforming to design speeds 100kmph, 80kmph and 65 Kmph for plainterrain given in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Geometric Design Standards for the Project CorridorSl.No. Description Standards For 2-Lane
1.Design speedPlain TerrainRolling Terrain
100Kmph /(80Kmph)*80Kmph /(65Kmph)*
2.Proposed ROW for New AlignmentRural AreaBuilt-up Area
45m30m
3.
Roadwayi. Lane widthii. Paved Shoulder width on outer sideiv. Cross slope in lanesv. Cross slope in Cement Concrete Surfacingvi. Cross slope in Paved shoulders
Horizontal curvaturei. Requiring no super elevationii. Absolute minimum for 100 kmphiii. Absolute minimum for 80 kmphiv. Absolute minimum for 65 kmph
1800 m360 m240 m150m
9. Maximum Super elevation 7 %10. Rate of change of super elevation 1 in 150
11. Vertical AlignmentMinimum distance between PVI 150m
12. Gradient: Ruling and Limiting 3.33% & 5.0%13. Minimum length of vertical curve 60m14. Maximum grade change not requiring vertical curve 0.5%15. Vertical clearance to road bridge over road 5.5 m
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 4
Sl.No. Description Standards For 2-Lane
16. Vertical Clearance to road bridge over rail 6.75m
17.
Embankment slopeIn normal sectionIn pitching proposed sectionsIn high embankment (>3m)
2H: 1V1.5H: 1V3.0H: 1V
( )* Absolute Minimum
The Project highway is proposed to be improved as per the design standards detailedabove. The proposed centre line has been designed with an objective to maximize theusage of existing pavement, better traffic management during construction and bettercompaction of the widened embankment.
2.4.2 Vertical Profile
The Profile of the Project Corridor has been finalized on the basis of DTM data collectedduring the topographic survey. In addition to the standards and guidelines set in thischapter, there are other considerations to finalize the vertical profiles, which arepresented below:
Ø Minimum distance between two PVIs (Point of Vertical Intersection) is 150m.
Ø Minimum longitudinal gradient is 0.5%, for longitudinal drainage for KerbedPavements.
Ø Minimum length of a vertical curve is 60m.
Ø Maximum gradient for Underpass approaches is 2.5%.
Ø Minimum K (rate of change of vertical curvature) value as 75 for the summit curveand 45 for valley curve.
2.4.3 Typical Cross-sections
Ø The project road shall generally have configuration of two lane carriageway withpaved shoulder/granular shoulder on both sides.
2.5 STANDARDS FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN
2.5.1 Flexible Pavement
Designs for new pavement and overlays have been dealt in accordance with IRCrequirements. The Preliminary Designs are carried out on the basis of sub-grade 4 daysoaked CBR. Flexible pavement for new carriageways has been designed in accordancewith the guidelines of IRC: 37-2012.
The new flexible pavement structure shall comprise of Bituminous Concrete wearingcourse on bituminous base course of Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM). Below thebituminous layers, a Granular base with well-graded aggregates in the form of Wet MixMacadam (WMM) base has been laid on top of GSB layer. All these layers has beenconstructed to the requirements of MORT&H specifications - 2013.
Overlays design on the existing carriageway has been carried out in accordance withIRC: 81-1997 using BBD deflections.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 5
2.6 CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
2.6.1 Drainage structures
Drainage structures basically comprise of Major Bridges, Minor Bridges and Culverts.The standards / specifications for classifying these are given as:
Major Bridge
Bridges having an overall length more than 60 m.
Minor Bridge
Bridges having length varying between 6m to 60m are termed as minor bridges.
2.7 SLOPE PROTECTION
2.7.1 Side Slopes
As per IRC: SP-73-2007: side slope shall not be steeper than 2H:1V unless soils retainedby suitable measures.
2.7.2 Slope Protection
While embankments less than 3m is proposed to be turfed, stone pitching is proposedfor embankment having height more than 3m.
2.8 INTERSECTIONS
At Grade Intersections
At-grade intersections have been designed according to IRC: SP: 41 ‘Guidelines for theDesign of At-grade Intersections in Rural and Urban Areas’.
2.9 DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Although the project road falls in dry desert climate with scanty rainfall, however inorder to ensure no pooling of water at any time on the highway proper camber forcarriageway, shoulder has been proposed.
Table 2.4: Recommended Slopes in Various Elements for Proper Surface Drainage
Element Recommended SlopeLanes and shoulders with Bituminous Concrete Surfacing 2.5%Lanes and shoulders with Cement Concrete Surfacing 2.0%Cross slope in Granular shoulders 3.0%
2.10 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN STANDARD FOR STRUCTURES
The detailed inventory and condition survey of the existing structure has beenconducted. Based on detailed survey the proposal for structural arrangement has beenfinalised. The methodology and standards to be adopted are illustrated below:
Materials
Concrete Grade
Grade of concrete in various elements shall be kept as follows for moderate conditionsof exposure;
· All RCC members - M45 for bridges with PSC spans and other major bridges,
M35/M30 for minor bridges, M30 for culverts
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 6
· All PCC members - M15 for bridges with PSC spans and major bridges,
M15 for minor bridges and culverts
Reinforcement Steel
Only Thermo Mechanically Treated (TMT) Fe-500 bars conforming to IS:1786-2008 shallbe used as reinforcing steel.
Exposure Condition
Moderate exposure conditions will be considered while designing various componentsof all the structures.
Concrete Clear Covers:
For all reinforcement - As per relevant IRC code
For Pre-stress cable - As per relevant IRC code
Pre-stressing System
System (Post tensioning) 19C15 multi-pull strand system of "Freyssinet" or"ISMALCCL" or equivalent
Cables (Post tensioning) 19C15 cables with strands of 15.2mm nominaldiameter
High Tensile Steel For both post/pre tensioning
Strands Nominal 15.2mm dia. 7 ply low relaxation strandsconforming to class 2 of IS: 14268-95
Area 150 sq. mm per strand (nominal cross sectionalarea)
Ultimate load 279.19 KN per strandModulus of Elasticity 1.95x105MPa
Sheathing (Post tensioning) 90mm OD Bright metal corrugated flexiblesheathing for 19C15 cables respectively
Friction Coefficient (Posttensioning) 0.25/radian
Wobble Coefficient (Posttensioning) 0.0046/m
Anchorage Slip (Post tensioning) 6mm average
Loss of force due to Relaxation2.5% at 0.7 UTS after 1000 hrs. The final relaxationvalue for design shall be 3.0 times the 1000 hr.value
Stressing shall be carried out simultaneously from both ends. All the strands of a cableshall be stressed in one go. Provisions for 4% emergency cables will be provided. If theyare not utilized during construction, they will be pulled out and cable ducts will begrouted and plugged suitably. Access to the super-structure shall be provided to enablemaintenance, inspection and future pre-stressing operations.
Structural Steel
All structural steel, castings and forgings, fasteners (bolts, nuts, washers and rivets),welding consumables and wire ropes and cables shall conform to the provisions ofIRC:24 – 2010.
Bearings
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 7
· Pot fixed/Pot PTFE sliding bearings shall be proposed for simply supportedsuperstructures. These bearings shall be designed and supplied by the approvedmanufacturers. The loads and forces on the bearings shall be calculated to enable themanufacturer to design these bearings and these shall conform to Cl. 2006 ofMORTH's Specifications for Road & Bridge Works (5th Revision).
Expansion Joints
The following types of Expansion Joints shall be adopted;
· Filler type expansion joints
Filler type expansion joints shall be proposed for minor bridges with solid slabsuperstructures having span lengths not exceeding 10 metres. These types of joints shallconform to Cl. 2605 of MoRTH's Specifications for Road & Bridge Works (5th Revision).
· Single Strip seal expansion joints
Single Strip seal expansion joints shall be proposed for superstructures havingmovements up to 70mm (± 35mm). The strip seal type expansion joints shall conform toCl. 2607 of MORTH's Specifications for Road and Bridge works (5th Revision).
Miscellaneous
· An asphaltic wearing course shall be proposed over the deck slab.
· Drainage spouts with gratings at the top shall be provided on the bridges to ensureproper drainage of surface water.
· An approach slab, 3.5m long and 300mm thick, resting on the bracket taken outfrom the dirt wall shall be provided on both sides of the bridge resting on the150mm thick leveling course. The gap between the approach slab and dirt wall shallbe filled with bituminous joint filler sealing compound.
· Weep holes shall be provided behind abutment and wing wall to avoid building upof hydrostatic pressure behind them. Weep holes shall be provided 150mm, abovethe low water level or bed level whichever is higher.
Codes to be adopted for design
Following codes have been used for the preliminary design:
i. IRC:2-1968 - Route Marker Signs for National Highways(First Revision)
ii. IRC:5-2015 - Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Roadbridges, Section I – General Features of Design (SeventhRevision)
iii. IRC:6-2014 - Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for RoadBridges, Section-II Loads and Stresses (Revised Edition)
iv. IRC:7-1971 - Recommended Practice for Numbering Bridges andCulverts (First Revision)
v. IRC:8-1980 - Type Designs for Highway Kilometre Stones (SecondRevision)
vi. IRC:22-2015 - Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for RoadBridges, Section VI – Composite Construction (Limit
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 8
States Design) (Second Revision)
vii. IRC:24-2010 - Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for RoadBridges, Steel Road Bridges (Limit State Method) ThirdRevision)
viii. IRC:35-2015 - Code of Practice for Road Markings (First Revision)
ix. IRC:36-2010 - Recommended Practice for Construction of EarthEmbankments and Sub-Grade for Road Works (FirstRevision)
x. IRC:37-2012 - Tentative Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements
xi. IRC:45-1972 - Recommendations for Estimating the Resistance of SoilBelow the Maximum Scour Level in the Design of Well
xii. IRC:58-2015 - Guidelines for the Design of Plain Jointed RigidPavements for Highways (Fourth Revision)
xiii. IRC:67-2012 - Code of Practice for Road Signs (Third Revision)
xiv. IRC:73-1980 - Geometric Design Standards for Rural (Non-Urban)Highways
xv. IRC:78-2014 - Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for RoadBridges, Section VII - Foundations and Substructures(Revised Edition)
xvi. IRC:81-1997 - Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible RoadPavements Using Benkelman Beam Deflection Technique(First Revision)
xvii. IRC:83-2015 (Part I) - Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for RoadBridges, Section IX – Bearing, Part I: Metallic Bearing(First Revision)
xviii. IRC:83-2015 (Part III) - Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Roadbridges, Section IX – Bearings, Part III: POT, POT-CUM-PTFE, PIN and Metallic Guide Bearings
xix. IRC: 87-2011 - Guidelines for Formwork, Falsework andTemporary Structures (First Revision)
xx. IRC:90-2010 - Guidelines of Selection, Operation and Maintenanceof Bituminous Hot Mix Plant (First Revision)
xxi. IRC:109-2015 - Guidelines for Wet Mix Macadam (First Revision)
xxii. IRC:111-2009 - Specifications for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes
xxiii. IRC:112-2011 - Code of Practice for Concrete Road Bridges
xxiv. IRC:SP:13-2004 - Guidelines for the Design of Small Bridges & Culverts(First Revision)
xxv. IRC:SP:18-1978 - Manual for Highway bridge Maintenance Inspection
xxvi. IRC:SP:21-2009 - Guidelines on Landscaping and Tree Plantation
xxvii.IRC:SP:35-1990 - Guidelines for Inspection and Maintenance of Bridges
xxviii. IRC:SP:40-1993 - Guidelines on Techniques for strengthening and
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 2 - 9
Rehabilitation of Bridges
xxix. IRC:SP:47-1998 - Guidelines on Quality Systems for Road Bridges (PlainReinforced, Pre-stressed and Composite Concrete)
xxx. IRC:SP:73-2007 - Manual of Standards & Specifications for Two Laningof Highways through PPP.
xxxi. IRC:MoRTH:2014 - Specifications for Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision)
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER-3: ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS ..................................... 3-3
3.1 ROAD INVENTORY AND PAVEMENT CONDITION ................................................... 3-3
FIG 3.7: VIEW OF BBD SURVEY AT KM 40+175 .................................................................................... 12
TABLE 3.6: CHARACTERISTIC DEFLECTION ALONG THE PROJECT ROAD ............................................ 12
FIG 3.8: CHARACTERISTIC DEFLECTION (MM) ALONG THE PROJECT ROAD SH-7A............................ 12
TABLE 3.7: PAVEMENT COMPOSITION OF THE EXISTING ROAD .......................................................... 13
TABLE 3.8: DIFFERENT TESTS CARRIED OUT ON SUBGRADE SOIL ....................................................... 15
TABLE 3.9: TEST RESULTS OF EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL ..................................................................... 16
TABLE 3.10: DETAILS OF BORROW SOIL LOCATION ............................................................................ 17
TABLE 3.11: TEST RESULTS OF BORROW AREA SOIL ............................................................................ 17
TABLE 3.12: LISTS OF SOURCE OF MATERIALS .................................................................................... 17
FIG 3.9: QUARRY CHART FOR PROJECT ROAD ..................................................................................... 18
TABLE 3.13: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BRIDGES AND CULVERTS ........................................................... 18
FIG 3.10: RAILWAY CROSSING ALONG THE PROJECT ROAD AT KM 2.965 ........................................... 20
FIG 3.11: PLAN SHOWING RAILWAY CROSSING ALONG THE PROJECT ROAD AT KM 2.965 ................ 20
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 3
CHAPTER-3: ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 ROAD INVENTORY AND PAVEMENT CONDITION
An inventory of the Project Road (PR) has been carried out with visual observationssupplemented with topo-survey. All existing details like terrain, land-use, surfacingtype and width, shoulder type & width, subgrade, local soil type, curve details,intersection details, retaining structures details, location of water bodies, height ofembankment or depth of cut, cross drainage structures, road side facilities, existingutility services, general drainage conditions etc., were recorded. The road inventory hasbeen referenced to the existing kilometer posts established along the roadside. Adetailed road inventory is presented in the Appendix 3.1.
Fig 2.1: Start of the Project Road atHanumangarh City ( Bhagat Singh
Chowk)
Fig 2.2: End of the Project Road atRajasthan/ Punjab Border
The Project Road (SH-7A) starts from Hanumangarh (Km. 0.000) and ends at Abohar(Gadder Khera Village) at km 43+00 (Rajasthan/ Punjab Border). Project Road passesthrough Hanumangarh and Ganganagar districts of Rajasthan. The major settlementsalong the project corridor are Hanumangarh, Satipura, Rorawali, Dholipal, Kheruwala,Hathiyanwala, Kararwala. Length of Project Road in each district is given in Table 3.1below:
Table 3.1: Length of Project Road in the Influence Districts
Sl.No. Name of Districts
Location Length(Km) Percentage
From (Km) To (Km)1 Hanumangarh 0.000 28.000 28.0 Km. 65%2 Ganganagar 28.000 43.000 15.0 Km. 35%
Total 43.0 Km. 100%
3.1.1 Climate
HANUMANGARH DISTRICT
Hanumangarh climate is semi-dry, extremely hot during the summer and extremelycold during winter. The maximum average temperature remains 18° to 48° andminimum average is 2° to 28° celcius. Climate of hanumangarh district is very severeand arid. The average annual rainfall of the district is 235 mm, with excess and deficitrainfall in most of the years.
SH-7A
HanumangarhMarket
Abohar
HanumangarhCity
Abohar
Rajasthan / Punjab Border
Hanumangarh
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 4
GANGANAGAR DISTRICT
Ganganagar district has a dry desert climate, with large variations of temperature andscanty rainfall. In the Ganganagar district the variation in the minimum and maximumtemperature is perhaps greatest for any place in the world. Perhaps it is the only placein the world where temperature dips below sub-zero but does not have snowfall. Here,May and June are the hottest months with the mean yearly maximum temperature inthe hot season 41.2 degree Celsius and the mean yearly minimum temperature at about6.0 degree Celsius. Average annual rain fall is 250mm.
3.1.2 Terrain
Project Road is passing through plain terrain.
3.1.3 Land Use
Generally the horizontal alignment of the Project Road is mostly in rural area flared upwith barren/ agricultural land use. In the built-up areas both residential andcommercial buildings have developed abutting the project highway. A detail of the landuse pattern along the project road is given in Road Inventory, Appendix 3.1.
3.1.4 Carriageway and Roadway width
The detailed inventory on existing carriageway reveals that the project road stretchcomprises of two lane (2L) carriageway with 1 to 2 m gravel shoulder. Summary of laneconfiguration for the entire stretch is presented below in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2A: Summary of Lane Configuration
S. No.Existing Chainage
(In km) Length Lane ConfigurationFrom To km
1. 0 0.4 0.4 4 Lane (14.0m wide CC)2. 0.4 0.8 0.4 4 Lane (14.0m wide BT)
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 5
S. No.Existing Chainage
(In km) Length Lane ConfigurationFrom To km
3. 0.8 0.9 0.1 4 Lane (14.0m wide CC Block)4. 0.9 2.0 1.1 4 Lane (14.0m wide BT)5. 2.0 3.0 1 2 Lane Plus (10m wide BT)6. 3.0 7.0 4 2 Lane (7.0m wide BT )7. 7.0 7.5 0.5 2 Lane (7.0m wide CC )8. 7.5 17.2 9.7 2 Lane (7.0m wide BT )9. 17.2 17.5 0.3 2 Lane (7.0m wide CC )10. 17.5 38 20.5 2 Lane (7.0m wide BT )11. 38.0 38.15 0.15 2 Lane (7.0m wide CC )12. 38.15 42.655 4.505 2 Lane (7.0m wide BT )
Note: Complete project road is 2 lane configuration or higher.
3.1.5 Surfacing Type
The entire project road stretch has bituminous surface type pavement, except at followinglocations, where existing pavement is Cement Concrete. Table below presents the list ofsection where existing cement concrete pavement exists.
Table 3.2B: Cement Concrete Pavement Sections
S. No.Existing Chainage (In
km) Length Lane ConfigurationFrom To km
1. 0.0 0.4 0.4 4 Lane (14.0m wide CC)2. 0.8 0.9 0.1 4 Lane (14.0m wide CC)3. 7.0 7.5 0.5 2 Lane (7.0m wide CC )4. 17.2 17.5 0.3 2 Lane (7.0m wide CC )5. 38.0 38.15 0.15 2 Lane (7.0m wide CC )
Total Length 1.45 km
3.1.6 Shoulder
Shoulder width varies from 1 to 2m along the Project Road. The shoulder is in faircondition except at some locations.
3.1.7 Embankment Height
The average height of embankment varies from 0.0m to 0.5 m except at approaches to thebridges. Sections of the project road pass through the sections with country level higherthan the project road. Sand dunes on one and/or both side of the project road.
3.1.8 Right of Way
Consultant collected the revenue map and the revenue maps/records shows the existingRight of Way (ROW) is varying from a minimum of 24m to a maximum of 38m. Tablebelow list the details of the existing ROW along the project road. However pertinent to
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 6
mention that the land width (existing RoW) is sufficient for upgradation of project road to2-lane with gravel shoulder.
Road side drainage is not noticed in the rural sections of the road.
3.1.11 Horizontal Curves
The existing horizontal geometry of the entire section of the project road meets therequired standards stipulated by IRC. However it consists of sharp curves with poorgeometric at the builtup locations.
Toposervey Instruments - DGPS
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 8
3.1.12 Road Junctions
There are existing 19 junctions across the project road. Most of the minor junctions lead tothe nearby villages while major junctions connect the major highways/ roads leading tomajor cities of Rajasthan and Punjab. Details of all these major and minor junctions arepresented in Table 3.4A below.
7. 4.967 T -8. 6.874 T Jorkiya -9. 10.45 T - Nochak10. 13.06 + Himawali Sampat Nagar
11. 18.17 T Dholipal RailwayStation Road -
12. 22.54 T Buglanwali -13. 23.56 T Singhpura RHS14. 28.69 T Budh Singhwala LHS15. 35.2 + Sadulshahar Sangaria Road16. 36.68 + Sadulshahar Nurpura17. 40.382 T Sadulshahar - RJ SH 7B18. 42.22 T Malot RHS
19. 42.55 T - Malot Sadulshaharto Malot Road
Note: In addition all the Black Top junctions shall be upgraded as per MoRT&H standards.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 9
Fig 3.3: Major Junction along the of Project Road
Fig 3.4: Minor Junction along the Project Road
3.1.13 Road Signs
Informatory signs exist to guide the drivers along the highway from safety point of view.Road signs shall be provided as per IRC stipulations.
3.1.14 Pavement Condition Survey
Detailed field studies have been carried out to collect pavement/shoulder/drainageconditions and are presented in Appendix 3.2 Pavement Condition Survey.
Pavement Condition
Pavement condition survey was done primarily by visual observations supplementedby simple measurement for rut depth using a 3.0m straight edge. The rating system forpavement condition was done, with reference from IRC: 81-1997 (Clause 4.2.1). Acriterion for classification of pavement sections is given in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5: Criteria for Classification of Pavement Sections
Classification Pavement Condition
Good No cracking, rutting less than 10mm.
Fair No cracking or cracking confined to single crack in the wheel trackwith rutting between 10mm and 20mm.
Poor Extensive cracking less than 20% and/or rutting greater than 20mm
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 10
Classification Pavement ConditionVery Poor /
Failed Sections with cracking exceeding 20% (Need for Reconstruction)
The riding quality of the pavement visually varies from good to poor, general qualitybeing fair. Mostly two types of cracks were observed namely, longitudinal cracks andalligator cracks. Based on the criteria described in Table 3.5, about 12.0 km (28%) of theroad is found to be in good condition, while 28.5 km (66%) of the road is in faircondition. While the remaining 2.5 km (6%) of the road section has cracking between20% to 30% of the road section and hence adjudged as poor pavement.
The overall pavement condition is depicted graphically in Fig 3.6.
Fig 3.5: Road Condition/ Status
Fig 3.6: Pavement Condition
3.1.15 Shoulder Condition
Gravel shoulder is observed on both sides along the project road with varying widthbetween 1.0 to 2.0m. Out of 43.0km of the project road, 41 km (95.3%) of the earthenshoulder is in fair condition while the remaining 2 km (4.7%) of the road is in poorcondition.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 11
3.1.16 Drainage Condition
Road side drainage is not noticed in the rural sections of the road. Sufficient camber existsto drain off the water from carriageway surface. There are
Ø 7 minor bridge and
Ø 56 culverts in 43.0 km length.
3.2 BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION TECHNIQUE
The evaluation of structural strength of existing flexible pavement was carried out usinga Benkelman Beam in accordance with the procedure given in IRC:81-1997.
A standard truck having a rear axle weighing 8200kg fitted with dual tyre inflated to apressure of 5.60 kg/sq.cm was used for loading the pavement. The beam was calibratedusing metal plates of known thickness prior to testing. The dual wheels of the truck arecentered above the selected point.
Deflection surveys have been carried out as per the scheme given below:
· Main line surveys;
· Control section testing
The deflection tests for the main line have been carried out at one set of 10 readings in250m for every three km of the project road. The homogeneous sections have beencarried out for each 250m based on the data derived from pavement condition surveys.The deflection measurements for such homogeneous section were at an interval of 25m.Pavement temperature was recorded at every one hour during the testing period by athermometer (approximately 5 cm deep and 10 mm diameter hole) drilled in thepavement and filled with glycerol. At any deviation of the pavement temperatureduring measurements from the standard temperature of 35o C, correction has beenapplied to the deflection measured in accordance with the procedure described inIRC:81-1997. Seasonal correction was carried out using the moisture correction factorsgiven in Figures 2 to 7 in IRC:81-1997. PI and moisture content of the subgrade wereestablished from test pit excavations carried out simultaneously with the BenkelmanBeam tests. The Benkelman Beam Deflection data are presented in Table 3.6, thegraphical representation of the same is presented in Fig. 3.8. The detail analysis ispresented in Appendix 3.3.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 12
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
4 8 10 13 17 20 23 26 29 32 34 37 40
Characteristic Deflection
Chainage
Fig 3.7: View of BBD Survey at km 40+175
Table 3.6: Characteristic Deflection along the Project Road
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 17
3.4 MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS
The sources for material; metal quarry material and sand quarry have been identifiedaround the project area in Ganganagar and Bikaner Districts.
3.4.1 Borrow Area Soil
The borrow areas were identified in and around (not within ROW) and along theProject Road. The suitability of borrow material is established from laboratory testing.
Table 3.10: Details of Borrow Soil Location
Sl. No. Chainage Side1 9.200 RHS2 21.600 LHS3 33.100 RHS
The laboratory test results of borrow are samples is presented in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11: Test Results of Borrow Area Soil
ExistingChainage
Km
% passing through I.S. Sieve % SandContent
Atterberg's Limits
4.75 mm 2.00 mm 425 mic. 75 mic L.L. P.L. P.I.
9.200 100.00 98.35 91.88 48.35 51.65 21.40 - NP
21.600 100.00 99.06 93.74 46.72 53.28 23.60 - NP
33.100 100.00 98.67 92.88 41.89 58.11 22..30 - NP
ExistingChainage
Km
Classificationas per I.S.-1498-1970
FreeSwellingIndex (%)
FieldMoisture
(%)
M.D.D.(gm/cc) O.M.C. (%)
C.B.R. (%) Insoaked
condition
9.200 NP 0.00 5.12 1.915 10.80 10.66
21.600 NP 0.00 4.87 1.896 11.30 10.01
33.100 NP 0.00 5.50 1.921 10.40 11.15
As 90 percentile of the borrow area samples has CBR value greater than 10%. Hence forpavement design CBR value adopted is 10%.
3.4.2 Sand Quarry
Sources of natural sand have been primarily identified for construction works and aregiven in Table 3.12. Sand samples collected from these sources were sent to thelaboratory for grain size analysis and determination of their zoning and finenessmodulus.
Table 3.12: Lists of Source of Materials
Sl. No. Location District State1 Pimpad Churu Rajasthan
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 18
3.4.3 Aggregates
The aggregates to be used for the project are from Government approved quarries in theproject vicinity from Ganganagar and Hanumangarh district. The Quarry chart ispresented below as Fig 3.10.
Fig 3.9: Quarry Chart for Project Road
3.5 INVENTORY AND CONDITION SURVEY OF BRIDGES AND CULVERTS
There are 7 minor bridges and 56 culverts in 43.0 km stretch of project road. Details ofexisting culverts and bridges are presented in Appendix 3.4 and Appendix 3.5respectively. The no. of existing bridge and culverts is presented below in Table 3.13.Detailed development proposal of the additional culverts are given in Chapter-5:Improvement / Upgrading Proposals.
Table 3.13: Summary of Existing Bridges and Culverts
Sl. No.Bridges Culverts
CausewayMajor Minor Pipe Slab Arch
1 Nil 7 8 48 Nil Nil
List of Minor Bridge along with the span arrangement & width of carriageway ispresented in table below.
S. No. Chainage(In Km) Type of Structure No. of Spans
(m) Width (m)
1. 5.110 RCC Solid Slab 3 X 4.2 7.22. 9.980 RCC Solid Slab 2 X 5.6 12.03. 16.410 RCC Solid Slab 2 X 4.0 12.0
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 19
S. No. Chainage(In Km) Type of Structure No. of Spans
(m) Width (m)
4. 22.150 RCC Solid Slab 2 X 3.2 12.05. 40.260 RCC Solid Slab 2 X 3.9 7.06. 41.530 RCC Solid Slab 2 X 3.8 7.07. 42.520 RCC Solid Slab 5 X 11.5 8.0
Condition survey of bridge is presented in Appendix 3.6.
Minor Bridget at km 5+100 Minor Bridge at km 42+520
3.6 RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSING
The project road crosses railway tracks at one location as level crossing. The summaryof existing level crossing is given below:
Table 3.14: Summary of Existing Level Crossings
Sl.No. Location TrackDetails TVU Data Remarks
1 2.965(C-66) BG (Single) 1,39,089,
30 March 2014
As per IRC 62-1976 the TVUis more than 50,000 and
requires ROB construction
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 3 - 20
Fig 3.10: Railway Crossing along the Project Road at Km 2.965
As per June 2013 data, the Railway Crossing Ch. 2/965 serves 139,089 TVU.
Fig 3.11: Plan showing Railway Crossing along the Project Road at Km 2.965
Table 4.3: Classification of Vehicles for Traffic Surveys .............................................................. 5
Table 4.4: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ........................................................................................ 6Figure 4.2: Traffic Variation (in ADT) at both Locations ............................................................. 7
Table 4.5: Season Correction Factor (SCF) Based on Diesel Sales Data ...................................... 8
Table 4.6: Vehicle-wise SCF to be adopted ................................................................................... 8
Table 4.7: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) ........................................................................ 9
Table 4.8: Traffic Zoning System ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4.3: Commodity Distribution Chart ................................................................................ 11
Table 4.10: Load Distribution of Freight Vehicles ...................................................................... 11
Figure 4.4: Load Distributions of Goods Vehicles ...................................................................... 12
Table 4.11: Average Load by Vehicle Types ............................................................................... 12Table 4.12: Major OD Pairs – Passenger Vehicles ...................................................................... 12
Table 4.13: Major OD Pairs – Freight Vehicles ........................................................................... 13
Table 4.14: Major Traffic Generators ........................................................................................... 13
Table 4.16: State Representation on the Project Road ................................................................ 14Table 4.17: Registered Motor Vehicles in PIA ............................................................................ 15
Table 4.18: Growth in NSDP states in PIA .................................................................................. 15
Table 4.19: Elasticity Calculated by graphical method .............................................................. 15
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 3
CHAPTER–4:TRAFFICSURVEY&ANALYSIS
4.1. BACKGROUND
The Project Road (SH-7A) starts from Hanumangarh (Km. 0.000) and ends at Abohar(km 43.000) (Rajasthan/ Punjab Border). Project Road passes through Hanumangarhand Ganganagar districts of Rajasthan. The major settlements along the projectcorridor are Hanumangarh, Satipura, Dholipal, Kheruwala, Hathiyanwala,Kararwala.Km 0.0 to km 43.0 of SH-7A comprising the section from Hanumangarh to Abohar(upto Punjab border) (the Highway – III)
4.2. STUDY OBJECTIVEFor making the proper assessment of traffic volume, base year traffic and itsprojection, Consultants, M/s AECOM have carried out the necessary traffic surveysand investigations. The base year traffic data is the primary input for determinationof future traffic demand. With a view to estimate the base year traffic volume inrespect of goods and passenger carrying vehicles, the Classified Traffic VolumeCount (CTVC) surveys, Origin and Destination survey and Axle Load survey wereconducted. For the purpose of traffic estimation and projections the year 2014-15 hasbeen taken as the base year.
4.3. IDENTIFICATION OF HOMOGENEOUS SECTIONS (HS)
The project road has been divided into two homogenous sections with respect tovariation in traffic volume based on location of major intersections & majorsettlements. These homogenous sections are given in Table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1: Traffic Homogenous Sections
HomogenousSection # From km to km Length
(km) Remarks
HS-1 0+000 to 17+000 17 Hanumangarh to Dholipal
HS-2 17+000 to 43+000 26 Dholipal to Sadulshahar(Upto Abohar Border)
Based on the homogenous sections proposed above, traffic survey has beenperformed at locations and schedule mentioned in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Traffic Survey Locations and Schedules
Location Duration Date of Survey Remarks
Classified Traffic Volume Count
Km 8+000 7 Days x 24Hours
22-Aug to 29-Aug-2014&
7-Mar to 14-Mar-2015
Near Raodawali
Km 28+300 Near Khairuwala
Axle Load & OD Survey
km 28+300 1 Day 22nd Aug 2014 Near Khairuwala
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 4
4.4. CLASSIFIED TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTThe Classified Traffic Volume Count is carried out at 7 locations in the month of
· I Count in Aug 2014 (from 22-Aug-2014 to 29-Aug-2014) and
· II Count in Mar 2015 (from 7-Mar-2015 to 14-Mar-2015)
The Classified Traffic Volume Count is carried out at 2 locations twice. The vehicleclassification was done as per IRC: SP 19-1991 and IRC: 9-1972 code requirementsand vehicle category added/revised as per the change in tolling policy.
Figure 4.1: Survey Location Map
OD & Axle Load Survey
Classified Traffic Count
RJ/PB bor.
Hanumangarh
Dholipal
Sadulsahar
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 5
The purpose of the survey is to calculate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on all thetraffic homogeneous sections and to convert the traffic into PCU, for CapacityAnalysis and fixing of concession period. Vehicle classification and PCU factorsadopted are presented in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3: Classification of Vehicles for Traffic Surveys
4.5. DATA ANALYSIS – Classified Traffic Volume Count
Under the present study, manually 7 days traffic volume counts were carried out at 2locations twice.
· I Count in Aug 2014 (from 22-Aug-2014 to 29-Aug-2014) and
· II Count in Mar 2015 (from 7-Mar-2015 to 14-Mar-2015)
Survey was done round-the-clock 24X7 at all 2 locations. The survey stations havebeen located away from urban agglomerations and villages to minimize interferenceof local traffic. The summary of daily traffic count at all survey locations is presentedbelow in Table 4.4. For details refer Appendix 4.1
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 6
Table 4.4: Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Vehicle Type PCUFactor
km 08+000 km 28+300
1stCount
2ndCount Average 1st
Count2nd
Count Average
Car 1 1256 1780 1518 1128 1485 1306
Mini Bus 1.5 22 12 17 21 17 19
Standard Bus 3 134 112 123 145 125 135
LCV 1.5 64 55 60 88 70 79
2-Axle 3 21 12 17 46 66 56
3-Axle 3 103 132 118 138 136 137
MAV (4 to 6) 4.5 93 111 102 99 123 111
ADT Tolled 1693 2214 1954 1665 2022 1843
PCU Tolled 2578 3148 2863 2724 3150 2937
2-Wheeler 0.5 2374 2143 2259 1388 1309 1349
3- Wheeler 1 122 63 93 50 15 33
Tractors with trailer 4.5 419 183 301 135 171 153Tractors without
trailer 1.5 82 12 47 66 85 76
Cycles 0.5 85 59 72 67 125 96
Cycle Rickshaw 2 11 2 7 12 1 7
Animal-Cart 6 37 35 36 31 11 21
ADT Non Tolled 3130 2497 2814 1749 1717 1733
PCU Non Tolled 3604 2220 2912 1694 1697 1696
Exempted Car 1 147 205 176 132 172 152
Exempted LCV 1.5 7 0 4 5 0 3
Exempted Truck 3 11 8 10 5 6 6
ADT Exempted 165 213 189 142 178 160
PCU Exempted 190 229 209 155 190 172
ADT Total 4988 4924 4956 3556 3917 3737
PCU Total 6372 5597 5984 4573 5037 4805
Percentage Non-Tolled 60% 44% 52% 40% 37% 39%
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 7
Figure 4.2: Traffic Variation (in ADT) at both Locations
4.6. AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT)For the purpose of analysis the traffic data is needed in Average Annual Daily Traffic(AADT) terms. This is arrived at by incorporating the seasonal variations in trafficmovement on Project Roads. Thus, in order to capture the seasonality in trafficmovement, consultant collected the petrol and diesel sales data from petrol pumpsalong the Project Road. Table 4.5 presents the monthly variation in sales of diesel &Petrol data and the calculated SCF.
Car/ Taxi M Bus Bus LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAVkm 08+000 1518 17 123 60 17 118 102km 28+300 1306 19 135 79 56 137 111
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Traf
fic(A
DT)
Traffic Variation at both Locations
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 8
Table 4.5: Season Correction Factor (SCF) Based on Diesel Sales Data
1st Survey is conducted in month of August. Considering the monsoon season of fourmonths from July to October, SCF value is taken as average of these four months.Similarly the 2nd count is conducted in the month March hence SCF is calculated forthe month from March to May, SCF value is taken as average of these three monthssummarizing the seasonal correction factor applicable on different vehicle categoriesis presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Vehicle-wise SCF to be adopted
Sr. No. Vehicle
Seasonal Correction Factor(SCF) Remark
SCF- Aug SCF - Mar
1 Car 1.05 0.97 Assuming 30% Petrol & 70%Diesel Running Cars
2 Bus 1.07 0.96 100% Diesel Running Buses
3 Truck 1.07 0.96 100% Diesel Running Trucks
Based on the SCF values adopted for different types of vehicles, AADT values arecalculated. Categorization of vehicles as per the types mentioned in the toll policy ispresented in Table 4.7 below
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 9
Table 4.7: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
Location km 8 km 28Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle 1523 1312
Tractor with trolley carrying non-agricultural produce 0 0
Light Commercial Vehicle, Mini Bus 79 100Bus 125 138
2-Axle Truck 17 563-Axle Truck 118 139
HCM or EME or Multi Axle Vehicle (MAV)(4 to 6 axles) 103 112
Oversized Vehicles (>7axle) 0 0
Tollable PCUs 2887 2965
Non Tollable PCUs 3193 1885
Total PCUs 6080 4850
Linear chart below presents the distribution of the traffic homogeneous sectionsalong with the major built-ups and major junctions influencing the traffic.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 10
4.7. DATA ANALYSIS – Origin Destination SurveyDuring the OD survey all the relevant information was collected from the vehicleoperators in pre-designed format by stopping vehicles at random sample basis. Thecollected data includes vehicle number, origin and destination place, commoditycarried, distance traveled etc.
4.7.1 Zoning System
For analysis of O-D data and preparation of trip tables for studying the regionalinteraction, a zoning system was developed. Project influence area and tripgenerating and attraction points were the major consideration while developingzoning system. In all, a 10-zone system was developed. Out of which, 3 are internalzones (zones falling along the project corridor) and 2 are intermediate zones (zonesfalling with in the State) remaining zones are external. The list of traffic zones ispresented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Traffic Zoning System
Sr.no Zone .no Zone Name Zone Type1 101 Hanumangarh
Internal Zones2 102 Khairuwala,Dholipal3 103 Abohar,Sadul, Hatyawala4 201 Sri Ganganagar, matili Intermediate Zones5 202 Rest of Rajasthan6 301 Punjab
4.7.2 Goods Vehicles – Commodity AnalysisDifferent commodities recorded during the O-D survey were classified into 10categories. Due consideration has been given to include all possible commoditiesmoving along the Project Road.
Commodity pattern shows prominent movement of building materials, householditems and food items along the Project Road. Distribution of various commodities ispresented in Table 4.9 and is graphically presented in Figure 4. below.
Table 4.9: Commodity Distribution
Type of Commodity % DistributionAnimal Food 1%Automobiles & machines 4%Building Material 31%
Food Grains 9%Food items 14%Household items 21%
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 11
Type of Commodity % DistributionOther 14%Petroleum Product 1%Wooden products 1%Stationary 3%
Figure 4.3: Commodity Distribution Chart
4.7.3 Goods Vehicles – Load Analysis
Survey data is analyzed to assess the load distribution for goods vehicles. The Loaddistribution observed for different vehicle types is grouped into various ranges. Theload distribution is shown in Table 4.10 and is graphically represented in Figure 4.4.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 12
Analysis shows that 45% of 3 Axle trucks moving along the Project Road are over-loaded. Overloading is also seen in 2 Axle trucks with 11% and 4% of multi Axletrucks being over-loaded.
Figure 4.4: Load Distributions of Goods Vehicles
The average and maximum Load for freight vehicles is given in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Average Load by Vehicle Types
4.7.4 Major OD Pairs
For a comprehensive study, goods and passenger vehicles at all the stations weregrouped, to work out the major O-D movements along the Project Road. Table 4.12through Table 4.14 below present the same. For details refer Appendix 4.2
Table 4.12: Major OD Pairs – Passenger Vehicles
Major OD Pairs -Passenger Percentage
AboharRest of Rajasthan 7%Punjab 3%
Hanumangarh
Abohar 46%Sri Ganganagar 6%Rest of Rajasthan 4%Punjab 6%
Khairuwala Abohar 21%Sri Ganganagar 3%
37%
8%
11%
45%
0%
19%
0%
4%
73%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
<12.5
12.5 to 20
20 to 25
25 to 60
>60
Load
inTo
nnes
Load Distribution Chart
MAV 2 / 3 Axle
VehicleAvg. Load (Tones)
Inclusive Empty Haulage Max. Load Passed
2/3-Axle 25 60
4-6 Axle 34 63
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 13
Table 4.13: Major OD Pairs – Freight Vehicles
Major OD Pairs -Goods PercentageAbohar Hanumangarh 27%
Jammu/Himachal Hanumangarh 5%Rest of Rajasthan 14%
Sri GanganagarHanumangarh 4%Abohar 7%Sri Ganganagar 1%
Table 4.14: Influence Factor
Zones Goods Vehicles Passenger VehiclesHanumangarh 23% 32%Khairuwala,Dholipal 0% 13%Abohar,Sadul,Hatyawala 17% 39%Sri Ganganagar, matili 2% 4%Rest of Rajasthan 21% 6%Punjab 18% 5%Jammu/Himachal 10% 0%Haryana 1% 0%MP/Gujarat 5% 0%South India 3% 0%
4.8. AXLE LOAD SURVEYAxle load survey was conducted at km 28+3000 to estimate vehicle damage factor(VDF). Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) is required in the design of overlays onexisting pavement and new pavement design for Additional Lanes/ Widening/Realignment/ Reconstruction.
4.8.1 Analysis For Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)
VDF is a multiplier for converting the number of commercial vehicles of differentaxle loads to the number of standard axle load repetitions. Design of new pavementfor Additional Lanes/Widening/New Construction/Reconstruction orstrengthening of existing pavement is based upon the cumulative number of 8.16tonne Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) that will pass over during the design period.The VDF values are used in calculating the design traffic (in MSA) for pavementdesign. Adopted VDF for calculating the MSA are given in Table 4.15. For detailsRefer Appendix 4.3
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 14
Table 4.15: Analysed Vehicle Damage Factors
km-28+300 BUS LCV 2AV 3AV 4-6 AV
VDF - CAlculated 0.97 0.81 4.53 4.53 13.34
As per clause 5.5.5 of manual, concessionaire with better enforcement can consider thelower VDF values. Accordingly the consultant has assumed the VDF value of 4.5 forCommercial vehicles. Clause 5.5.5 as presented in the manual is presented for readyreference.
Hence based on the above mentioned clause the adopted VDF is presentedbelow.
LocationAdopted VDF
Bus LCV Trucks
Km 28.300 0.97 0.81 4.5
4.9. GROWTH RATE4.9.1 Growth Rate (Forecasted)
The PR falls in average NSDP region of the country. The PIA covers the Rajasthan,Punjab, Delhi & Haryana State predominantly.
Table 4.16: State Representation on the Project Road
Trucks 74% 26% 0% 0% The actual achieved growth in registered motor vehicle in the PIA is presentedbelow.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 15
Ø The registered motor vehicle of the states in the PIA, are weighted in the ratioof their influence in each category of vehicle are presented below.
Table 4.17: Registered Motor Vehicles in PIA
Year Cars/ Jeep Buses LCV Trucks
2007-08 7,56,777 65,605 33,099 2,20,477
2008-09 8,30,745 69,298 37,344 2,33,208
2009-10 9,16,807 73,257 40,014 2,53,574
2010-11 10,17,761 77,980 42,912 2,80,835
2011-12 11,06,742 83,345 46,217 3,15,134 The actual achieved growth in NSDP in the PIA is presented below.
Table 4.18: Growth in NSDP states in PIA
Year NSDP RJ NSDP PB NSDP HR2006-07 13,43,50,00,00,000 10,00,72,00,00,000 10,47,05,00,00,000
Year on Year Growth2007-08 5% 9% 8%2008-09 8% 6% 8%2009-10 5% 6% 12%2010-11 11% 7% 10%2011-12 11% 6% 8%
Hence the expected growth rate on the PR or PIA is projected considering the NSDPof Rajasthan and elasticity as calculated from previous year Registered motorvehicles & NSDP (Rajasthan)
Elasticity Calculation
Based on the last 5 years vehicle registration data of PIA and the NSDP data of PIA,the Elasticity is calculated as per the figure below.
Table 4.19: Elasticity Calculated by graphical method
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 16
Figure 4.5: Elasticity Chart
To assess the future trend of growth of the traffic on the PR consultant projected theNSDP on the Rajasthan for the last 4 years average is considered as the future NSDPfor next 3 years and further a decreasing NSDP by 1% after every 5 year block,however to account for the increase in trips/development due to the improvedfacility (after construction) consultant have assumed higher elasticity for first 5 yearsafter completion of project.
Table 4.20: Forecasted Growth Rates
Year Car Buses LCV Trucks
2014-15 to 2016-17 7.2% 4.4% 6.1% 7.1%
2017-18 to 2021-22 6.5% 4.0% 4.5% 6.4%
2022-23 to 2026-27 4.3% 3.3% 4.5% 4.3%
>2027-28 4.0% 3.1% 4.2% 4.0%
Note: The overall CAGR is less than the minimum 5% growth rate proposed inManual. Hence consultant adopted 5% constant growth rate for the projection andMSA calculations.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 17
4.10. CAPACITY ANALYSIS
4.10.1 Traffic Projection
The traffic (AADT) at both survey locations is projected to analyses the concessionperiod based on the traffic capacity parameters. Maximum capacity for 2Lane (7.00m)is considered as 15,000 PCUs based on Standard Capacities for roads in Rajasthan,approved by Cabinet Note of Govt. of Rajasthan.
Table 4.21: Traffic Projection (PCUs)
Vehicle Type km 08+000 km 28+000(Proposed TP) Average Remarks
Year 2014-15 6080 4850 5465 Base YearYear 2015-16 6384 5093 5738 Year 1Year 2016-17 6703 5347 6025 Year 2Year 2017-18 7038 5615 6326 Year 3Year 2018-19 7390 5895 6643 Year 4Year 2019-20 7759 6190 6975 Year 5Year 2020-21 8147 6500 7323 Year 6Year 2021-22 8555 6825 7690 Year 7Year 2022-23 8982 7166 8074 Year 8Year 2023-24 9431 7524 8478 Year 9Year 2024-25 9903 7900 8902 Year 10Year 2025-26 10398 8295 9347 Year 11Year 2026-27 10918 8710 9814 Year 12Year 2027-28 11464 9146 10305 Year 13Year 2028-29 12037 9603 10820 Year 14Year 2029-30 12639 10083 11361 Year 15Year 2030-31 13271 10587 11929 Year 16Year 2031-32 13934 11117 12526 Year 17Year 2032-33 14631 11672 13152 Year 18Year 2033-34 15363 12256 13809 Year 19Year 2034-35 16131 12869 14500 Year 20Year 2035-36 16937 13512 15225 Exceed 2L LOS-BYear 2036-37 17784 14188 15986 Year 22Year 2037-38 18674 14897 16785 Year 23Year 2038-39 19607 15642 17625 Year 24Year 2039-40 20588 16424 18506 2L+PS (LOS-B)Year 2040-41 21617 17246 19431 Year 26Year 2041-42 22698 18108 20403 Year 27Year 2042-43 23833 19013 21423 Year 28Year 2043-44 25024 19964 22494 Year 29Year 2044-45 26276 20962 23619 Year 30
Growth rate of 5% is considered for all types of vehicles
Hence maximum concession period of 21 years can be considered at LOS-B.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 4 - 18
4.11. MILLION STANDARD AXLES (MSA)
Design method considers traffic in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles(8160 kg) to be carried by the pavement during the design life.
The project road has been divided into two homogenous sections with respect tovariation in traffic volume based on location of major intersections & majorsettlements. Design Traffic in MSA for 15 years is tabulated below. For details ReferAppendix 4.4
Table 4.22: Summary of Calculated MSA
HomogenousSection # From km to km Length 15 Years Adopted
MSA
HS 1 Hanumangarh km 0+000 toDholipal km 17+000 17.0 9.5
20HS 2
Dholipal km 17+000 toSadulshahar (Upto Abohar
Border) km 43+00026.0 12.1
Note: As per Clause 5.4.1 of IRC:SP 73-2015, design traffic shall not be less than 20msa.
4.12. TOLLING HOMOGENEOUS SECTIONS
Based on the traffic and tolling policy of Government of Rajasthan only one toll plazais proposed for the Project Highway presented below:
Table 4.23: Tolling Homogeneous Sections
S.No. Location TollingLength Reason for Selection
1 Km 28+300 43.0 km Between Hanumangarh km 0+000 andAbohar (up to HR Border) km 43+000
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
5.1 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................................3
Table 5.6: Proposed Overlay Thicknesses on Existing Lane as per IRC:81-1997 ...................................... 8
Table 5.7: Recommended Temperature Differentials for Concrete ........................................................... 9
Table 5.8: Proposed Rigid Pavement thickness at all Toll Plaza Locations ............................................... 9
Table 5.9: Summary of Development of Existing Minor Bridge ............................................................... 9
Table 5.10: Summary of Development of Culverts ..................................................................................10
Table 5.11: Summary of Existing Level Crossings ..................................................................................11
Table 5.12: List of proposed Bus Shelter Locations ................................................................................11
Table 5.13: List of Overhead Traffic Signs .............................................................................................12
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 3
CHAPTER-5: IMPROVEMENT / UPGRADING PROPOSALS
5.1 GENERAL
This chapter is intended to give brief descriptions concerning the various improvementproposals for the up-gradation of existing two lane carriageway facility of 43.000 Kmlong (Design length 42.655) Hanumangarh-Abohar section of SH-7A to two lanecarriageway. The improvement proposal is based on the findings from variousengineering surveys and investigations carried out on the project road section and asdiscussed in Chapter 3: Engineering Survey and Investigation and Chapter 4: TrafficSurvey and Analysis.
2-lane with 2.5m gravel shoulder (both side) is proposed for the Project Road section.All the proposals are in conformity with the provisions of IRC: SP: 73-2007.
Improvement proposals for a highway essentially consist of two components, viz.Geometric and Structural. Geometric improvement deals with visible dimensions ofroadway and is dictated by the traffic and economic considerations. Geometric designinvolves several design elements such as horizontal and vertical alignments, sightdistance considerations, cross sectional elements, lateral and vertical clearances,intersection treatment, control of access, etc.
The structural component deals with the pavement and embankment design aspects, i.e.the ability of the highway to adequately carry and support the vehicle / wheel loadsover the design period.
The improvement proposals for the proposed upgradation & widening to 2-lane withgravel shoulder configuration system includes the provision for the following majoritems:
· Geometric Improvements and realignments· Pavement· Road Junctions· Bridges and Cross-Drainage Structures· Safety and· Road Appurtenances
5.2 GEOMETRIC DESIGN PROPOSALS
The proposal for the improvement of the geometric elements of the existing StateHighway includes:
· Improvement to the cross-sectional elements
· Alignment Design
5.2.1 Improvement to Cross-sectional Elements
Proposed Cross Sectional Elements
Lane Width
The width of a basic traffic lane is proposed to be 3.50m. Thus, for 2-lane, thecarriageway width shall be 7.0m.
Gravel Shoulders2.5m wide gravel shoulder is proposed on both sides of carriageway.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 4
Cross-fall
The cross-fall for the pavement & gravel shoulder will be 2.5% with a crown in thecentre. The cross-fall for granular shoulder will be 3%.
Proposed ROW
The proposed development shall be constructed within the available Right of Way(ROW). Existing RoW varies from 24m to 38m with average RoW of >30m.
Typical Cross Section
The typical cross sections to be followed in the Project stretch are detailed in Volume-2:Drawings.
5.2.2 Development Scheme
The existing project road section of SH-7A has multi-dimensional facets with respect toland use and road geometry and considering all these aspects the section-wise policyadopted for development based on the investigations is given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Tentative Development Scheme
Sl.No.
Existing Km.Stone
ExistingLength
(m)TCS Description
From To
1. 0.000 3.000 3.000 A
No upgradation except maintenance isproposed with safety measures like railing atexisting median, repair of median and repairof drain.
2. 3.000 7.000 4.000 I 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m)
3. 7.000 7.500 0.500 V 2 Lane Overlay (CC) only(Existing 7.0m )(Built-up section)
4. 7.500 14.000 6.500 I 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m)
5. 14.000 15.500 1.500 II 2 Lane reconstruction in BTstretches(Existing 7m)
6. 15.500 17.200 1.700 I 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m)
7. 17.200 17.500 0.300 V 2 Lane Overlay (CC) only(Existing 7.0m )(Built-up section)
8. 17.500 21.500 4.000 I 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m)
9. 21.500 22.500 1.000 II 2 Lane reconstruction in BTstretches(Existing 7m)
10. 22.500 23.500 1.000 IV 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) (Built-upsection) (New construction)
11. 23.500 28.000 4.500 III 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) (Ruralsection) (New construction)
12. 28.000 38.000 10.000 I 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m)
13. 38.000 38.150 0.150 V 2 Lane Overlay (CC) only(Existing 7.0m )(Built-up section)
14. 38.150 42.655 4.505 I 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m)
42.655
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 5
Chainage Reference
The existing km stone available on ground has been used as referencing pillar only.Development proposal has been decided based on the Design Chainage system. Thedifference observed between the existing km stones and design Chainage has beenanalysed and presented in Table 5.2.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 6
Sl. No. Existing Km. Stone Design Chainage40. 39 38.98041. 40 39.99042. 41 40.97043. 42 41.97044. State Border 42.655
The development scheme can be summarised as given in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Summary of Development Scheme
Sl. No. Description Length (km)
1 Only repair & maintenance 3.000
2 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) 30.705
3 2 Lane reconstruction in BT stretches (Existing 7m) 2.500
4 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) (Rural section)(Newly constructed) 4.500
5 2 Lane Overlay (Existing 7.0m) (Built-up section)(Newly constructed) 1.000
6 2 Lane Cement Concrete (CC) only (Existing 7.0m )(Built-up section) 0.950
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT 42.655Note: Minimum 10% CBR for subgrade soil is to be ensured for New, reconstruction stretches.
All the above schemes are general policy decisions; these will be dependent on theprecise geometric configuration, realignment, re-sectioning, reconstruction, exact landwidths available etc.
5.2.3 Alignment Design
The entire geometric design has been based on the ground modelling by highway MXdesign software. The design of proposed alignment for 2-lane with gravel shoulder hasbeen carried out based on the widening scheme as discussed above.
Horizontal Alignment
Efforts have been made during design of horizontal alignment to accommodate theProposed Highway within the available ROW, without compromising with the designstandards as adopted and as discussed in Chapter 2: Design Standards. A minimumradius of 360m has been kept along with a good balance between additional landacquisition, structure and highway geometric. The super-elevation and the length of thetransition curve have been finalised with maximum super-elevation of 7%.
Vertical Alignment
Vertical Alignment is designed for minimum criteria of Intermediate Sight Distance(ISD). The existing road profile is reviewed on the basis of cross-sections taken atregular intervals with the help of Digital Terrain Model (DTM).
Additional culverts have been proposed depending upon the site specificconditions/profile.
5.3 PROPOSAL FOR BYPASSES AND REALIGNMENTS
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 7
Based on the detailed reconnaissance no bypasses and no realignments have beenproposed for this 42.655 km long section extending between Hanumangarh to Abohar.
5.4 PAVEMENT OPTIONS
For the purpose of pavement design the project road is divided into two homogeneoussections as detailed in the traffic chapter.
The purpose of the pavement study is to make analysis of different pavementalternatives to provide a basis for selection of the most advantage solution, consideringall costs occurring during the life of the pavement, viz., construction costs, maintenancecosts and costs for the road users.
In pavement option study, the following is studied in detail:
· New flexible pavement on the widening part and for full reconstruction stretches
· Flexible overlay over the existing pavement
· Flexible Pavement for partial reconstruction stretches of existing pavement.
The different pavement design methods for above pavement options are studied andapplied, which are given in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Pavement Design Methods
Pavement Option Option Type Design Method1 New Flexible Pavement IRC: 37-20122 Flexible Overlay IRC: 81-1997
5.4.1 IRC: 37-2012 Method of Flexible Pavement Design for new construction
Design Life
In view of the Clause 5.4.1, flexible pavement is proposed for the design period of 15years subjected to the condition that design traffic shall not be less than 20msa.
Stage construction is not permitted.
CBR Value
The average CBR value of existing subgrade soil for the entire stretch is considered as10% (refer Table 3.14 of Chapter 3: Engineering Survey and Investigations).
Flexible Pavement Thickness for New pavement and Reconstruction Stretches
Table 5.5: Pavement Design (IRC 37)
Existing Chainage DesignTraffic(MSA)
CBR ofSubgrade
(%)
ViscosityGrade ofBitumen
Proposed Minimum PavementThickness (mm)
From To BC DBM WMM GSB Total
0.000 43.000 20 10 VG 30 40 80 250 200 570
Existing ground to be checked for suitability and loosened & re-compacted to desiredMDD and CBR.
5.4.2 IRC: 81-1997 Method of Overlay Design for overlay of existing pavements
The average characteristic deflection (Dc) values to be used for design purposes havebeen worked from BBD survey. The thicknesses are deduced from Figure 9 of IRC 81-
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 8
1997 in terms of bituminous macadam construction.
TestSection
Chainage, Km CharacteristicDeflection(mm), Dc
MSABM
Required,mm
BC/DBMRequired,
mm
ProposedOverlay, mm
From To BC DBM
1 04.000 04.250 1.71
20
133 93 40 55
2 08.000 08.250 2.06 170 119 40 80
3 10.000 10.250 2.19 179 125 40 85
4 13.000 13.225 2.01 166 116 40 75
5 17.000 17.250 1.97 162 114 40 75
6 20.000 20.225 1.89 154 108 40 70
7 23.000 23.225 1.92 157 110 40 70
8 26.000 26.225 1.83 147 103 40 65
9 29.000 29.225 2.02 167 117 40 75
10 32.000 32.225 1.81 145 102 40 60
11 34.000 34.225 1.31 74 52 40 10
12 37.000 37.225 1.77 140 98 40 60
13 40.000 40.225 1.46 103 72 40 30
Based on the above table the overlay requirement is calculated section wise and same issummarized & presented in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Proposed Overlay Thicknesses on Existing Lane as per IRC:81-1997Description BC DBM
For Stretches proposed for overlay only 40 mm 80 mm
5.4.3 IRC: 58-2011 Method of Rigid Pavement Design – For Toll Plaza locations
Rigid pavement for new carriageway has been designed as per IRC: 58.
Design Period
Normally, cement concrete pavements have a life span of 30 years and should bedesigned for this period.
Design Traffic
Design traffic of 25 per cent of the total two- lane two-way commercial vehicles may beconsidered as a very conservative estimate for design against fatigue failure. In case offour-lane and multi-lane divided highways, 25 per cent of the total traffic in thedirection of predominant traffic may be taken for design of pavement.
Temperature Differential
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 9
Temperature differential between the top and bottom of pavements causes the concreteslab to warp, giving rise to stresses. For this purpose, guidance may be had fromTable 5.7.
Table 5.7: Recommended Temperature Differentials for Concrete
Zone StatesTemperatures Differentials, 0C in
Slabs of Thickness15cm 20cm 25cm 30cm
IPunjab, U.P., Uttaranchal, Gujarat, Rajasthan,Haryana and North M.P., excluding hillyregions.
12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8
Considering all the stipulation of IRC 58-2011 the proposed rigid pavement thickness atToll Plaza locations is presented in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8: Proposed Rigid Pavement thickness at all Toll Plaza Locations
Material Type Thickness (mm)Pavement Quality Concrete (M-40) 300Dry Lean Concrete (M-15) 150Granular Sub-base 150Subgrade 500
5.5 DESIGN
5.5.1 Details of Junctions Improvement Proposal
All major/minor junctions on the project highway need to be upgraded and merged withthe upgraded project road. Drawings of the junction improvement are given along withplan and profile.
5.5.2 Design of Bridges and Cross-Drainage Structures
Seven minor bridges exist on the project road and the same has been proposed to beretained with widening in three of the seven bridges. The development proposal for allthe existing bridges is tabulated in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9: Summary of Development of Existing Minor Bridge
Location(Chainage)
SpanArrangement
Width of carriagewaybetween kerbs (m)
ProposedUpgradation
5.100 3 X 4.2 7.2 Widening9.950 2 X 5.6 12.0 Rehabilitation
16.500 2 X 4.0 12.0 Rehabilitation22.300 2 X 3.2 12.0 Rehabilitation40.260 2 X 3.9 7.0 Widening
41.530 2 X 3.8 7.0 Widening42.800 5 X 11.5 8.0 Rehabilitation
Note: Five minor bridges are proposed for widening as the width of carriageway is<7.5m (minimum required as per clause 7.3.2 of manual).
a) Culverts
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 10
There are total 56 existing culverts in the proposed road corridor, out of which 32 areproposed for widening /Reconstruction. A summary of the development proposal isgiven in Table 5.10.
Note: 1. Besides the above, the provision of Hume pipe / slab culverts at junctions of crossroads shall be provided/ augmented as per site requirement in consultation withIndependent Engineer and it shall not be treated as Change of Scope.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 11
2.Culverts which are retained to be treated with minor/major repairs such as vegetationclearance, plastering of reinforcement exposed surfaces, silt removal & bed clearance andreplacement of parapet which are damaged etc. in accordance with para 7.23 of manual.
5.5.3 Longitudinal Drains
RCC covered drain in built-up section shall be provided. Exact location of the drain shallbe determined by the Concessionaire in consultation with the Independent Engineer. Anindicative list of locations and length of the drain is given below:
S. No.Design Chainage (in Km.) Design Length of Drain on
each Side (m)From To1 7.000 7.500 5002 17.200 17.500 3003 19.500 20.500 10004 38.000 38.150 150
Length 1950 m
5.5.4 Improvement Proposal of Railway Level Crossings
The project road crosses railway tracks at one location as level crossing. The summaryof existing level crossing is given below:
Table 5.11: Summary of Existing Level Crossings
Sl.No. Location TrackDetails TVU Data
Remarks
1 2.965 BG (Single) 1,39,08930 March 2014 No ROB Proposed.
In view of the site constrain in proposing ROB, a joint site visit was conducted. It wasconcluded by PWD officials, not to propose ROB at this location.
5.6 ROAD FURNITURE AND OTHER FEATURES
5.6.1 Introduction
The road furniture, traffic safety features and other facilities included in the design are:
· Bus Shelters
· Road Markings
· Traffic Signs
· Kilometre Stone Details
· 200m Stones and Boundary Stones
5.6.2 Bus Shelters
Bus Shelters are tentatively proposed as per the recommendations of IRC: 80-1981 andon both sides of all built-up locations. However, the exact locations to be decided onground in consultation with Independent Engineers/ Client.
Table 5.12: List of proposed Bus Shelter Locations
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 12
Sl. No. Design Chainage(Km) Side (LHS/RHS) Settlement
Note: 1) Between the bus shelter and the carriageway, an additional paved area of 2.5 m widthand 20 m length should be provided in order to enable a bus to stop without obstructingthe flow of traffic.2) Appropriate provision shall be provided at Bus shelters so as to have ease of access todisabled people.
5.6.3 Overhead Traffic Signs
5 nos. of overhead traffic signs shall be provided on the Project Highway. Location shallbe finalised in consultation with IE.
Table 5.13: List of Overhead Traffic Signs
Sl. No. Location Nos. Size
1 Near Hanumangarh at km 4(Near Bypass)
1 Full width Gantry Mounted
2 Bypass of Hanumangarh(Towards Abohar)
1 Full width Gantry Mounted
3 Junction at SH-7B 2 Cantilever Gantry4 End of Project Road 1 Full width Gantry Mounted
5.6.4 Road Markings
Since the project road lane configuration is proposed to be double lane with no divider,hence from traffic safety point of view the road markings are must as the markingsserve as psychological barriers, essential to ensure smooth and orderly flow of trafficand to promote road safety.
The location and type of marking lines, material and colour is followed using IRC:35“Code of Practice for Road Markings”.
5.6.5 Cautionary, Mandatory and Informatory Signs
Cautionary, mandatory and informatory signs have been provided depending on thesituation and function they perform in accordance with the IRC: 67-2012 guidelines forRoad Signs.
5.6.6 Kilometer Stone Details
The details of kilometre stones are in accordance with IRC: 8-1980 guidelines. Kilometrestones are located on the left-hand side of the road as one proceeds from the stationfrom which the Kilometre count starts. Kilometre stones shall be fixed at right angles tothe centre line of the carriageway.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 5 - 13
5.6.7 200m Stones
The details of 200m stones conform to IRC: 26 and IRC:25. 200m stones are located onthe same side of the road as the kilometre stones.
5.7 DESIGN OF TOLL PLAZA
Location of toll plazas has been proposed at km 28+300, based on the traffic dispersalpattern, road geometry and vertical profile of the road and the surrounding area.
The location of the toll plazas is based on the following:
· Only one toll plaza on the project highway (SH-7A) hence no impact /considerationof distance between the next toll plazas.
· Nearest major settlements and municipal limits is Hanumangarh that is 25km away.
· Maximum tollable traffic shall be captured hence good financial viability
· Away from bridges and culverts
· Away from junctions
· Away from sharp curves
5.7.1 Toll lanes
Normal Toll lane of 3.2m width along with one extra lane of 4.1m width is consideredfor tolled as well as non- Tollable/exempt vehicles and oversized (extra wide) vehicles,which cannot pass through regular toll lanes. Hence a minimum of 1+1 Toll lanes, withprovision of adding toll lanes as per future requirement is recommended for the projectroad.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 6 - 2
CHAPTER-6: COST ESTIMATE
6.1 GENERAL
The project cost estimates have been prepared based on various items of works requiredfor upgrading & improving the existing carriageway by:
· Reconstruction of existing poor stretches.
· Overlaying of existing fair and good stretches.
· Providing Granular shoulders on both sides.
6.2 ESTIMATION OF QUANTITIES
The quantities of major items of works have been worked out based on following:
· Site Clearance: The area considered for Site Clearance is the area within theproposed Right of Way.
· Earth Works: This item provides for roadway excavation, earthwork inembankment, sub-grade and shoulders, medians, islands including disposal ofsurplus earth and unsuitable material. In this stage, the construction ofembankment height has been taken as per site condition. Sub-grade soil having aCBR ≥ 8 % will be taken from borrows area. It is also to be ensured that duringconstruction the existing 500mm thick embankment/ existing ground below thesubgrade is re-compacted to MDD and have CBR value ≥ 8%.
· The pavement quantities like GSB, WMM & Bituminous items etc. have beenworked out based on Typical Cross Sections, pavement design done based ontraffic and with CBR 10%.
· Culverts: The estimation of quantities for culverts is based on site conditions.
· Bridges and Structures: The estimates of quantities for bridges and other structureshave been worked out as per site requirement in order to maintain natural drainagesystem of project area.
· Drainage, Protection Works, Traffic Signs and Markings: Proposed as per siterequirement and as per stipulated norms.
· Bus Shelters have been provided near all built-up / inhabited areas.
· Toll Plaza, Project road is having open tolling system.
6.3 PROJECT COST
After various site visits, site investigations and detailed discussions with Client andlatest in July 2015 the following considerations have been concluded for Cost-estimatingthe improvements of the Project Road Highway-3, Package-1, Hanumangarh to Abohar,42.655 km long stretch. Rate has been adopted from the Basic Schedule of Rates forNational Highway Works 2016 published by PWD- GoR
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Overlay of 2-Lane with 2.50m wide150mm thick Granular Shoulder on
both sides and Overlay with 40mm BConly
NO upgradation proposals 3000 Existing Km 0+000 to Km 3+000, Noupgradation works proposed
Total Length 42.655 km
Note: Minimum 10% CBR for subgrade soil is to be ensured for New and reconstructionstretches.
1) The pavement quantities like GSB, WMM & Bituminous items etc. have been workedout based on Typical Cross Sections, pavement design done based on traffic andwith subgrade as CBR 10%.
2) Proposed Base and Sub-Base Courses for reconstruction and new stretches
Design Chainage DesignTraffic(MSA)
CBR ofSubgrade
(%)
ViscosityGrade ofBitumen
Proposed Minimum PavementThickness (mm)
From To BC DBM WMM GSB Total
0.000 42.655 20 10 VG 30 40 80 250 200 570
3) Proposed Overlay Thicknesses on Existing Lane as per IRC:81-1997
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 6 - 4
Description BC DBM
For Stretches proposed for overlay only 40 mm 80 mm
4) Reconstruction in BT stretches considered from existing GSB layer top in poor
carriageway stretches and considered from subgrade wherever vertical profile is to
be improved.
5) Out of 56 nos. existing culverts, 32 nos. required to be widened /Reconstruction.
6) Out of 7 Minor bridges, 3 no. widening required, for remaining 4 no. minor bridge,
Minor rehabilitation is considered.
7) 1 Nos. of Toll Plaza (1+1) Lane is proposed.
8) Provisioning of Bus shelters 7 nos. considered.
9) All junctions’ development considered.
10) Only 1.95 km covered drain is considered in built-up section on both sides.
11) Highway Lighting considered in Built up section only.
12) Rate Analysis is carried out based on: Basic Schedule of Rates for National
Highway Works 2016 published by PWD- GoR.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 6 - 5
The Cost Summary for the project up-gradation is presented hereunder:
S.No. Bill No. Description AmountPercentage
(%)
1 Bill No 1 SITE CLEARANCE & DISMANTLING 11,36,293 0.3%
2
Bill No 2 EARTH WORKS
2,60,98,176
5.8%
3 Bill No 3 GRANULAR SUB-BASE AND BASECOURSES 3,49,70,320 7.8%
4 Bill No 4 BITUMINOUS & RIGID WORKS 23,13,67,981 51.7%
5 Bill No 5 CROSS DRAINAGE WORKS(CULVERTS) 83,00,700 1.9%
6Bill No 6
STRUCTURAL WORKS (BRIDGES ,UNDERPASSES, FLY OVERS &INTERCHANGE) 1,21,55,040
9 Bill No 9 HIGHWAY LIGHTING 86,52,000 1.9%10 Bill No 10 TOLL PLAZA 2,25,00,000 5.0%
11 Bill No 11 JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT, BUSSHELTERS 2,62,66,934 5.9%
TOTAL COST FOR CIVIL WORKS 44,77,04,135 100%
Cost for Civil works Per Km 1.05 Crores
# hence, the Civil Cost for the project up-gradation is 44.77 Crores.
6.4 COST OF NON-CIVIL WORKS
Cost of non-civil items is calculated based on the new Land Acquisition Act2013. Resettlement and Environmental Mitigation cost is calculated based onconsultant survey detailed in EIA & SIA reports.
Ø Cost of Utility shifting = Rs 0.76 Cr.
Ø Total Resettlement Budget = Rs 0.28 Cr.
Ø Environmental Mitigation Cost = Rs 0.88 Cr.
Ø Land Acquisition Cost = Rs 0.0 Cr.
Total cost of Non-Civil works = Rs 1.92 Crores
Pertinent to mention cost of non-civil items shall be borne by the Governmentof Rajasthan.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 6 - 6
Utility Shifting Involves
S. No. Description of Material Unit Qty.
1 Dismantling of HT line Span 0
2 Dismantling of Joist & PSC pole No. 68
3 Dismantling of Transformer No. 13
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 7 - 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER- 7: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 7-2
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 7 - 2
CHAPTER- 7: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 BACKGROUND
The main objective of financial analysis is to assess the likely returns to the investorsunder realistic conditions/assumptions. In the present studies the financial viability ofthe project is assessed, assuming minimum Equity IRR to be >=15%, on the basis ofproject’s financial internal rate of return on investments, which is estimated on the basisof cash flow analysis.
The analysis attempts to ascertain the extent to which the investment can be recoveredthrough toll revenue and the gap, if any, be provided through grant. This covers aspectslike financing through debt and equity, loan repayment, debt servicing, taxation,depreciation, etc. The viability of the project is evaluated on the basis of Equity IRR. TheEquity IRR is estimated on the basis of cash flow analysis, where both costs andrevenues have been indexed to take account of inflation.
7.2 HOMOGENEOUS SECTIONS
The Project Road has been kept as one tolling homogeneous section.
Table 7.1: Details of Toll Homogeneous Sections
TollingSection #
LocationTollingLength
Reason for Selection
1 Km 28.300 42.655 kmBetween Hanumangarh km 0+000 and
Abohar Border km 42+655
7.3 TRAFFIC COUNT
The Classified Traffic Volume Count is carried out at km 28.00. Table below presents theaverage of traffic count at the proposed toll plaza location
Table 7.2: Categorization of Vehicles as per the Types mentioned in Toll Policy
Location km 28Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle 1312
Tractor with trolley carrying non-agricultural produce
0
Light Commercial Vehicle, Mini Bus 100Bus 138
2-Axle Truck 563-Axle Truck 139
HCM or EME or Multi Axle Vehicle (MAV)(4 to 6 axles) 112
Oversized Vehicles (>7axle) 0
Tollable PCUs 2965
Non Tollable PCUs 1885
Total PCUs 4850
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 7 - 3
The traffic (AADT) at proposed toll plaza location is projected to analyses theconcession period based on the traffic capacity parameters. Maximum capacity for 2L(7.00m) is considered as 15,000 PCUs based on Standard Capacities for roads inRajasthan, approved by Cabinet Note of Govt. of Rajasthan.
Table 7.3: Traffic Projection (PCUs)
Sr. No. Vehicle Type km 28+000(Proposed TP) Remarks
1. Year 2014-15 4850 Base Year2. Year 2015-16 5093 Bidding & Financial
Close3. Year 2016-17 53474. Year 2017-18 5615 Construction Period5. Year 2018-19 5895 Year 26. Year 2019-20 6190 Year 37. Year 2020-21 6500 Year 48. Year 2021-22 6825 Year 59. Year 2022-23 7166 Year 610. Year 2023-24 7524 Year 711. Year 2024-25 7900 Year 812. Year 2025-26 8295 Year 913. Year 2026-27 8710 Year 1014. Year 2027-28 9146 Year 1115. Year 2028-29 9603 Year 1216. Year 2029-30 10083 Year 1317. Year 2030-31 10587 Year 1418. Year 2031-32 11117 Year 1519. Year 2032-33 11672 Year 1620. Year 2033-34 12256 Year 1721. Year 2034-35 12869 Year 1822. Year 2035-36 13512 Year 1923. Year 2036-37 14188 Year 2024. Year 2037-38 14897 Year 2125. Year 2038-39 15642 Exceed 2L LOS-B26. Year 2039-40 16424 Year 2427. Year 2040-41 17246 Year 25
Growth rate of 5% is considered for all types of vehicles
Hence maximum concession period of 21 years can be considered,
COST OF THE PROJECT
The costing for the project is done as per the details covered in this report.
Civil Construction Cost = Rs 44.77 Crores (Rs 1.05 Crores/Km)
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 7 - 4
7.3.1 Phasing of the Capital Cost
The total cost for the proposed project road has been computed based on the 2014-15prices. The annual phasing of capital cost is made as per the work schedule.Construction cost is phased over a 1.5 years construction period from Oct 2016 to April2018 as 50% and 50% respectively.
7.3.2 Cost Escalation
The base costs have been escalated at a rate of 5% per annum to obtain the actual costsin the year of expenditure. This is in line with long-term inflation rates of majormaterials utilized for construction.
7.4 TOLL RATES
Toll rates have been taken as per the FEE RULES NOTIFICATION of Government ofRajasthan published in 2015.
Table 7.4: Toll Rates applicable for the Project road (L=42.655km)
Year Car Mini-Bus/LCV
Bus/Truck
3 AxleTruck
4-6 AxleTruck
>=7Axle
2015-16per km rate 1.05 1.60 3.15 5.25 5.25 6.30
ApplicableToll 2015-16 45 70 135 225 225 270
7.5 Toll Revenue
The toll revenue is the product of the forecast traffic expected to use the road and theappropriate toll fee for the vehicle category. A toll indexing pattern @ 5% per year hasbeen adopted and rounded off to nearest five Rupee.
Table 7.5: Toll Revenue for the Project road (L=42.655km)
Routine maintenance costs comprise of maintenance of the pavement, collection of litter,traffic management (policing), accident repairs and all ancillary works includingbeautification.
The periodic maintenance costs include cost of overlay, repair/renovation of roadfurniture, drains, buildings etc. The periodic maintenance includes periodic renewals atevery 6 years as per circular.
7.7 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Based on the project structure traffic study and toll rate analysis, financial feasibilityanalysis has been carried out as per the methodology outlined in earlier sections. Theminimum Equity IRR (Return on Equity) considered for the project is 15%. Financialindicators are presented in Table 5.5 below.
8.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 28.2 ROAD AND ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... 28.3 SCOPE OF PRESENT REPORT ...................................................................................................... 28.4 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND LEGISLATION ....................................................................... 38.5 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 48.6 SCOPE OF DETAILED EIA STUDY ............................................................................................... 4
8.6.1 Geology and Soil ........................................................................................................... 58.6.2 Land Use Pattern .......................................................................................................... 58.6.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 68.6.4 Climate ......................................................................................................................... 6
8.7 RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES / HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ......................................... 7
8.8 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................ 8
8.8.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM) .................................................................. 88.8.2 Noise Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................. 98.8.3 Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................ 98.8.4 SUMMARY OF BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................ 10
Table 8.1: Summary of Relevant Environmental Legislations ............................................. 3
Fig. 8.3: Land Use Pattern ....................................................................................................... 6
Fig. 8.4: Road Side Plantation ................................................................................................. 8
Table 8.5: AAQ Monitoring Result on Project Road ............................................................. 9
Table 8.6: National Ambient Noise Quality Standards ........................................................ 9
Table 8.7: Details of Water Quality Standards ...................................................................... 9
Table 8.7: Summary of Estimated Cost for Implimentaion of EMP and Monitoring ...... 10
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 8 - 2
CHAPTER-8: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project Road (SH-7A) starts from Hanumangarh on SH-7A at km 0+000 and ends atAbohar (Gadder Khera Village) at km 43+000 (Rajasthan/ Punjab Border). The projectroad passes through Hanumangarh and Ganganagar districts of Rajasthan. The majorsettlements along the project corridor are Hanumangarh, Satipura, Rorawali, Dholipal,Kheruwala, Hathiyanwala and Kararwala. The index map depicting the project road ispresented in Fig 8.1.
8.2 ROAD AND ENVIRONMENT
Road projects are meant for improving the quality of life for people and developing thecountry’s economy. For all positive impacts of the road projects, there may be also somesignificant detrimental impacts on communities in the project area and naturalenvironment. There may be impact on properties of people, their livelihood and othersocial components. Similarly there can be direct or indirect impact on flora, fauna, waterresources, land use etc. To account for all these issues, environmental and social impactassessments are utmost necessary. These concerns for environmental and social issuesin road projects have also become a part of legal requirements and requirements forobtaining financial support. Environmental considerations are, therefore, of primeimportance in road projects. Project Location Map in Fig. 8.1.
Fig. 8.1: Project Location Map
8.3 SCOPE OF PRESENT REPORT
Environmental assessment is a detailed process, which starts from the conception of theproject and continues till the operation phases. The steps for environmental assessment
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 8 - 3
are, therefore, different in different phases. The first step for environmental assessmentis known as screening and scoping. The present study is Environmental Screening studywhich is preliminary study of Environmental Impact Assessment and is beingconducted to identify the environmental implications of the project, preliminaryidentification of potential environmental impacts and for providing recommendationsfor integrating environmental measures into design. This study is a part of DetailedProject Report of the project in accordance with the Terms of Reference.
8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND LEGISLATION
Table-8.1 presents Environmental regulations and legislations relevant to this project,along with their competent authority for implementation.
Table 8.1: Summary of Relevant Environmental Legislations
Act/Rule/Notification Year Objectives Responsible Agency
The Environment(Protection) Act
The Environment(Protection) Rules
1986
1986
To protect and improve theoverall environmentTo regulate industrial setups.NOC required for establishingand operating crusher/ hot mixplants and project requiringEnvironmental Clearance.
Ministry of Environmentand Forests (MoEF); GoI;Department of Forest,Govt. of Rajasthan(GoO); Central PollutionControl Board (CPCB);
To consolidate the laws related toforest, the transit of forestproduce and the duty leviable ontimber and other forest produce.Conservation of Forests,Judicious use of forestland fornon-forestry purposes; and toreplenish the loss of forest coverby Compensatory Afforestationon degraded forestland and non-forest land.
MoEF; Department ofForest, GoR
Wild Life (Protection)Act
The Wild Life(Protection)Amendment Act
1972
2002
To protect wildlife in general andNational Parks and Sanctuariesin particular.To protect wild animals, birdsand plants with a view to ensurethe ecological and environmentalsecurity of the country
To regulate and control noiseproducing and generatingsources with the objective ofmaintaining the ambient airquality standards in respect ofnoise.
CPCB; RSPCB &Transport Department;GoR.
The Motor VehicleAct
Central Motor VehicleRules
1988
1989
To consolidate and amend thelaws related to motor vehicles.Licensing of driving of motorvehicles, registration of motorvehicles, with emphasis on roadsafety standards and pollutioncontrol measures, standards fortransportation of hazardous andexplosive materials. To checkvehicular air and noise pollution
Motor VehicleDepartment
The AncientMonuments andArchaeological Sitesand Remain Act
1958 To provide for the preservationof ancient and historicalmonuments and archeologicalsites and remains of nationalimportance and protectionsculptures, carvings and otherlike objects.
ArchaeologicalDepartment, GoI; IndianHeritage Society andIndian National Trustfor Art and CultureHeritage (INTACH)
Project Road is a state Highway project, all state highways project fall in Category B.And since no National Park /Wild Life Sanctuary and Eco sensitive zone area fallswithin 10km of Project Road, the project remains in Category ‘B’.
8.5 METHODOLOGY
The screening process mainly consists of following types of activities:1 Study of Background information on project and related policy and legal issues2 Collection of data from secondary sources3 Reconnaissance survey of the project impact zone4 Analysis of data and Screening exercise5 Preliminary identification of Environmental impacts and mitigation
8.6 SCOPE OF DETAILED EIA STUDY
a) Study of Background Information
Study of Project Documents: First task is to study the project documents to have theunderstanding of the project objectives, its main components, its boundary etc. Unlessthe project is well understood, its different impacts on environment and social issuescannot be properly identified.
Study of Laws and regulations: Laws and regulations enacted by Government of India andState of Rajasthan relevant to road construction and environment were studied.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 8 - 5
Study of Guidelines, Standards etc.: Ministry of Environment and Forests and ClimateChange (MoEF&CC) and Indian Road Congress (IRC) have published different usefuldocuments, which were studied for screening exercise.
b) Collection of Data from Secondary SourcesAfter having the background information about the project and its environmentalaspects from legal and policy points, the next step involves collection of data fromsecondary sources. The data was collected on landuse pattern, physiography, soil &geology, meteorology, forests, demography and related other environmental aspects.The relevant topo-sheets for the project were also collected from Survey of India.c) Reconnaissance Survey of the Project Impact ZoneA team of environment and social experts carried out reconnaissance survey of theproject road. As per reconnaissance survey a land width is available all along the projectroad. This can accommodate the expansion of road to 2 Lane with 2.5m GranularShoulder configurations.Sensitive environmental components along the corridor of impact were recorded. Theseare, road side trees, public utilities, community resources, etc. Informal publicconsultations with local people along the road side were also conducted to record theiropinion about the project.d) Analysis of Data and Screening ExerciseThe data collected through the above steps were compiled to develop the environmentalscenario of the project area and the sensitive components within that. The full roadlength was put under screening to identify the sensitive zones. For convenience, theroads are divided into 1 km sections and sensitive environmental issues under eachsection are identified. The identification of environmental sensitive features in projectarea would help in further detailed study and preparation of Environmental ImpactAssessment report and Environmental Management Plan for the project at later phase.e) Preliminary Identification of Environmental Impacts and MitigationRoad construction related impacts occur at three stages of the project viz. Planning andDesign, Construction and Operation stage. The broad impacts on physical, ecologicaland social environment were identified based on the screening data and suggestivemitigation measures shall be provided.
8.6.1 Geology and Soil
Both the districts have plain Topography covered with a thick layer of alluvium andwindblown sand. It displays a general slope towards west with the gradient about 4-5meters per kilometer.
8.6.2 Land Use Pattern
The roadside environment is variable from rural village developments to ruralagricultural areas, semi-rural open areas with occasional roadside dwellings and smallbusiness scattered throughout the route. There is ribbon development at some locationsalong the road with small settlements. Major part of project road passes through ruralopen area. Fig. 8.3.
For the purpose of this roadside assessment, the land use types are identified as follows:
Built up Hanumangarh, Rodawali, Dholipal, Hathiyawala, Khairuwala, Karawala,Gadderkhera are some Built up in the Section.
Rural A rural environment with isolated individual houses, schools, businessesalongside to the roadway.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 8 - 6
Agriculture Mainly cultivated land, with or without isolated thatched farmsteads.Forest No Reserve / Protected Forest in this Section.
Fig. 8.3: Land Use Pattern
8.6.3 Water Resources
Drainage: Road side drainage is not noticed in the rural section of the road. Except atfew settlements and ephemeral Channels near Hanumangarh and Dholipal and fewNatural lakes or depressions are observed near Rodawali, Khairuwala, and Karawala.In the year of drought there is no run off.
Surface Water: There are Some Minor and Major Canals crossing the project corridor.Surface water quality monitoring results of the project area is in permissible limit.
Ground Water: Ground water is an important source of drinking water. Ground waterquality monitoring results of the project area is in permissible limit.
8.6.4 Climate
Marked variations in diurnal and seasonal range of temperature occur at all places inthe state, exhibiting the most characteristic phenomenon of the warm-dry continentalclimate.
The region experience maximum rainfall during July-August. 2009-2013 data revealsthat mean maximum rainfall of 142.9mm in August 2011 in Hanumangarh District and149.3 mm in 2011 September in Ganganagr District. While December – January is thedry period. May-June is the hottest period when the mean maximum and minimumtemperature recorded is 41.8°C and 29.3°C respectively. January is the coldest monthwhen mercury dip to as low as 6.5°C.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 8 - 7
Flora and Fauna
Flora and Road side PlantationThe flora of study area is rich owing to climatic condition. Diversification of floraspecies is evident. There are varieties of plant species present in the study corridor.Common varieties of trees found in roadside areas are Khejri, Israli Babool Sal, Teak,Kiker, Bel, Siris. Few trees are required to be cut due to this expansion. Exact number oftrees to be shall be assessed after finalization of the alignment.
FaunaDifferent species of fauna are present in the study area. The major fauna present areFrogs, and toads. Livestock reared in these districts are Cows. Common birds likePigeon, Bulbul and sparrow, Hiran etc. were seen along the project road.
No endangered flora and fauna species are located along the proposed project corridor.
National Park/ Wildlife SanctuaryThere is no National Park falling within 10 km distance from the project road.
Environmental Impact
During widening of 2 lane road some Environmental feature will be affected in below
Sl. No. Environmental Impact Affected Nos.1 No. of trees to be felled (Nos.) Nil2 Hand pumps (No.) -3 Bore wells (No.) 014 Water Tank (No.) -5 Impact on Religious structures (No.) -6 Impact on Community structures (No.) 1 (Well)7 Impact on Bus Stand (No.) 04
Mitigation Measure
The proposed project cause potential adverse Environmental impacts which are lessadverse in Nature and few of them are reversible and mitigation measures can bedesignated more readily for the identified impacts.
8.7 RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES / HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
8.7.1 Religious Structures
The impact on religious structures is generally considered as an area of concern due toits association with the religious sentiments of the people. The total number of religiousproperties likely to be affected due to project is Six.
8.7.2 Historical/Archaeological Sites
There is no historical or archaeological site listed under Archeological Survey of Indiaalong the project road.
8.7.3 Roadside Plantation
Tree cutting is a critical environmental issue but the cutting of roadside trees isinevitable during the widening process. A homogenous number of trees are presentthroughout the length of the project road at both the sides. The widening will have to bedone judiciously so that maximum trees are saved. Road side Plantation in Fig. 8.4.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 8 - 8
Fig. 8.4: Road Side Plantation
8.7.4 Structures
Since there is no realignment or geometric improvement of alignment, the structures areleast affected.
8.8 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
The purpose of the monitoring programme is to ensure that the envisaged purpose ofthe project is achieved and results in desired benefits to the target population. To ensurethe effective implementation of the EMP, it is essential that an effective monitoringprogram be designed and carried out. The environmental monitoring programmeprovides such information based on which management decision may be taken duringconstruction and operational phases. It provides basis for evaluating the efficiency ofmitigation and enhancement measures and suggest further actions that need to be takento achieve the desired effect.
8.8.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM)
The results of analysis of air samples are presentedin the following tables. In general, for bothmonitoring stations the PM10 values weremonitored in the range 73 - 78 μg/m3. The airquality parameters have been monitored inaccordance with the National Ambient Air QualityStandards. PM2.5 values were ranging from 39-45.Similarly monitored values for SO, NO and CO isalso found within the limit.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh to Abohar (H3) (P1)
As with air quality, the noise levels have beenmonitored at designated locations in accordancewith the Ambient Noise Quality standards givenin Table 6.4 below. The monitored noise levelswere ranging from 52.5 dB(A) (Hanumangarh) to58.1 dB(A) (Sadulsahar) at Day Time and the noiselevels were ranging from 44.80 dB(A)(Hanumangarh) to 51.35 dB(A) (Sadulsahar) atNight Time.
Table 8.6: National Ambient Noise QualityStandards
S. No. Locations Leq - Day in dB (A) Leq - Night dB (A)1 Hanumangarh 52.50 44.802 Sadulsahar 58.10 51.35
8.8.3 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality parameters such as pH, totaldissolved solids, lead, Cadmium, Zinc etc. havebeen monitored at both the locations as perstandards prescribed by Central Pollution ControlBoard and Indian Standard Drinking waterspecifications IS 10500 -1991. The details ofGround Water Quality and Surface Water Qualityare presented in Table 8.7.
8.8.4 SUMMARY OF BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT PLAN
Summary of Budget in Table No:-8.7
Table 8.7: Summary of Estimated Cost for Implementation of EMP and Monitoring
Sl.No. Various Activities Cost (Rs.)
1.0 Implementation of EMP 85,36,155
2.0 Environmental Monitoring 3,25,000
Total 88,61,155
Say Rs. 88.6 Lakh
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER-9: SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 9-2
9.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 9-2
9.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 9-2
9.3 SIA PROCESS / METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 9-3
9.4 THE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND THE DISTRICT PROFILE ......................................... 9-3
9.4.1 District Profile : Hanumangarh ............................................................................... 9-3
9.4.2 District Profile : Sri Ganganagar .............................................................................. 9-4
9.5 THE SOCIO BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE .................................... 9-5
9.6 POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACT EVALUATION WITHIN THE CORRIDOR OFIMPACT ................................................................................................................................. 9-5
9.6.1 Properties Likely to be affected ............................................................................... 9-5
9.6.2 Preliminary Land Acquisition ................................................................................. 9-6
Table 9.3: Relevant Regulations and Legislations ......................................................................... 9-10
Table 9.4: Village wise Scheduled Public Consultations and FGD .............................................. 9-11
Table 9.5: Estimated R & R Budget................................................................................................. 9-12
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 2
CHAPTER-9: SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1 GENERAL
The social impact assessment study is meant to determine the magnitude of actual andpotential impact on the population, properties and land due to improvement ofproposed road with the objective to ensure the social considerations be given adequateweightage in the selection and design of proposed highway improvements. Basic idea isto minimize adverse social impacts with best possible engineering solutions at theoptimal cost.
The main objective of this chapter is to delineate the social impact issues, identify thepotential hotspots and determine the magnitude of actual and potential impacts onpeople, properties and land. It also ensures the adequate weightage of socialconsiderations in the selection and design of proposed highway improvements. Themain features and findings of this report are as follows:
9.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The Social Assessment process generally begins with screening at the time of projectidentification where steps are taken from the beginning and plans/ designs/alignments are finalized in such a way that to the extent possible adverse impacts areavoided at the designing stage itself and make these roads people friendly. These stepsare:
· Avoiding the adverse social impact at the designing stage especially while finalisingthe alignments
· Mitigating the adverse impacts at designing stage and construction/operation phase
· Compensating the affected people/common properties and rehabilitation andresettlement measures
The overall objective of conducting Social Assessment is to provide input of socialconcerns to be dovetailed in project design and to avoid or minimize the adverse socialimpacts with the best possible engineering solutions at the most optimal cost withcomplete co-ordination between the engineering, environmental and social teamsduring the entire design process.
In brief, keeping in mind the scope and objectives of the study, the following main taskshas been considered for accomplishment:
· To highlight the need for a proposed road project;
· To describe the proposed road project and alternatives;
· To evaluate the potential impacts of proposed road project options on the valuedecosystem components within the project study area;
· To consult the local people, officials and experts on options and impacts in order toestablish institutional capacity;
· To encourage the public participation during consultation;
· To select the preferred project option and suggest mitigation plan.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 3
9.3 SIA PROCESS / METHODOLOGY
Social impact assessment need clear defination of the Corridor of Impact (CoI) and theRight of Way (ROW) for establishing the extent of social impact. To achieve the targetwhich needs comprehensive data involves the following methodology:
The social assessment of the project has been carried out as per requirement ofRFCTLARRA 2013. The details of methodologies are includes:(i) Sample Socio-Economic Survey: Based
on final alignments and detailedmeasurement survey of land andstructure, a sample socio-economicsurvey was carried out during the monthsof February 2015 and July 2015. Thesample socio-economic survey hasdelineated impacts as minor impacts andmajor impacts.
(ii) Stakeholder’s Consultation and Publichearing: Consultations were carried outat individual level. Important issuesdiscussed which include (but not limited to) impact of land acquisition on thelivelihood of the people, compensation as per RFCTLARRA 2013, findings,suggestions and opinion of people will be taken into account while preparing socialimpact assessment. (Details of the consultations have been presented in SIA).Furthermore, consultations with institutional stakeholders have provided an insightto develop social impact assessment for the project.
Thus, both primary and secondary data are required for establishing the extent ofimpact, which has been collected by administering the questionnaire for collectinginformation on structures, properties, land and type of ownership and social groups etc.with the help of enumerators/ investigators and by collecting secondary data fromdifferent govt. and non-govt. sources.The data collected and recorded by the enumerators on questionnaires has beencompiled on computers through MS-Excel (MS-Office Version 2003).The tabulated data has been summarized in tables and analyzed so that social situationprevailing in the area is visualized and potential social issues are estimated. Theanalysis will prove the feasibility of the project and will help in suggesting varioussocially viable alignment options for engineering design and also come out with themitigation measures to make the project socio-economically acceptable.
9.4 THE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND THE DISTRICT PROFILE
9.4.1 District Profile : Hanumangarh
Hanumangarh is the northern mostdistrict of Rajasthan. Total area is9656.09 sq km; the district is surroundedby Churu in south, Sri Ganganagar inwest, Punjab and Haryana in north andeast respectively. The geographicalcoordinates of the district are 29° 5' to30° 6' North latitude and 74° 3' to 75º 3'east Longitude. There are 7 tehsil in
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 4
district Hanumangarh these are Hanumangarh, Sangaria, Pilibanga, Nohar, Bhadra,Rawatsar and Tibbi.
The district is located in the extreme north of Rajasthan. Hanumangarh had populationof 1,774,692 of which male and female were 931,184 and 843,508 respectively. Districthas 1,779,650 populations (2011 census) and a population density of 184 persons/km². Itis bounded on the north by Punjab state, on the east by Haryana state, on the south byChuru District of Rajasthan, and on the west by Ganganagar District of Rajasthan. Themajor work of the district is farming; major crops include rice, millet, cotton,sonamukhi, wheat, and vegetables.
The district has a population density of 184 inhabitants per square kilometre (480/sqmi). Its population growth rate over the decade 2001–2011 was 16.91%. Hanumangarhhas a sex ratio of 906 females for every 1000 males and a literacy rate of 67.13%.
9.4.2 District Profile : Sri Ganganagar
Sri Ganganagar district is situated in thenorthern region of Rajasthan between28°40ʹ ʹ to 30°06 north latitude and72°39ʹ ʹ to 74°21 east longitude. Thedistrict shares its boundaries withChuru and Bikaner in the south,Hanumangarh in the south-east,Ferozpur district of Punjab in the north-east and Bahawalpur district of Pakistanin the north-west. The total area of SriGanganagar district is 10.93 lac hectaresout of which 77.5 % area is cultivated.The cultivated area has increasedsteadily due to fertile land, adequateirrigation facilities and prosperity of thefarmers.
Sri Ganganagar district is a plain regionof the vast Thar desert land. It hassandy soil in the west dotted with 4-5 metre high sand dunes. The northern part of thedistrict is mostly covered with forest. The average height of the district from the sealevel is 168 to 227 metres. There remains much climatic variation in Sriganganagardistrict throughout the year. It is an arid region with very low rainfall. The winterseason extends from November to March, the summer season from April to June, rainyseason from July to mid-September, and post-monsoon season from mid-September toOctober. The average annual rainfall of the district is 20.70 cm. The maximumtemperature in summer is 48.4°C and the minimum temperature in winter is 0.6°C. As aresult there are scorching heat waves in summer and biting cold waves in winter in thewhole district.
There are nine tehsil in district Ganganagar these are Sri Ganganagar, Sri Karanpur,Sadulshahar, Padampur, Raisinghnagar, Suratgarh, Anoopgarh, Shri Vijaynagar,Gharsana.
In 2011, Sri Ganganagar had population of 1,969,168 of which male and female were1,043,340 and 925,828 respectively. The district has a population density of 179inhabitants per square kilometre. Its population growth rate over the decade 2001–2011
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 5
was 10.04%. Sri Ganganagar has a sex ratio of 887 females for every 1000 males and aliteracy rate of 69.64%.
9.5 THE SOCIO BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
The proposed project road is traversing through Hanumangarh and Sri Ganganagardistricts in Rajasthan and socio-economic profiles of the affected PAPs have beenbriefed below:
According to the primary survey there is no any impact on private structures within thecorridor of impact in project.
At this stage of study, only those households are included in the surveys, which arelosing their structures. The analysis of the survey shows that no direct impact onhouseholds along the project road.
9.6 POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACT EVALUATION WITHIN THE CORRIDOR OFIMPACT
The Social Impact Assessment at an early stage of social survey aims to identifycongested areas, potential impacts on the community, settlement and on land with theintension to provide the basic information to the Engineering Design team to integrateit with technical design. This assessment was made only on the defined corridor ofimpact of existing road. However, an imprecise assessment of impact on structure wasmade by using screening survey for budgeting purpose so that an estimation of cost ofthe affected structure could be incorporated in Resettlement Budget.
This chapter will analyze the impact on population, structures and land on the exitingcorridor only.
9.6.1 Properties Likely to be affected
The properties likely to be affected by the proposed improvement of the road in thisproject are about 6 structures. These are government and community structures.
The estimated numbers of properties have been analyzed under different categories,such as private, religious, government and community etc. These divisions have beenmade according to their use and occupancy. Out of the total number of properties thatare likely to be affected, 5 are government properties and 1 is community properties areaffected and have no private ownership (Table 9.1).
Table 9.3: Impact on Structures in Project Road Sections
Sl. No. Type of Properties Total Percentage1 Private 0 0.02 Religious 0 0.03 Government 5 83.34 Community 1 16.7
Total 6 100.0Source: Census Survey, Aecom, 2015
· Government Properties likely to be affected
The survey data shows that there are 5 government properties that are likely to beaffected in proposed project road. The Government properties include Bus Stand and TaxOffice.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 6
· Community properties Likely to be affected along the Road
The survey revealed that there is 1 community property likely to be affected due toproposed project road. The community properties include 1 well.
9.6.2 Preliminary Land Acquisition
As per PWD requirement, the widening of the existing road is to be done withinexisting ROW with 2-lane with Gravel Shoulder. The social assessment of the projectroad was done within defined corridor of impact, so that if required, the impact onproperties, population and other assets can be considered with ease. Efforts have beenmade during feasibility design of horizontal alignment to accommodate the ProposedHighway within the available ROW, without compromising best engineering solutionwith the design standards have been adopted to avoid private land acquisition andresettlement impact minimized. Hence there is no additional land is required.
9.7 DETAILED ENTITLEMENT MATRIX
As per the provisions mentioned in the broad entitlement framework of RFCTLARRA2013 the detailed entitlement matrix is worked out for providing compensation to theentitled families and properties. The detailed entitlement matrix has been developed tosummarize entitlements for this project is given in the Table 9.2.
Table 9.2: Entitlement Matrix
All awards below shall be exempt from income tax, stamp duty and fees.
Type of Loss Definition ofEntitled Person Compensation Policy Responsible
· Assistance for rental deposit orunexpired lease deducted fromthe land owner’s compensation.
· 60 days advance notice toharvest standing seasonal cropsprior to damage, if notice cannotbe given, compensation forshare of crops will be provided(see entitlement No. 3.a).
NGO/Consultantwill confirm tenants’eligibility
IA/ CSC will ensureprovision of notice.
1.c Loss of Governmentland
Non-titled holders(i.e. Squatters3,Encroachers4)
· Compensation for assets lost atreplacement cost (see EM 2.a).
IA/ CSC will ensureprovision of notice.
1 The RFCLARRA 2013 outlines that no irrigated multi-cropped land shall be acquired under this Act, expect inexceptional circumstances, as demonstrable last resort. Wherever such land is acquired, an equivalent area ofcultivable land shall be developed for agricultural purposes or an amount equivalent to the value of land acquiredshall be deposited with the appropriate Government for investment in agriculture for enhancing food security.Such costs must be reflected in the resettlement budget.
2 Traditional land rights refer to households with customary rights to land, and shall be treated equivalent totitleholders
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 7
Type of Loss Definition ofEntitled Person Compensation Policy Responsible
Agency· 90 days advance notice to shift· 60 days advance notice to
harvest standing seasonal cropsprior to damage, if notice cannotgiven, compensation for share ofcrops will be provided (seeentitlement No. 3.a).
Legal titleholders · Rent at market value for theperiod of occupation.
· Compensation for assets atreplacement cost
· Restoration of land to previousor better quality
· Location of construction campswill be fixed by contractors inconsultation with Governmentand local community.
Contractornegotiates amountwith landowner –supervised by CSC.
IA/CSC ensurescompensation paidprior to take-over.
Contractorresponsible for siterestoration.
2 Structures2.a Loss of residential,
commercial structuresand other assets
Legal titleholdersEncroachers andsquatters
· If partially affected5:Replacement cost of the affectedpart or assets with right tosalvage materials. If remainderof the structure is unviable, theowner has the option to claimcompensation for entirestructure (see below).
· Restoration grant of 10% ofreplacement cost of structure.6
· If Residential/ Commercialstructure fully affected:
· Replacement Cost of thestructure
· If relocating outside RoW,Resettlement Allowance of Rs.50,000 per family as per LARRAct 2013.7
· Monthly Subsistence Allowanceof Rs. 3,000 for one year (totalRs. 36,000) for families havingto relocate their homesteads asper LARR Act 2013.8
· Shifting allowance of 10% ofreplacement cost of structure upto a maximum of Rs 50,000, asper the LARR Act 2013
· Right to salvage materials fromstructure and other assets
3 Squatters are those who have no recognizable legal rights on the land they are occupying4 Encroachers are those who use land or build structures which are in whole or in part of an adjacent property to
which they have no titles.5 External to the living/commercial areas (i.e. verandahs, stairs)6 This have been added given that in the context of this RP, the concentration of impacts relate to structures beingpartially affected and as such it is a needed additional assistance measure.7 Not cumulative if Resettlement Allowance has been given for loss of land (Entitlement 1.a)8 Households losing commercial structures are not eligible
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 8
Type of Loss Definition ofEntitled Person Compensation Policy Responsible
Agencywithout deductions fromreplacement cost.
· 90 day notice to vacatestructure.
2.b Loss of residential/commercial structureand other assets
Tenants (withoutdocumentation) andleaseholders
· Replacement cost of part/wholeof structure – if latter has beenconstructed by thetenant/leaseholder with right tosalvage material
· Compensation for rental depositor unexpired lease (only for APwith legitimate leasedocumentation). This will bededucted from thecompensation amount of thestructure owner.
· Lump-sum equivalent to twomonth lease to support search ofalternative housing.
NGO/Consultantwill confirm tenants’eligibility
IA/ CSC will ensureprovision of notice.
2.c Loss and temporaryimpacts on commonproperty resources
Titled and non-titledowners/communities
· Replacement or restoration ofthe affected community facilities
· Best efforts need to be made toavoid impacts on sensitive sites(i.e. religious, sacred). If theseneed to be relocated orrehabilitated additional level ofconsultation with community isrequired to ensure properprocess
· 60 days advance notice toharvest standing seasonal cropsprior to damage, fruits andtimber
· Compensation for standingcrops (or share of crop forsharecroppers) based on anannual crop cycle at marketvalue.
· Compensation for trees basedon timber value at market price,and compensation for perennialcrops and fruit trees at annualnet product market valuemultiplied by remainingproductive years; to bedetermined in consultation withthe Forest Department fortimber trees and theHorticulture Department forother trees/crops.
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 9
Type of Loss Definition ofEntitled Person Compensation Policy Responsible
Agencycommercialstructure9
Employee ofaffected commercialstructure.Farmer/agricultural workerof land acquired.
RFCLARRA 2013, whichever ishigher
4.2 Temporary disruptionof livelihood
Legal titleholders,non-titled AHs
· 90 days advance noticeregarding constructionactivities, including durationand type of disruption.
· Economic Disruption Grant ofRs. 3,000/week whencommercial structure is partiallyaffected and owner loses incometo rebuild part of structure orbecause of constructionactivities.
· Assistance11 to mobile vendors/hawkers to temporarily shift forcontinued economic activityduring construction activities.
IA/ CSC will ensurenotice is provided.
5 Special Assistance to Vulnerable Households5.1 Impacts on
Communities · Replacement or restoration ofthe affected community facilities– including public water standposts, public utility posts,temples, shrines, etc.
NGO will identifyand conduct aconsultation withthe community &PIU and Contractorwill restore and/orcompensate theaffected CPR in linewith ADB’s SPS,2009.
7 Other losses
10 Based on income tax return9 When core commercial space is affected – when external sections of the structures such as verandahs, stairs,balcony are affected the owner will not be eligible to this entitlement.11 Assistance will be provided in accommodating a temporary space for commercial activities during construction,
dismantling and reassembling mobile structure and in physically relocating structure12 Severely Affected Households (SAHs): defined as losing 10% or more of their total productive assets and/or
physical displacement13 Severely Affected Households (SAHs) and Vulnerable Households (VAHs) losing their homestead and having
to physically relocate from affected area
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 10
Type of Loss Definition ofEntitled Person Compensation Policy Responsible
Agency7.1 Any other loss not
identified· Unanticipated involuntary
impacts will be documented andmitigated based on ADB’sSafeguard Policy (SPS), 2009.
NGO/Consultant toidentify otherpotential losses
9.7.1 Applicable Legislation and Policies
Table 9.3 presents the important regulations and legislations relevant to proposedproject road project.
Table 9.3: Relevant Regulations and LegislationsS.
No Act / Rules Purpose ApplicableYes/ No
Reason forApplicability Authority
1.
The Right to FairCompensation and
Transparency in LandAcquisition and
Rehabilitation andResettlement 2013
Set out rule foracquisition. of
land bygovernment
Yes
This act will beapplicable to as therewill be acquisition of
land for Road.
LandAcquisitionCollector,
Departmentof Housing,
GoR.
2. EnvironmentProtection Act-1986
To protect andimprove overall
environmentYes
As all environmentalnotifications, rules and
schedules are issuedunder this act.
MoEF. GoI;DoE, State
Gov. CPCB;SPCB
3.Air (Prevention andControl of Pollution)
Act, 1981
To control airpollution by &
Transportcontrolling
emission of airDepartment.
Pollutants as perthe prescribed
standards.
Yes
This act will beapplicable duringconstruction; for
obtaining NOC forestablishment of hotmix plant, workers'camp, construction
camp, etc.
SPCB
4. Water Prevention andControl of Pollution)
Act1974
To control waterpollution bycontrolling
discharge ofpollutants as per
the prescribedstandards
Yes This act will beapplicable duringconstruction for
(establishments of hotmix plant, constructioncamp, workers' camp,
etc.
SPCB
5. Noise Pollution(Regulation and
Control Act) 1990
The standards fornoise for day andnight have beenpromulgated by
the MoEF forvarious land
uses.
Yes This act will beapplicable as vehicularnoise on project routesrequired to assess for
future years andnecessary protectionmeasure need to be
considered in design.
SPCB
9.8 STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION AND PEOPLES PERCEPTION
The process of information propagation about the project is one of the major tools toensure and initiate the participation of the stakeholders. This also helps in collectingrelevant information, feedback from various stakeholders for the social requirements ofthe project. Several group consultations were held at different locations with the people
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 11
to apprise them about the development of the project and document their views,feedback and concern about the project so that their outlook can be incorporated in theengineering design. Relevant data was taken from them which included demographicfeatures, available resources, land rates and other important features. The key activitiesof the consultation process are summarized in Table 9.4.
The detailed findings and attended persons during public consultation are attached inAnnexure-9.1.
Table 9.4: Village wise Scheduled Public Consultations and FGDSl.No.
VillageName Date No. of
ParticipantsTypes ofPC/FGD Photographs
1 Patli Barrier 01/07/2015 07 PC & FGD withCommunity
2 Kheruwala 01/07/2015 05 PublicConsultation
3 Dholipal 01/07/2015 08 PC & FGD withBusinessman
4 Sattipura 01/07/2015 11 PC & FGD withBusinessman
As the project implementation will be done through government departments and theprocess of resettlement and rehabilitation needs humane approach as well as closenessto the people and community service orientation, it was necessary to find out thecapacity of the existing NGOs and CBOs to involve them in rehabilitation and
Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report ofGovernment of Rajasthan Hanumangarh – Abohar (H3)
Final Feasibility Report, Sep 2015 9 - 12
resettlement work. Several NGOs were identified and examined on the basis of theirpast work performance, areas of work experience and its organizational set-up etc.,however, the capacity assessment of the concerned NGOs in detail could not be carriedout at the time. Its Capacity assessment will be done at the time of census and socio-economic surveys at later stage when the Resettlement Plan (RP) will be prepared.
9.9 ESTIMATED R&R BUDGET
The R&R budget for the project road is estimated of Rs. 0.28 Crore. The R&R budgetincludes the replacement cost of structure to be provided to the affected people,replacement cost of government and community property etc.
Ø The R&R budget is calculated on the basis on DLC rate collected from DeputyRegistrar Office of the concerned district.
Ø The budget for the compensation of affected structures is based on the rates ofvarious types as described in Basic Schedule Rates (BSR), PWD, Govt. of Rajasthan,2013 (SOR-2013).
The rate for permanent structures without land has been designed at Rs. 13,500/m2,semi-permanent structures at Rs. 10,000/m2, temporary structures at the rate of Rs.4,500/m2 and Boundary wall at the rate of Rs. 3,000/RM and the R&R assistance to theaffected persons has been calculated as per the Entitlement Matrix. The Table 9.5 showthe item wise cost estimates of resettlement.
If there is delay in project implementation, the Valuation committee will determine thereplacement cost at the BSR’s updated rate.
4 Dissemination of Entitlementmatrix, RP, etc. Lump sum 150000 150000
Total Sum (E) Total 1800000 TOTAL (A+B+C+D+E) 2565625
Contingency 10% 256563Grand Total 2822188
In crores 0.28
9.10 CONCLUSION
In brief, the portrayal of initial assessment of social impact was nothing but an effort todepict the existing social scenario along the project road and perceived impacts onpopulation due to implementation of the project with an intention to minimize theresettlement. A proper attention is required to take account of social consideration inthe project planning and implementation as per policy of the Government of India,applicable resettlement policy and local needs of the people.
In finalizing the design, the mitigation of social report and views expressed by the localcommunity during consultation, especially the threat of displacement and negativeimpact on their business opportunities and livelihood has been taken into consideration.
Section :
From
(km)
To
(km)
Type
(m)
Width
(m)
Type
#
Width
(m)
Exists
(F/NF)*
Does
not
exist**
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
0.000 1.000 P BU 20 12 to 15BT/CC/
GRAW7 Gravel 2 0.0 F - -
1.000 2.000 P BU 20 12 to 15BT/GRA
WEL7 Gravel 3.0 0.0 - - -
2.000 3.000 P BU 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 2.0 0.0 - - -
3.000 4.000 P BU 30 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 2.0 0.0 F - -
4.000 5.000 P BU 30 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 2.0 0.0 - - -
5.000 6.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 2.0 0.0 - - -
6.000 7.000 P AG/BU 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 2.0 0.0 - - -
7.000 8.000 P AG/BU 20 to 25 12 to 15 CC/BT 6/7 Earth 2.0 0.0 - - -
8.000 9.000 P AG 25 to 30 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 2.0 0.0 - - -
9.000 10.000 P AG 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 2.0 0.0 - - -
10.000 11.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
11.000 12.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 -0.8 - - -
12.000 13.000 P AG 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
13.000 14.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 -1.0 - - -
Road side Drain
PERFORMA - 1
CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER AverageHeight of
Embankment or
depth of cutting
(m)
Service
Roads,if
any
1
ROAD INVENTORY
Remarks
KM. 0 to KM. 43 of SH-7A (Hanumangarh to
Abohar)
Chainage
Type of
Terrain
Land Use
@
Right of
Way (m)
Roadway
Width
Date of Survey : 27-06-2014
Section :
From
(km)
To
(km)
Type
(m)
Width
(m)
Type
#
Width
(m)
Exists
(F/NF)*
Does
not
exist**
Road side Drain
PERFORMA - 1
CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER AverageHeight of
Embankment or
depth of cutting
(m)
Service
Roads,if
any
ROAD INVENTORY
Remarks
KM. 0 to KM. 43 of SH-7A (Hanumangarh to
Abohar)
Chainage
Type of
Terrain
Land Use
@
Right of
Way (m)
Roadway
Width
Date of Survey : 27-06-2014
14.000 15.000 P AG 25 to 30 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 -2.5 - - -
15.000 16.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
16.000 17.000 P BU 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 -3.0 - - -
17.000 18.000 P BU 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
18.000 19.000 P AG/BU 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 -3.0 - - -
19.000 20.000 P AG 25 to 30 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 1.0 - - -
20.000 21.000 P AG 25 to 30 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
21.000 22.000 P AG 25 to 30 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
22.000 23.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
23.000 24.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
24.000 25.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
25.000 26.000 P AG 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
26.000 27.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
27.000 28.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
28.000 29.000 P AG/BU 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
Section :
From
(km)
To
(km)
Type
(m)
Width
(m)
Type
#
Width
(m)
Exists
(F/NF)*
Does
not
exist**
Road side Drain
PERFORMA - 1
CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER AverageHeight of
Embankment or
depth of cutting
(m)
Service
Roads,if
any
ROAD INVENTORY
Remarks
KM. 0 to KM. 43 of SH-7A (Hanumangarh to
Abohar)
Chainage
Type of
Terrain
Land Use
@
Right of
Way (m)
Roadway
Width
Date of Survey : 27-06-2014
29.000 30.000 P AG/BU 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
30.000 31.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
31.000 32.000 P AG/BU 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
32.000 33.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
33.000 34.000 P AG/BU 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
34.000 35.000 P AG 20 to 25 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
35.000 36.000 P AG/BU 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
36.000 37.000 P AG 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
37.000 38.000 P AG 10 to 15 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.0 0.0 - - -
38.000 39.000 P AG/BU 10 to 15 12 to 15 BT/CC 7 Earth 1.0 0.0 - - -
39.000 40.000 P AG 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
40.000 41.000 P AG 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
41.000 42.000 P AG 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
42.000 43.000 P AG/BU 15 to 20 12 to 15 BT 7 Earth 1.5 0.0 - - -
NOTE: @ Land use, indicate built-up, agriculture,barren, industrial, forest etc.
# For type of carriageway/shoulder, indicate CC/BT/Metalled/Gravel/Earth
Section :
From
(km)
To
(km)
Type
(m)
Width
(m)
Type
#
Width
(m)
Exists
(F/NF)*
Does
not
exist**
Road side Drain
PERFORMA - 1
CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER AverageHeight of
Embankment or
depth of cutting
(m)
Service
Roads,if
any
ROAD INVENTORY
Remarks
KM. 0 to KM. 43 of SH-7A (Hanumangarh to
Abohar)
Chainage
Type of
Terrain
Land Use
@
Right of
Way (m)
Roadway
Width
Date of Survey : 27-06-2014
Remarks: Indicate history of submergence or any other information of significance.
* F=Functional; NF=Non-functional
** If side drain does not exist, put a X mark.
Indicate section in built-up area, sections requiring raising.
SH-Rajsthan
LHS RHS
0.000 1.000 Fair fair fair
1.000 2.000 Fair fair fair
2.000 3.000 Fair fair Good
3.000 4.000 Fair fair Good
4.000 5.000 Fair poor poor
5.000 6.000 Poor poor poor
6.000 7.000 Fair poor poor
7.000 8.000 Fair _ poor
8.000 9.000 Fair _ poor
9.000 10.000 Fair _ poor
11.000 12.000 Fair _ poor
12.000 13.000 Fair _ _
13.000 14.000 Fair _ poor
14.000 15.000 Fair _ poor
15.000 16.000 Fair _ poor
16.000 17.000 Fair _ poor
PERFORMA - 4
Road Name: SH-7A
Section: Hanumangarh to Abohar (Up to Punjab Boarder)
Length affected with Shoulder
drop more than 50mmRemarks
Road Condition Survey
Chainage (Km)
From To
Visual Condition of
Shoulders
(Good/fair/Poor)
Visual Condition of
pavement
(Good/fair/Poor)
Visual Condition of Side
slopes and embankment
(Good/fair/Poor)
Visual Condition of road
side drain
(Good/fair/Poor)
fair&Poor
fair
Good
Good
fair
fair
fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
fair
poor
poor
fair
fair
17.000 18.000 Fair _ poor
18.000 19.000 Fair _ poor
19.000 20.000 Fair _ poor
20.000 21.000 Fair _ poor
21.000 22.000 Fair _ Good
22.000 23.000 Fair _ Fair
23.000 24.000 Fair _ Fair
24.000 25.000 Fair _ Fair
25.000 26.000 Fair _ Fair
26.000 27.000 Fair _ Fair
27.000 28.000 Fair _ Fair
28.000 29.000 Fair _ Fair
29.000 30.000 Fair _ Fair
30.000 31.000 Fair _ Fair
31.000 32.000 Fair _ Fair
32.000 33.000 Fair _ Fair
33.000 34.000 Fair _ Fair
34.000 35.000 Fair _ Fair
35.000 36.000 Fair _ Fair
36.000 37.000 Fair _ Fair
37.000 38.000 Fair _ Fair
fair
fair
fair
fair&Poor
poor
fair
fair
fair
Good
Good
Good
fair&Poor
fair
Good&fair
good
fair
Good
Good
Good/poor
fair
fair/poor
38.000 39.000 Fair _ Fair
39.000 40.000 Fair _ Fair
40.000 41.000 Fair _ Fair
41.000 42.000 Fair _ Fair
42.000 43.000 Fair _ Fair
Information will be given in block of one kilometer each i.e from km 0.000 to 1.000km,1.000 km to 2.000 km
Shoulder drop will be Counted when it is more then 50 mm in depth
fair
fair/poor
fair/poor
fair/poor
fair
Road Name : HANUMANGARH TO ABOHAR SH-7(A)
Section : 0.00 TO 43.00 KMs. Date of Survey : 27-Jun-14
Sl. Type of Height above
No. Structures Bed Level
(Pipe, Slab, U/S Side D/S Side
Box, Arch) (m) (m)
1 2 3 4 56 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 3.125 SLAB 1.700 1 0.800 11.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
2 3.405 SLAB 2.500 1 3.000 10.700 6.800 1.50 1.50 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
3 3.772 SLAB 1.000 1 0.800 10.700 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
4 6.224 SLAB 3.000 1 5.000 5.000 5.000 1.50 1.50 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
5 7.045 SLAB 1.800 1 0.800 9.600 7.000 0.60 0.60 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
6 7.415 SLAB 1.600 1 0.700 10.700 7.000 1.50 1.50 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
7 7.920 SLAB 1.600 1 0.700 9.600 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
8 8.688 SLAB 1.600 1 0.500 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X NO X
9 9.212 SLAB 2.500 1 0.800 11.400 7.000 - - GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
Whether
waterway
adequate
(Yes/No)
RemarksCarriageway
(m)
Condition Assessment
Parapet/
Handrail
Recommendation on
widening/
reconstruction etc
PERFORMA - 2
Road No
Width of culvert
Head
wall
Wing
wall
Total (m)
Condition Assessment*
Box,Slab,pi
pe,arch
Return
wall
Length
(m)
Span Arrangement
Number
of Spans
Width of
Span (m)
INVENTORY AND CONDITION SURVEY FOR CULVERTS
Location
(chainage)
Road Name : HANUMANGARH TO ABOHAR SH-7(A)
Section : 0.00 TO 43.00 KMs. Date of Survey : 27-Jun-14
Sl. Type of Height above
No. Structures Bed Level
(Pipe, Slab, U/S Side D/S Side
Box, Arch) (m) (m)
1 2 3 4 56 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Whether
waterway
adequate
(Yes/No)
RemarksCarriageway
(m)
Condition Assessment
Parapet/
Handrail
Recommendation on
widening/
reconstruction etc
Road No
Width of culvert
Head
wall
Wing
wall
Total (m)
Condition Assessment*
Box,Slab,pi
pe,arch
Return
wall
Length
(m)
Span Arrangement
Number
of Spans
Width of
Span (m)
Location
(chainage)
10 9.700 SLAB 1.200 1 1.000 11.400 7.000 - - POOR X X X P/GOOD X NO X
11 10.224 SLAB 1.000 1 1.000 10.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
12 12.185 SLAB 2.000 1 1.500 10.000 7.000 2.00 2.00 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
13 12.862 PIPE 1.000 1 Dia. = .600 10.000 7.000 - - POOR POOR X X P/GOOD RECONS. YES X
14 13.389 PIPE 2.000 1 Dia. = .600 7.800 7.000 - - FAIR FAIR X X P/GOOD RECONS. YES X
15 13.651 PIPE 2.000 1 Dia. = .600 9.000 7.000 - - POOR POOR X X P/GOOD RECONS. NO X
16 13.910 PIPE 2.000 1 Dia = 0.600 12.000 7.000 - - POOR POOR X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
17 14.959 SLAB 2.500 1 1.500 10.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
18 15.205 SLAB 1.000 1 0.500 10.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
19 16.164 SLAB 1.000 1 0.800 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR X NO X
Road Name : HANUMANGARH TO ABOHAR SH-7(A)
Section : 0.00 TO 43.00 KMs. Date of Survey : 27-Jun-14
Sl. Type of Height above
No. Structures Bed Level
(Pipe, Slab, U/S Side D/S Side
Box, Arch) (m) (m)
1 2 3 4 56 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Whether
waterway
adequate
(Yes/No)
RemarksCarriageway
(m)
Condition Assessment
Parapet/
Handrail
Recommendation on
widening/
reconstruction etc
Road No
Width of culvert
Head
wall
Wing
wall
Total (m)
Condition Assessment*
Box,Slab,pi
pe,arch
Return
wall
Length
(m)
Span Arrangement
Number
of Spans
Width of
Span (m)
Location
(chainage)
20 16.601 SLAB 3.000 1 0.800 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR RECONS. NO X
21 19.521 SLAB 1.800 1 1.000 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR RECONS. YES X
22 21.291 SYFN 1.000 1 0.300 Dia. Pipe 9.000 7.000 - - POOR POOR X X P/GOOD RECONS. NO X
23 22.054 SLAB 1.600 1 0.500 9.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
24 22.317 SLAB 1.600 1 1.000 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR RECONS. NO X
25 22.533 PIPE 1.600 1 0.500 9.000 7.000 0.60 0.60 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
26 24.373 SLAB 2.500 1 1.000 11.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X NO X
27 24.696 SLAB 1.200 1 1.000 9.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
28 24.883 SLAB 1.000 1 1.200 8.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 FAIR X X X P/FAIR X YES X
29 24.981 SLAB 2.000 1 0.700 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
Road Name : HANUMANGARH TO ABOHAR SH-7(A)
Section : 0.00 TO 43.00 KMs. Date of Survey : 27-Jun-14
Sl. Type of Height above
No. Structures Bed Level
(Pipe, Slab, U/S Side D/S Side
Box, Arch) (m) (m)
1 2 3 4 56 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Whether
waterway
adequate
(Yes/No)
RemarksCarriageway
(m)
Condition Assessment
Parapet/
Handrail
Recommendation on
widening/
reconstruction etc
Road No
Width of culvert
Head
wall
Wing
wall
Total (m)
Condition Assessment*
Box,Slab,pi
pe,arch
Return
wall
Length
(m)
Span Arrangement
Number
of Spans
Width of
Span (m)
Location
(chainage)
30 25.394 PIPE 1.000 1 Blocked 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR X NO X
31 25.553 SLAB 2.000 1 0.600 10.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 POOR X X X P/POOR X NO X
32 26.123 SLAB 2.000 1 0.700 11.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
33 28.114 SLAB 2.500 1 0.500 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR POOR X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
34 28.984 SLAB 2.500 1 1.000 12.000 7.000 - - X X X X YES X
35 29.642 SLAB 2.000 1 1.000 10.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 FAIR X X X P/FAIR X YES X
36 29.861 SLAB 2.500 1 0.800 10.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
37 30.424 SLAB 8.600 1 3.500 11.000 7.000 3.00 3.00 GOOD X X X P/GOOD X YES X
38 30.660 SLAB 1.500 1 0.500 9.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
39 31.937 SLAB 2.500 1 0.500 10.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 FAIR X X X P/FAIR RECONS. YES X
Road Name : HANUMANGARH TO ABOHAR SH-7(A)
Section : 0.00 TO 43.00 KMs. Date of Survey : 27-Jun-14
Sl. Type of Height above
No. Structures Bed Level
(Pipe, Slab, U/S Side D/S Side
Box, Arch) (m) (m)
1 2 3 4 56 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Whether
waterway
adequate
(Yes/No)
RemarksCarriageway
(m)
Condition Assessment
Parapet/
Handrail
Recommendation on
widening/
reconstruction etc
Road No
Width of culvert
Head
wall
Wing
wall
Total (m)
Condition Assessment*
Box,Slab,pi
pe,arch
Return
wall
Length
(m)
Span Arrangement
Number
of Spans
Width of
Span (m)
Location
(chainage)
40 32.733 SLAB 2.500 1 1.000 10.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
41 34.347 SLAB 2.000 1 0.500 10.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
42 34.885 SLAB 2.000 1 0.700 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR X YES X
43 35.418 SLAB 2.500 1 0.800 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR X YES X
44 35.932 SLAB 2.500 1 1.000 10.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
45 36.098 SLAB 2.500 1 3.500 12.600 7.000 - - POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
46 36.199 SLAB 2.000 1 0.800 13.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR X YES X
47 36.453 SLAB 2.000 1 0.800 11.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/FAIR RECONS. YES X
48 36.859 SLAB 2.000 1 1.000 13.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 FAIR X X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
49 37.458 SLAB 1.500 1 0.500 10.000 7.000 0.60 0.60 FAIR FAIR X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
Road Name : HANUMANGARH TO ABOHAR SH-7(A)
Section : 0.00 TO 43.00 KMs. Date of Survey : 27-Jun-14
Sl. Type of Height above
No. Structures Bed Level
(Pipe, Slab, U/S Side D/S Side
Box, Arch) (m) (m)
1 2 3 4 56 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Whether
waterway
adequate
(Yes/No)
RemarksCarriageway
(m)
Condition Assessment
Parapet/
Handrail
Recommendation on
widening/
reconstruction etc
Road No
Width of culvert
Head
wall
Wing
wall
Total (m)
Condition Assessment*
Box,Slab,pi
pe,arch
Return
wall
Length
(m)
Span Arrangement
Number
of Spans
Width of
Span (m)
Location
(chainage)
50 38.100 PIPE 1.500 1 Dia = 0.600 7.000 6.800 - - FAIR FAIR X X P/POOR RECONS. YES X
51 38.736 SLAB 1.800 1 0.500 11.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 GOOD X X X P/GOOD NO YES X
52 40.040 SLAB 1.800 1 0.500 9.000 7.000 1.00 1.00 POOR X X X P/POOR RECONS. NO X
53 40.817 SLAB 3.000 1 1.000 11.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD NO YES X
54 41.321 SLAB 3.000 1 1.000 12.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD NO YES X
55 41.824 SLAB 3.000 1 0.500 11.000 7.000 0.80 0.80 GOOD X X X P/GOOD NO YES X
*Distressed requiring reconstruction
*Not distressed, only widening required
*No widening or reconstruction required
Remarks:Indicate presence of protection works,scour etc.
INVENTORY OF STRUCTURES Sheet No.
Road Name Road No SH- 7A
Section 0.00 TO 43.00 KMs Date of Survey 27-Jun-14