pre feasibility report -...

Executive Summary Page 0- 1

Preparation of Detailed Project ReportBaysi-Bahadurganj-Dighalbank (SH-99), Bihar State (DPR)

Pre-Feasibility Report



0.1 Prelude

Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, A Government of Bihar Undertaking

has decided to improve/upgrade the sections of MDR/SH in the state of Bihar. The work

would be taken up for upgradation on corridor concept. Therefore, corridors include

strengthening (in adjoining stretches) in addition to widening in order to have a better

facility in a long continuous stretch.

In pursuance of the above, Feasibility Study and Detailed Project Report for rehabilitation

and upgradation section of SH-99 in state of Bihar has to be carried out.

0.2 Objectives of The Assignment

The main objective of the consultancy service is to establish the technical, economical,

and financial viability of the project and prepare detailed project reports for rehabilitation

and upgrading of the existing road to 2-lane with paved/earthen shoulders configuration.

The main objective would include detailed highway design, design of pavement and

overlay with options for flexible pavements, design of bridges and cross drainage

structures and grade separated structures, design of service roads, quantities of various

items, detailed working drawings, detailed cost estimates, economical and financial

viability analysis, environmental and social feasibility, social and environmental

Management plans as appropriate.

0.3 Socio - Economic Profile

The project road falls under Purnia and Kishanganj Districts in the State of Bihar. The

district limit, length, area and population of districts are as under:

District Existing Km Length

(km)

Area

(Sq. km)

Population in

Lakhs

Purnia From 0/000 to 32/035 32.035 3229 32.73

Kishanganj From 32/035 to 75/200 43.165 1884 16.90

Purnia District

Purnia District is located in the Eastern part of Bihar. The district is spread over 3202.31

Sq. km. accounting for 3.50% of the area of Bihar. It lies between 25°-13'-80N to 27°-07'-

59N latitude and 86°-59'-06" to 87°-52'-35"E longitude. The Purnia district on an average

is 171.2Feets above sea level. The average annual rainfall is 1470.4 mm.



Purnia is a level, depressed tract of country, consisting for the most part of a rich, loamy

soil of alluvial formation. It is traversed by several rivers flowing from the Himalayas, which

afford great advantages of irrigation and water-carriage. Its major rivers are the Kosi, the

Mahananda, the Suwara Kali and the Koli. In the west the soil is thickly covered with sand

deposited by changes in the course of the Kosi. Among other rivers are the Mahananda

and the Panar. Its major agricultural products are jute and banana.

Kishanganj District

Kishanganj District is located in the Eastern part of Bihar. The district is spread over

1884Sq. km. accounting for 2.06% of the area of Bihar. It lies between 25°20' N to 26° 30'

N latitude and 87°7' E to 88° 19’ E longitude. The Kishanganj district on an average is

173feet above sea level. The average annual rainfall is 2077.9mm. Kishanganj district is

surrounded by Araria district in the west, Purnia district in the south-west, Uttar Dinajpur

district of West Bengal on the east, and Darjeeling district of West Bengal and Nepal on

the north. A narrow strip of West Bengal, about 20 km wide separates it from Bangladesh

0.4 Project Description

Baysi-Bahadurganj-Dighalbank (“Project Road”) situated at north-east part of Bihar

and is a section of SH 99, having total length of 75.2 Kilometre. The project road lies

between 87°44' (E) to 87°51' (E) longitude and 25°51' (N) to 26°26' (N) latitude.

The start point of the project is at Km 0/000 at Baysi village and meets with NH-31 at Km

433/500 and the project road terminates at Km 75/200 near Dighalbank village.

The project road has single (3.75m) to intermediate lane (5.5m) with 0.5 m to 1.5 m

shoulders on either side of the carriageway. The carriageway is provided with flexible

pavement except at urban areas where rigid pavement has been found. The condition of the

pavement is very poor with ravelling, potholes, cracking, patchwork and pavement edge

drop at many places. The condition of shoulders is generally fair to poor.

Table 0.1 : Project Road Characteristics

Chainage Pavement

Width (m)

Pavement

Condition

Earthen

ShoulderStart End

0/000 15/000 5.5 Poor 0.5m to 1m

15/000 42/800 5.5 Fair 0.5m to 1m

42/800 43/400 5.5 (CC) Fair -

43/400 54/800 5.5 Fair 0.5m to 1m

54/800 55/300 5.5 (CC) Fair -

55/300 56/600 5.5 Fair 0.5m to 1m

56/600 61/000 3.75 Poor 0.5m to 1m

61/000 75/200 3.75 Fair 0.5m to 1m

0.4.1 Road Junctions

No substantial commercial traffic was found on the project road. Mainly local traffic was

observed on the project road. Intersections were identified based on present traffic pattern.



All intersections falling on the project corridor have been studied for the improvement to

allow a safe connection to the corridor and minimum interference to the through traffic.

The traffic on the connected road for major intersections has been studied and projections

have been made for its future development. Before recommending the improvement, all

available options in order of their importance as enumerated ahead have been considered:

At grade Intersections

Major junction with channelization of traffic;

Minor Junction as ‘Left In & Left Out’

2 Major and 45 minor intersections are proposed to be improved on the project corridor. 2

junctions at bypass start and end are proposed to be developed as Major junctions.

Details of Major intersections are shown in Table 0.2.

Table 0.2: Details of Major Junctions

Sr.No.

Name Chainage(km)

Type ofIntersection

ImprovementProposed

1 Baysi Chowk (NH-31) 00+000 T Channelized2 Mahadeo Dighi Chowk (SH-63) 44+965 + Channelized3 Bahadurganj Bypass Start (SH-99) 53+800 + Channelized4 Bahadurganj Bypass End (SH-99) 55+755 T Channelized

0.4.2 Bridge & Cross Drainage Structures

There are 23 existing Bridges consisting of 5 Major Bridges and 18 Minor Bridges.

3 Major Bridges and 7 Minor Bridges are submersible bridges, while 3 Minor Bridges are in

poor condition.

Remaining Bridges are in fair to good condition but having inadequate width.

There are 27 existing culverts consisting of 16 pipe culverts and 09 slab culverts and 2

culverts are buried.

Table 0.3 A: Summary of Existing Bridges and CD Woks

Sr.

No.

Type of

Structure

Existing

Nos.

Proposed Nos. Remark

Submersible

Bridges

Poor

Condition

High level with

Good Condition

1 Major Bridge 5 3 0 2 -

2 Minor Bridge 18 7 3 8 -

3 Pipe Culvert 16 0 0 16 -

4 Box Culvert 0 0 0 0 -

5 Slab Culvert 9 0 0 9 -

6 Buried Culvert 2 0 0 - Fully Buried

Total 50 10 3 35

Table 0.3 B: Summary of Improvement Proposal of Bridges and CD Woks

Sr.

No.

Type of

Structure

Existing

Nos.


Retained

without

widening

Widening

Proposed

Reconstruction New Total

1 Major Bridge 5 2 0 2 1 5 -



2 Minor Bridge 18 2 5 9 0 16 2 Nos. are

Bypassed

3 Pipe Culvert 16 0 16 0 192 208 -

4 Box Culvert 0 0 0 0 11 11 -

5 Slab Culvert 9 0 9 0 0 9 -

6 Buried Culvert 2 0 0 2 0 2 Recons.

With Pipe

Culvert

Total 50 4 30 13 204 251

0.5 Traffic Survey Analysis and Forecast

It is very important, that the existing information on traffic flow, commodity movement andtraffic pattern is required in order to assess the traffic behaviour on a project road. Tocollect such information to satisfy the Terms of Reference (TOR) and projectrequirements, following various types of traffic surveys were carried out:

Classified Traffic Volume Count Survey Origin – Destination (OD) Survey and commodity movement Surveys Axle Load Spectrum Survey

Intersection Volume Count Survey

Speed and Delay Survey

Pedestrian/Cattle Crossing Survey

0.5.1 Classified Traffic Volume Count Survey

The objective of classified traffic volume count survey is to estimate traffic intensity on the

project road. Classified volume count survey has been carried out at two locations.

The traffic is counted in number of vehicles by vehicle category-wise in each direction in a

15-minute interval over 24 Hrs a day for 7 Days. The counts were recorded in the formats

as per IRC specifications.

Table 0.4: Summary of Classified Volume Count Survey at all count stations

Sr.

No.

Location ADT

(No.)

ADT

(PCU)

Directional

Distribution

(%)

Peak

No.

Peak Traffic

(Hour)

Peak

Traffic

(%)

UP DN

1 Near Bajardih Village

(km 5/000)

3106 2881 47.2 52.8 235 10.00-11.00 7.61

2 Near Samesar hat

km 61/100)

4088 2949 49.6 50.4 455 18.00-19.00 11.24

0.5.2 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

The seasonal correction factors are used to convert Average Daily Traffic (ADT) to Annual

Average Daily Traffic (AADT). The Annual Average Daily Traffic for all traffic survey

locations is presented vide Table below:

Table 0.5: Summary of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

Sr.

No.

Location Fast Moving

Vehicles

Slow Moving

Vehicles

Total AADT

in Nos.

Total

PCU

1 Near Bajardih Village 2449 709 3158 2969



Sr.

No.

Location Fast Moving

Vehicles

Slow Moving

Vehicles

Total AADT

in Nos.

Total

PCU

(km 5/000)

2 Near Samesar hat

km 61/100)2803 1330 4133 3009

0.5.3 Turning Movement Count

The intersection volume count surveys at two major intersections have been carried out

during identified peak periods for 24 hours. The category-wise traffic is counted for all

direction in a 15 - minute interval. The counts were recorded in the specified survey

formats.

The survey data have been analysed to obtain the morning and evening peak hours with

flow of vehicles in each direction. The summary of peak hour traffic flow through

intersections is given in Table below:

Table 0.6: Peak Hour Traffic at Intersections

Sr.

No.

Locations Type of

intersection

Km Peak Hour Peak

Hour

Traffic

(PCU)

Improvement

1 Baysi Chowk (NH-31

Junction)

T 0/000 18:15-19:15 1955 Channelized

intersection

2 Mahadeo Dighi Chowk

(SH-63 junction)

+ 45/200 12:00-13:00 1677 Channelized

intersection

0.5.4 Axle Load Survey

In order to estimate vehicle loading spectrum on project road, and to determine vehicle

damage factor for the commercial vehicles, the axle load surveys have been carried out at

one identified location for 48hrs. The data collected from the Axle Load Survey has been

compiled and analyzed through “Fourth power” pavement damage rule to arrive at the

vehicles damage factor (VDF). The survey is analyzed to obtain Vehicle Damage Factor

(VDF) and is presented below:

Table 0.7: Adopted VDF by Homogeneous Sections

Sr.

No.

Homogeneous Section To (km) From

(Km)

Adopted VDF

Bus LCV

(4 tyres)

LCV

(6 tyres)

2-Axle 3-Axle MAV

1 Baysi to Mahadeo Dighi

Chowk (SH-63 junction)

0/000 45/200 0.99 0.06 0.76 2.62 4.08 4.45

2 Mahadeo Dighi Chowk (SH-63

junction) to Dighalbank

45/200 75/200 0.99 0.06 0.76 2.62 4.08 4.45

The equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) have been calculated assuming that the project

road will be opened to traffic in the year 2018. MSA for project road is worked out till 2 lane

capacity requirement:

Table 0.8: Summary of MSA

Year HS-1 HS-2

Baysi - Mahadev Dighi Chowk

(SH63)

Mahadev Dighi Chowk (SH-63

junction) to Dighalbank

Km0/000 - Km 45/200 Km 45/200 - Km 75/200

15 Year 15 5*



*As per axle load survey of homogenous section 2, MSA worked out for 15 year is 1. The

Indo-Nepal border road alignment passes from the homogenous section 2 on project road.

Hence, project road will be an important future connectivity for Indo-Nepal border road.

The project road has existing connectivity with NH-31 and SH-63. Also the project road is

a State highway road. Considering all above parameter and future importance of road,

minimum 5 MSA have been adopted for homogenous section 2 for pavement design.

0.5.5 Speed-Delay Survey

Speed and delay survey was carried out to obtain the information on the average journey

time, journey speed and running speed of the project road.

Round trip was made on entire project road during identified peak period using new

technology vehicle. The survey vehicle was kept to maintain the speed of existing traffic

flow. Start time, delay occurred, distance covered and end time were recorded on the

specified survey format. The data thus obtained is analyzed and presented below:

Table 0.9: Summary of Speed-Delay Survey

Direction Baysi to Dighalbank (km 0/000 to km 77/000)

Distance Covered (km) 77.00

Average Journey Speed (kmph) 19.04

Average Running Speed (kmph) 19.21

Journey Time (minutes) 242.60

Direction Dighalbank to Baysi (km 77/000 to km 0/000)

Distance Covered (km) 77.00

Average Journey Speed (kmph) 15.18

Average Running Speed (kmph) 15.24

Journey Time (minutes) 304.29


Intensity of pedestrians crossing the project road will be used for deciding on locations

requiring grade separators in the form of underpass or pedestrian crossing. The outcome

of the survey is presented below:

Table 0.10 : Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflict

Sr.

No.

Existing

Chainage

Location Peak Hour P V PV2/108

1 42/950 Sontha village 09:00-10:00 43 207 0.21


The increasing road accidents on major roads in country are cause of concern.

Considering the urban expanse, population growth and increasing trend of vehicles on the

roads; the safety of the commuters is equally vital.

Year wise road accident scenario based on the accident data collected from Amour,

Rauta, Kochadhaman, Bahadurganj and Dighalbank police station is shown below:



Figure shows that fatal accident reduced in year 2011 compare to year 2010. In year 2012

fatal accident is highest compare to other years. The figure shows the major injury

accidents gives opposite picture than fatal accident. It is increased in year 2011 and

reduced in year 2012.

0.5.8 Growth Rate and Traffic Demand Forecast

The growth rates were found out for the three scenarios- Most likely, Optimistic and

Pessimistic. As per IRC SP: 73-2007, a minimum 5% growth rate has been adopted for all

the commercial vehicles. Hence, Consultant adopted minimum 5% growth rate for all

vehicles in the absence of registration data of vehicle categories. (IRC SP:73-2007 Manual

of Specification & Standards for Two laning of Highways through PPP- Cl: 5.5.4).

The result of most likely scenario is given in the table below. Same has been used for

pavement design and capacity analysis for project road.

Table 0.11: Adopted Growth Rates

Vehicle Type Year 2014-

Year 2018

Year

2019-

Year 2023

Year

2024-

Year 2028

Year 2029-

Year 2033

Year

2034-

Year

2038

Year

2039-Year

2043

2 Wheeler 12.42 11.18 10.06 9.05 8.15 7.33

Car/ Jeep /Van/Taxi 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Govt. Bus 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Pvt. Bus 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

LCV-4W 6.61 5.95 5.35 5.00 5.00 5.00

LCV-6W 6.71 6.04 5.44 5.00 5.00 5.00

2 Axle 5.81 5.23 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

3 Axle 6.83 6.15 5.53 5.00 5.00 5.00

MAV 7.02 6.32 5.69 5.12 5.00 5.00

Tractor 7.83 7.05 6.34 5.71 5.14 5.00

Tractor with trailor 7.43 6.69 6.02 5.42 5.00 5.00* IRC: SP: 73-2007 Clause 5.5.4 - Annual growth rates of commercial Vehicles shall not be less than 5%.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

2010 2011 2012

No

ofA

ccid

ent

Year

Fatal Major Injury



The slow moving vehicles essentially cater to short haul traffic, meeting localized demand

for transportation of passengers and goods from rural areas to the nearest market town

and urban centres. The slow moving traffic is not expected to have high growth rates on

National Highways. As such, growth rate of slow moving vehicle was fixed on 2% for the

entire period.

Table 0.12: Summary of Projected Traffic Volume for all Homogenous Sections

(Most likely scenario)

Year HS-1 HS-2

Baysi - Mahadev Dighi Chowk

(SH63)

Mahadev Dighi Chowk (SH63)-

Dighalbank

Km0/000 - Km 45/200 Km 45/200 - Km 75/200

All Vehicles

(Nos.) (PCU) (Nos.) (PCU)

2013 3156 2968 4133 3009

2014 3400 3177 4448 3225

2015 3668 3404 4797 3461

2016 3964 3651 5183 3719

2017 4291 3920 5610 4003

2018 6518 8528 6084 4314

2019 6987 9068 6564 4628

2020 7496 9646 7092 4971

2021 8050 10266 7673 5345

2022 8653 10930 8311 5753

2023 9310 11644 9015 6198

2024 9969 12352 9721 6644

2025 10682 13108 10492 7128

2026 11455 13916 11333 7653

2027 12291 14778 12253 8223

2028 13197 15701 13258 8842

2029 14102 16617 14258 9457

2030 15075 17592 15343 10120

2031 16124 18629 16519 10836

2032 17254 19734 17794 11608

2033 18472 20910 19178 12442

2034 19688 22100 20544 13266

2035 20990 23363 22015 14150

2036 22386 24703 23600 15098

2037 23881 26125 25307 16115

2038 25485 27634 27146 17206

2039 27079 29171 28949 18286

2040 28777 30798 30878 19437

2041 30589 32519 32942 20666

2042 32519 34341 35152 21977

2043 34578 36269 37517 23375

0.5.9 Capacity Analysis

For the purpose of augmentation of the facilities and up gradation of the project highway,

the design service volume for the plain terrain condition and level of Service B & C is



shown in Table 0.13.

Table 0.13: Design Service Volume for Different Lane Configurations

Lane Configuration Design Service

Volume

( PCUs per day)

Level of Service B

Design Service

Volume

( PCUs per day)

Level of Service C

Intermediate Lane 6000 8400

2-Lane with 1.5m Earthen Shoulder 15000 21000

2-Lane with 1.5m Paved Shoulder 18000 25200

4-Lane with 1.5m Earthen Shoulder 35000 49000

4-Lane with 1.5m Paved Shoulder 40000 60000

6 Lane >60000

0.6 Lane Requirements

Based on the assessment of the traffic demand on the various homogeneous

section of the Project Highway, the Consultant have carried out detailed option analysis

for Two- lanning and four lanning. Based on the most likely scenario growth rate & Design

Service Volume, the number of lanes required for the project road is worked out for LOS B

and LOS C which is presented in Table 0.14 below

Table 0.14: Lanning Requirement for the Project Corridor

(Using Most Likely Scenario)Homogeneous

Section

Km Lanning Requirements Year

2-Lane with 4-Lane with

Earthen

Shoulder

(LOS B)

Earthen

Shoulder

(LOSC)

Paved

Shoulder

(LOS B)

Paved

Shoulder

(LOS C)

Earthen

Shoulder

(LOS B)

Earthen

Shoulder

(LOS C)

Baysi - Mahadeo Dighi

Chowk (SH63)

Km 0/000-

Km45/200

2018 2018 2028 2034 2031 2037

Mahadeo Dighi Chowk

(SH63) - Dighalbank

Km 45/200-

Km 75/200

2023 2028 2036 2042 2039 -

Capacity analysis and lanning requirements have been carried out separately for two

homogeneous sections as per the traffic demand and travel characteristics.

Lane capacity of the homogeneous section 1 (Km 0/000 to Km 45/200) will require for 2

lane paved shoulder in the year 2028

Lane capacity of the homogeneous section 2 (Km 45/200 to Km 75/200) will require for 2

lane earthen shoulder in the year 2023 and 2 lane paved shoulder in the year 2036.

0.7 Proposed Design Standards

Following table is a summary of the recommended design standards proposed to be

adopted for the project road other than service road and intersections:

Table 0.15 : Summary of Recommended Design Standard

(i) Design Speed (Km/hr)



Plain /Rolling Terrain : 80 (Ruling), 65(Minimum)

(ii) Level of Service : B

(iii) Roadway Widths (m) : 12m for 2-lanes with earthen shoulders/

paved shoulder

13m/10m for built-up section

(iv) Roadway Elements

: Carriageway

2-lane- 2X3.5m

For Two lane Paved shoulder

-Paved shoulder- 2x1.5m

-Unpaved Shoulder- 2x1.0m

For Two lane Unpaved Shoulder

- Unpaved Shoulder 2X 2.5m

In Built-up section

-Footpath/Drain – 2X1.5m

In Stretches of High Embankment

-Paved shoulder- 2x1.5m

(v) Camber : Carriageway/Paved Shoulder- 2.50%

Unpaved Shoulder- 3.50%

(vi) Right of Way : For Urban Sections

- 15m or existing ROW (whichever is

more)

For Rural Sections

- 24-38m ROW required as per actual

cross section or existing ROW

(whichever is more)

(vii) Embankment/ Cutting Slope : In filling- 1V: 2 H

In cutting- 1V:1H

(viii) Stopping Sight Distance

Intermediate sight distance

: 180m for design speed of 100km/hr

120m for design speed of 80 km/hr

90m for design speed of 65 Km /hr




360m for design speed of 100km/hr

240m for design speed of 80 km/hr




60 m for design speed of 30 Km /hr

(ix) Super-elevation : Maximum 7%

(x) Radii for Horizontal Curves : Ruling Minimum 155 m

Absolute minimum 90 m

(xi) Ruling Gradient : 3.3% for plain and rolling terrain

5% limiting gradient

(xii) Minimum K- factor

Summit Curve : 75 for Design speed of 100 km/hr

35 for Design speed of 80 km/hr

20 for design speed of 65 km/hr







Valley Curve : 42 for Design speed of 100 km/hr







(xiii) Bridge Clearance

Vehicular underpass : 5.5 m

Cattle and Pedestrian

underpass

: 3.0m

(xiv) Design Flood Frequency

Bridges : 50 years

Sewers and Ditches : 10 years

(xv) Minimum Drainage Channel

Width

: 0.60 m

0.8 Improvement Proposals

The improvement proposals for proposed widening include the provisions for the following

major items:

a) Widening Proposal

b) Requirement of bypasses and realignment

c) Geometric Improvement Design

d) Proposed Pavement Design

e) Traffic Control and Safety Measures

f) Bridge and Cross Drainage Structures

0.8.1 Widening Proposal

In order to meet future traffic requirement the existing carriageway is proposed to upgrade

to achieve high speed of travel with comfort and safety. Concentric widening scheme is

followed to minimise land acquisition issues and to ensure maximum utilisation of existing

carriageway. Table 0.16 and Table 0.17 shows relation between existing and proposed

chainage and section wise improvement proposed for the project road.

Table 0.16 : Existing – Proposed Chainage

Sr.

No.

Section Existing

Chainage

Design

Chainage

Improvement

Proposed

1 Baysi to Mahadev

Dighi Chowk (Junction

with SH-63)

km. 0/000 to

km. 45/200

Ch. 0+000 to

Ch 44+965

Two lane Paved

shoulder configuration

2 Mahadev Dighi Chowk km. 45/200 Ch. 44+965 to Two lane configuration



Sr.

No.

Section Existing

Chainage

Design

Chainage

Improvement

Proposed

(SH-63) to Dighalbank

(SH-99)

to km.

75/200

Ch 74+306

Table 0.17 : Proposed Improvement

Existing Km Design Chainage Length Improvement Proposed

From To From To (km)

0/000 0/230 0+000 0+230 0.230 Two lane Paved shoulder with

footpath/drain in Built-up section

(Rigid Pavement)

0/230 13/470 0+230 13+450 13.220 Two lane Paved Shoulder

configuration



(Flexible Pavement)



(Rigid Pavement)


configuration



(Flexible Pavement)



(Rigid Pavement)



(Flexible Pavement)


configuration



(Flexible Pavement)



(Rigid Pavement)


configuration



(Rigid Pavement)


configuration



(Rigid Pavement)


configuration



Existing Km Design Chainage Length Improvement Proposed

From To From To (km)

45/265 60/970 44+965 60+050 15.085 Two lane configuration



(Rigid Pavement)




(Rigid Pavement)




(Rigid Pavement)


73/455 73/655 72+555 72+755 0.200 Two lane Paved shoulder withfootpath/drain in Built-up section(Rigid Pavement)


Total 74.306


Preparation of Detailed Project Report SAI Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd.Baysi-Bahadurganj-Dighalbank (SH-99), Bihar State (DPR)

Annexure-V

0.8.2 Requirement of Bypass and Realignment

The concept of alignment design is to upgrade the project highway within the existing right

of way avoiding land acquisition, except for locations having inadequate width and where

provision of short bypass, service roads, alignment corrections, improvement of

intersection are considered necessary, practicable and cost effective. These improvement

proposals are based on the findings from various engineering features carried out on the

project roads such as Reconnaissance Survey, future traffic requirement, Inventory Data

and Pavement Investigations. Bypass/realignment proposals are also considered,

wherever in urban/rural areas, improvement to two lanes of existing road is not possible.

Alignment options are basically divided into two parts:

A. Bypass

B. Realignment

0.8.2.1 Proposal for Bypass

Consultant has proposed one bypass for the project road and its details are summarized

below.

Table 0.18 : Summary of Bypass

Sr. Design Chainage Length

(km)

Existing Chainage Length

(km)

Village/Town

No. Start Ch. End Ch. Start Ch. End Ch.

1 53+850 55+805 1.955 54/170 56/605 2.435 Bahadurganj

Total 1.955 Total 2.435

0.8.2.2 Proposal for Realignments

Consultant has proposed the realignment at following locations to improve the design

speed as per proposed design standard.

Table 0.19 : Summary of Realignments

Existing

Chainages

Length

(km)

Design Chainages Length

(km)

Remarks

From To From To

8/097 8/357 0.260 8+100 8+355 0.255

8/502 8/784 0.282 8+500 8+775 0.275

23/846 24/282 0.436 23+760 24+140 0.380 Realignment and

Reconstruction of

Bridge

50/205 50/507 0.302 49+900 50+200 0.300

74/632 74/985 0.353 73+715 74+000 0.285

1.633 1.495

0.8.3 Speed Restrictions

Existing geometry of the project highway has been improved to achieve the minimum

design speed as per proposed standards except with following locations which are

proposed as “Speed Restriction Zone”.



Annexure-V

Table 0.20 : Speed Restriction Zone

Chainage Length Design Speed

From To (m) kmph

0+000 0+360 0.360 40

6+500 6+925 0.425 40

8+300 8+430 0.130 50

9+750 10+945 1.195 40 to 50

11+500 11+855 0.355 50

12+900 13+530 0.630 50 to 40

26+200 26+750 0.550 50

27+800 27+900 0.100 50

37+420 37+660 0.240 40

47+950 48+100 0.150 50

55+175 55+555 0.380 50

55+860 56+330 0.470 50

64+100 64+205 0.105 50

73+110 73+265 0.155 50

Total 5.245

0.8.4 Water logging and Protection Work

Embankment constructed for Highways, Railways and Earthen dams generally serves the

protection of structure against ingress of ground water, flood and thereby not only enhance

the life of structure but also minimise the maintenance cost of structure. Hence appropriate

slope protection and stabilisation measures should be taken to protect the embankment.

During the reconnaissance survey, local inquires and engineering surveys water-logging

have been observed at many locations on the project road. But overtopping has been

observed at only few following locations. On most of the sections the overtopping have

been observed because of submerge bridges and only at one location (between km

11/715 to km 13/020) overtopping has been observed because of low embankment height.

The details of overtopped /submerged areas sections have been presented in table below.

Table 0.21 : Details of Overtopped/Submerged Area

Sr.

No.

Existing Chainage Design Chainage Length Improvement Proposal

From To From To

1 11/715 13/020 11+705 13+005 1.300 Reconstruction from sub

grade with sand blanket

below sub grade layer due

to water logged. Raising

due to overtopped

2 13/020 13/420 13+005 13+430 0.425 High Level Bridge has been

provided in place of

submerge bridge



submerge bridge





Annexure-V

Sr.

No.

Existing Chainage Design Chainage Length Improvement Proposal

From To From To

submerge bridge



submerge bridge



submerge bridge

7 54/155 54/220 NA NA Bypass

8 54/440 54/765 NA NA Bypass



submerge bridge



submerge bridge



submerge bridge

Total 4.030

The main reason for water-logging/stagnation along the side of the road is absence of the

proper road side drain and insufficient number of cross-drainage structures. Along with

these it is also important to note that the farmers are likely to store/retain water for farming

activities along sides of the road creating small bunds parallel toe of embankment on both

the sides of the road

0.8.4.1 Treatment of High Embankment

Turfing is proposed to be used as the basic slope stabilisation measure where height of

embankment is less than 3.0m. Longitudinal kerbed drains at edge of roadway are

provided to channelize the flow and are led down by lined chute drains. Paved shoulders

have also been proposed considering the safety aspects.

0.8.4.2 Treatment in Waterlogged Area

Water stagnation along the toe of embankment was observed during survey and

investigations along the project road. Following improvement measures have been

proposed at such water logging areas:

Stone Pitching

Concrete wall at end of embankment toe

Sand Blanket layer for capillary cut off

Details of stone pitching have been presented in below Table 0.22.



Annexure-V

Table 0.22 : Details of Stone Pitching

Sr.

No.

Existing

Chainage

Design Chainage Length Side of

Road

Remarks

Starting

Ch.

Ending

Ch.

Starting

Ch.

Ending

Ch.

(Km.) (Km.) (Ch) (Ch.) (km)

1 1/000 1/150 1+000 1+150 0.150 0.150 LHS Water logging

2 1/600 1/750 1+600 1+750 2 x 0.15 0.300 Both Water logging

3 3/250 3/300 3+250 3+300 0.050 0.050 RHS Water logging

4 3/595 3/675 3+595 3+675 2 x 0.08 0.160 Both High Embankment




8 4/800 5/300 4+800 5+300 2 x 0.5 1.000 Both Sand Layer with Toe

Wall




Wall





Wall

16 10/300 11/300 10+305 11+305 2 x 1 2.000 Both Water logging

17 11/390 11/400 11+390 11+400 0.010 0.010 LHS High Embankment



Wall


21 13/050 13/090 13+030 13+070 0.040 0.040 RHS High Embankment


























Annexure-V

Sr.

No.

Existing

Chainage


Road

Remarks

Starting

Ch.

Ending

Ch.

Starting

Ch.

Ending

Ch.

(Km.) (Km.) (Ch) (Ch.) (km)





Wall




Wall











Wall




Wall


Wall


















Wall



Wall






Annexure-V

Sr.

No.

Existing

Chainage


Road

Remarks

Starting

Ch.

Ending

Ch.

Starting

Ch.

Ending

Ch.

(Km.) (Km.) (Ch) (Ch.) (km)













Total 40.100

a) Length of Stone Pitching in High Embankment 3.810

b) Length of Stone Pitching in water logged area 14.500

c) Length of Stone Pitching with Sand Layer and Toe

Wall

21.790

Treatment of Embankment Protection in Vicinity of River

As the Parman River is running parallel on left hand side of the project road between km

9/800 to 10/200 stone pitching with cement mortar grout along with launching approach is

proposed to protect the embankment slopes that are exposed to direct frontal attack of

Parman River for better stability instead of simple stone pitching and PCC toe wall.

Launching apron is to be provided for the protection of toe and it should form a continuous

flexible cover over the slope to avoid any scour. The slope of the launching apron is to be

kept as 2 (H): 1(V). In addition, a shear key of 0.50 m x 0.75 m is to be provided at the

base of stone pitching.

Table 0.23 : Details of Panal Pitching with Launching Apron

Design Chainage Length

(Km)

Side Total Remarks

From To Length

(Km)

9+800 10+200 0.400 LHS 0.400 Vicinity of Parman River

Total 0.400

0.8.5 Proposed ROW

Based on the design and availability of the existing ROW, consultant has proposed sectionwise requirement of ROW and its details are presented below.

Table 0.24 : Proposed ROW RequirementSr.No.

ExistingChainage

ProposedChainage

Existing ROW (m)(from Existing CL)

Revised Pr. ROW (m)(from Ex. CL)

# (From Proposed CL)

#Remarks

From To From To Left Right Total Left Right Total1 0/000 6/650 0+000 6+650 15 15 30 15 15 302 6/650 6/840 6+650 6+800 15 15 30 15 15 30 Geometric

Improvement,RHS side ROWmeasured fromPCL



Annexure-V

Sr.No.

ExistingChainage

ProposedChainage




#Remarks

From To From To Left Right Total Left Right Total3 6/840 8/150 6+800 8+150 15 15 30 15 15 30

4 8/150 8/300 8+150 8+300 15 15 30 15 15 30 Realignment,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

5 8/300 8/500 8+300 8+500 15 15 30 15 15 30

6 8/500 8/700 8+500 8+700 15 15 30 15 15 30 Realignment,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

7 8/700 10/360 8+700 10+350 15 15 30 15 15 30

8 10/360 11/560 10+350 11+550 15 15 30 16 16 32 Geometric

Improvement,

RHS side ROW

measured from

PCL

9 11/560 11/800 11+550 11+800 15 15 30 19 19 38 Geometric

Improvement,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

10 10/610 13/500 11+800 13+500 15 15 30 15 15 30

11 13/500 13/775 13+500 13+775 3.42 3.42 6.84 7.5 7.5 15 Amour Village

12 13/775 14/555 13+775 14+555 4.15 4.15 8.3 7.5 7.5 15 Amour Village

13 14/555 17/700 14+555 17+700 7.4 7.4 14.8 12 12 24

14 17/700 18/100 17+700 18+100 7.4 7.4 14.8 15 15 30

15 18/100 18/250 18+100 18+250 7.4 7.4 14.8 16 16 32

16 18/250 21/300 18+250 21+300 7.4 7.4 14.8 12 12 24

17 21/300 21/650 21+300 21+650 7.73 7.73 15.46 13 13 26 Bridge

Approaches

18 21/650 22/010 21+650 22+010 7.21 7.21 14.42 12 12 24

19 22/010 22/560 22+010 22+560 7.5 7.5 15 7.5 7.5 15 Rauta Village

20 22/560 23/060 22+560 23+060 9.5 9.5 19 9.5 9.5 19 Rauta Village

21 23/060 23/410 23+060 23+410 6.69 6.69 13.38 7.5 7.5 15 Rauta Village

22 23/410 23/850 23+410 23+850 6.69 6.69 13.38 12 12 24 Both Side ROW

measured from

PCL

23 23/850 24/300 23+850 24+200 7.5 7.5 15 18 18 36 Realignment,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

24 24/300 24/950 24+200 24+850 6.39 6.39 12.78 12 12 24

25 24/950 25/500 24+850 25+400 7.2 7.2 14.4 12 12 24

26 25/500 26/300 25+400 26+200 12 12 24 12 12 24

27 26/300 26/850 26+200 26+700 12 12 24 12 14 26 Geometric

Improvement,

RHS side ROW

measured from

PCL

28 26/850 27/950 26+700 27+800 12 12 24 12 12 24

29 27/950 28/150 27+800 28+000 15 15 30 15 15 30

30 28/150 30/000 28+000 29+700 15 15 30 15 15 30 Geometric

Improvement,

LHS side ROW

measured from

PCL

31 30/000 30/300 29+700 29+950 8.89 8.89 17.78 15 15 30

32 30/300 33/295 29+950 33+045 5.07 5.07 10.14 12 12 24

33 33/295 33/810 33+045 33+510 5.07 5.07 10.14 7.5 7.5 15 Barbatta Village



Annexure-V

Sr.No.

ExistingChainage

ProposedChainage




#Remarks

From To From To Left Right Total Left Right Total34 33/810 34/210 33+510 33+960 12 12 24 12 12 24 Barbatta Village

35 34/210 35/550 33+960 35+300 12 12 24 12 12 24

36 35/550 36/450 35+300 36+200 12 12 24 16 16 32 Bridge

Approaches

37 36/450 37/010 36+200 36+760 8.62 8.62 17.24 12 12 24

38 37/010 37/230 36+760 36+980 4.33 4.33 8.66 15 15 30

39 37/230 37/700 36+980 37+500 5.05 5.05 10.1 12 12 24

40 37/700 38/100 37+500 37+900 5.5 5.5 11 15 15 30 Alignment

discrepancy

41 38/100 39/460 37+900 39+160 6.12 6.12 12.24 12 12 24 Geometric

Improvement,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

42 39/460 39/760 39+160 39+460 5.56 5.56 11.12 7.5 7.5 15 Kochadhaman

Village

43 39/760 40/800 39+460 40+500 7.5 7.5 15 12 12 24

44 40/800 41/000 40+500 40+700 7.5 7.5 15 15 15 30

45 41/000 42/760 40+700 42+460 7.5 7.5 15 12 12 24

46 42/760 43/260 42+460 43+010 6.31 6.31 12.62 7.5 7.5 15 Sontha Village

47 43/260 46/850 43+010 46+600 6.42 6.42 12.84 12 12 24

48 46/850 47/250 46+600 47+000 6.42 6.42 12.84 15 15 30

49 47/250 47/650 47+000 47+400 6.42 6.42 12.84 12 12 24

50 47/650 47/850 47+400 47+600 15 15 30 15 15 30

51 47/850 50/050 47+600 49+800 9.05 9.05 18.1 12 12 24

52 50/050 51/300 49+800 51+000 9.05 9.05 18.1 12 12 24 Realignment,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

53 51/300 53/080 51+000 52+780 9.05 9.05 18.1 15 15 30

54 53/080 53/360 52+780 53+060 4.33 4.33 8.66 15 15 30

55 53/360 54/170 53+060 53+900 4.94 4.94 9.88 12 12 24 Geometric

Improvement,

LHS side ROW

measured from

PCL

56 54/170 56/605 53+900 54+100 Pr. B'ganj Bypass 15 15 30 Bahadurganj

Bypass

57 54+100 54+550 18 18 36 Bahadurganj

Bypass, Bridge

Approaches

58 54+550 55+800 15 15 30 Bahadurganj Bypass

59 56/605 57/820 55+800 57+020 4.88 4.88 9.76 12 12 24

60 57/820 58/120 57+020 57+320 4.52 4.52 9.04 16 16 32 Bridge

Approaches

61 58/120 60/850 57+320 60+050 4.59 4.59 9.18 12 12 24

62 60/850 61/050 60+050 60+250 3.41 3.41 6.82 7.5 7.5 15 Samesar Village

63 61/050 62/300 60+250 61+500 4.58 4.58 9.16 12 12 24

64 62/300 62/570 61+500 61+770 5.06 5.06 10.12 16 16 32 Bridge

Approaches

65 62/570 64/650 61+770 63+850 3.96 3.96 7.92 12 12 24

66 64/650 64/850 63+850 64+050 4.48 4.48 8.96 7.5 7.5 15 Tulsia Village

67 64/850 69/245 64+050 68+495 5.92 5.92 11.84 12 12 24

68 69/245 69/545 68+495 68+795 4.54 4.54 9.08 7.5 7.5 15 Tappu Village

69 69/545 73/305 68+795 72+555 5.69 5.69 11.38 12 12 24 GeometricImprovement,Both side ROWmeasured fromPCL



Annexure-V

Sr.No.

ExistingChainage

ProposedChainage




#Remarks

From To From To Left Right Total Left Right Total70 73/305 73/505 72+555 72+755 6.5 6.5 13 7.5 7.5 15 Haruadanga

Village

71 73/505 74/780 72+755 73+890 6.67 6.67 13.34 12 12 24 Realignment,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

72 74/780 75/080 73+890 74+180 4.13 4.13 8.26 15 15 30 Bridge

Approaches,

Both side ROW

measured from

PCL

73 75/080 75.2 74+180 74+306 5.7 5.73 11.43 12 12 24

0.8.6 Pavement Design

The flexible pavement is adopted for proposed new carriageway, widening and

reconstruction. Design period of 15 years considered. Rigid pavement is proposed in few

urban locations given in Table 0.25 and proposes flexible pavement design and rigid

pavement design is given in Table 0.26 and Table 0.27 respectively.

Table 0.25 : Proposed Locations of Rigid Pavement

Sr.

No.

Existing Chainage Design Chainage

From To From To

1 0/000 0/230 0+000 0+230

2 13/790 14/570 13+775 14+555

3 22/675 23/175 22+560 23+060

4 33/805 34/255 33+510 33+960

5 39/450 39/750 39+150 39+460

6 42/760 43/310 42+460 43+010

7 60/970 61/165 60+050 60+250

8 64/760 64/960 63+850 64+050

9 69/410 69/710 68+495 68+795

10 73/460 73/655 72+555 72+755

Table 0.26 : Recommended Flexible Pavement Design

Section Design Chainage Pavement Layer in mmFrom To From To BC DBM WMM GSB SGBaysi Mahadeodighi

chowk0+000 44+900 40 85 250 300 500

Mahadeodighichowk

Dighalbank 44+900 74+306 40 50 250 230 500

As per IRC 37, thickness of extended portion should not be less than 150mm for design

traffic less than 10msa and 200 for design traffic 10msa or above hence, from Baysi –

Mahadev Dighi chowk (0+000 to 44+900) 200mm thick GSB should be extended upto

entire formation width and from Mahadev Dighi chowk – Dighalbank (44+900 to 74+306)

150 mm thick GSB should be extended upto entire formation width.

Table 0.27 : Recommended Rigid Pavement design

Pavement Layer in mmPQC (mm) DLC (mm) GSB (mm) SG (mm)



Annexure-V

Pavement Layer in mmPQC (mm) DLC (mm) GSB (mm) SG (mm)

Proposed rigid pavementdesign

220 150 150 500

Reconstruction Sections and strategies are identified based on pavement condition

survey. As the overall pavement condition is poor with inadequate crust thickness,

absence of drainage layer and higher roughness value even in recently overlaid section,

reconstruction has been proposed. From km 00/000 to 21/000 the embankment height is

varies from 0 to 3.0m height with scattered water logged on one side/both side hence

reconstruction from subgrade layer is proposed while rest of the section is proposed with

reconstruction from granular sub base layer. In water logged areas, an addition layer of

200mm thick sand blanket is proposed to cut off the capillary action.

Reconstruction from Sub grade

Remove existing bituminous layer, treat existing base/sub base as embankment. Afterpreparing original ground and compacting embankment, start construction from thesubgrade as per recommended pavement design.

Provide 200mm thick blanket layer before laying subgrade in water logged areas.

Reconstruction from Sub baseRemove existing bituminous layer, treat existing base/sub base as subgrade. After

loosening and recompaction of sub grade layer start construction of new pavement layers

from GSB layer as per recommended pavement design.



Annexure-V

0.8.7 Traffic Control and Safety Measures

0.8.7.1 Road Marking & Traffic Signs

Pavement markings are proposed as per IRC: 35-1997, “Code of Practice for Road

Marking” with centre-line, edge line, continuity line, stop line, give way lines,

diagonal/chevron markings and zebra crossings. The pavement marking shall be of hot

applied thermoplastic paint with glass beads as per the MORT&H specification for Road

and Bridge Works, 2001(4th Revision, latest reprint).

Appropriate road safety measures are provided with stop signs, give-way signs, traffic

merging and diverging signs, lane closure signs, compulsory keep left/right signs or any

other signs as per IRC-67. Advance cautionary signs are proposed for sharp curves along

with chevron signs at the outer edge of the curves. Over head gantry signs have been

proposed at start and at the end points of the project road.

0.8.7.2 Pedestrian Crossing

Zebra crossings have been proposed at various locations as per relevant IRC codes.

Apart from it pedestrian guard rails have also been proposed at urban locations to

segregate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and thus increasing their safety. Details of it

shown in the table below:

Table 0.28 : Details of Pedestrian Guard Rails in Built-up areas (Both sides)

Sr.

No.

Existing

Chainage


(km)

Cross

section

Type

Remarks

1 0/000 0/230 0+000 0+230 2 x 0.230 TCS-8 Rigid Pavement

2 13/470 13/795 13+450 13+775 2 x 0.325 TCS-7 Flexible Pavement













Total 10.800

0.8.7.3 Safety Barrier

To improve the safety for all road users, W-beam crash barrier are provided at locations

where embankment height is more than 3m and at location of structure approaches. The

W-beam crash barrier locations for embankment height 3m or more (including structure

approaches) has been provided below.



Annexure-V

Table 0.29: W-beam Metal Crash Barriers with Embankments Height 3 m or more

Left Side Crash Barrier Right Side Crash Barrier


(m)

Remarks Design Chainage Length

(m)

Remarks

From To From To

00+213 00+243 30 Minor Bridge

(0+256)

00+213 00+243 30 Minor Bridge

(0+256)00+270 00+300 30 00+270 00+300 30

02+500 02+530 30 Minor Bridge

(2+534)

02+500 02+530 30 Minor Bridge

(2+534)02+538 02+568 30 02+538 02+568 30

03+595 03+672 77 Minor Bridge

(3+702)

03+605 03+672 67 Minor Bridge

(3+702)03+725 03+845 120 03+725 03+775 50

07+765 07+802 37 Minor Bridge

(7+816)

07+770 07+802 32 Minor Bridge

(7+816)

07+835 07+855 20 10+435 10+466 31

09+993 10+015 22 10+468 10+525 57

11+613 11+674 61 11+590 11+610 20

11+678 11+755 77 11+613 11+674 61

11+757 11+795 38 11+678 11+755 77

12+097 12+160 63 11+757 11+800 43

12+350 12+376 26 12+230 12+265 35

12+378 12+426 48 12+428 12+594 166

12+520 12+594 74 12+597 12+775 178

13+070 13+136 66 Major Bridge

(13+179)

12+777 12+830 53

21+370 21+458 88 Minor Bridge

(21+480)

12+842 12+905 63

21+507 21+545 38 13+030 13+112 82 Major Bridge

(13+179)21+547 21+595 48 13+220 13+300 80

23+890 24+028 138 Major Bridge

(24+063)

21+331 21+458 127 Minor Bridge

(21+480)24+093 24+155 62 21+507 21+545 38

24+850 24+880 30 Minor Bridge

(24+833)

21+547 21+595 48

24+920 24+945 25 23+900 24+028 128 Major Bridge

(24+063)25+061 25+140 79 Minor Bridge

(25+149)

24+093 24+155 62

25+160 25+230 70 24+920 24+960 40

26+744 26+774 30 Major Bridge

(26+893)

25+061 25+140 79 Minor Bridge

(25+149)27+012 27+042 30 25+160 25+234 74

27+055 27+100 45 25+236 25+275 39

27+875 27+910 35 Minor Bridge

(27+928)

26+744 26+774 30 Major Bridge

(26+893)27+945 27+980 35 27+012 27+042 30

29+758 29+788 30 Minor Bridge

(29+796)

27+955 27+994 39 Minor Bridge

(27+928)

29+804 29+834 30 29+758 29+788 30 Minor Bridge

(29+796)35+215 35+255 40 29+804 29+834 30

35+595 35+619 24 35+595 35+619 24

35+621 35+710 89 Minor Bridge

(35+725)

35+621 35+710 89 Minor Bridge

(35+725)35+742 35+845 103 35+742 35+880 138

37+535 37+665 130 Major Bridge

(37+726)

37+795 37+825 30

37+970 38+010 40 47+498 47+528 30 Minor Bridge

(47+538)47+498 47+528 30 Minor Bridge 47+549 47+579 30



Annexure-V

Left Side Crash Barrier Right Side Crash Barrier


(m)

Remarks Design Chainage Length

(m)

Remarks

From To From To

47+549 47+579 30 (47+538) 51+770 51+805 35

52+840 52+920 80 Minor Bridge

(52+930)

52+845 52+920 75 Minor Bridge

(52+930)52+938 53+035 97 52+938 53+035 97

54+154 54+199 45 54+154 54+199 45

54+205 54+248 43 54+205 54+248 43

54+254 54+304 50 Major Bridge

(54+334)

54+254 54+304 50 Major Bridge

(54+334)54+377 54+399 22 54+377 54+399 22

54+404 54+448 44 54+404 54+448 44

54+454 54+480 26 54+454 54+510 56

57+075 57+161 86 Minor Bridge

(57+172)

57+075 57+161 86 Minor Bridge

(57+172)57+180 57+260 80 57+180 57+260 80

60+250 60+280 30 Minor Bridge

(60+286)

60+250 60+280 30 Minor Bridge

(60+286)60+292 60+322 30 60+292 60+322 30

61+555 61+590 35 61+565 61+590 25

61+595 61+642 47 Minor Bridge

(61+652)

61+595 61+642 47 Minor Bridge

(61+652)61+660 61+700 40 61+660 61+710 50

74+082 74+125 43 Minor Bridge

(74+070)

74+020 74+054 34 Minor Bridge

(74+070)

- - - - 74+082 74+125 43

Total 2946 Total 3242

Grand Total 6188

0.8.7.4 Proposals for Bus Shelters

Bus shelters at suitable locations have been proposed along the project road for safe

alighting and boarding of passengers. The locations of Bus shelters are given in table

below.

Table 0.30 : Proposed Bus Shelter Locations

Sr.

No

Existing

Chainage

Proposed

Chainage

Side Type Village/Settlements

Name

1 0/494 0+490 LHS Bus Shelter Baysi

2 2/260 2+260 RHS Bus Shelter Chopara

3 3/300 3+300 LHS Bus Shelter Simalbadi

4 5/275 5+275 RHS Bus Shelter Bajardih

5 7/298 7+300 LHS Bus Shelter Fakirtoli

6 9/208 9+200 RHS Bus Shelter Belgachhi

7 11/309 11+300 LHS Bus Shelter Palsa

8 14/115 14+100 RHS Bus Shelter Amour

9 19/055 19+000 LHS Bus Shelter Gerua

10 19/930 19+855 RHS Bus Shelter Bhawanipur

11 22/046 21+940 LHS Bus Shelter Rauta

12 26/142 26+000 RHS Bus Shelter Baisa

13 28/885 28+600 LHS Bus Shelter Sisabadi

14 30/937 30+650 RHS Bus Shelter Bhasawadi

15 34/390 34+100 LHS Bus Shelter Barbatta

16 38/298 38+075 RHS Bus Shelter Bhaunra



Annexure-V

Sr.

No

Existing

Chainage

Proposed

Chainage

Side Type Village/Settlements

Name

17 40/346 40+050 LHS Bus Shelter Kochadhaman

18 43/526 43+230 RHS Bus Shelter Sontha

19 48/473 48+180 LHS Bus Shelter Birpur

20 Bypass 54+800 RHS Bus Shelter Bahadurganj

21 66/073 65+160 LHS Bus Shelter Tulsia

22 70/210 69+300 RHS Bus Shelter Tapu

23 74/300 73+385 LHS Bus Shelter Haruadanga

0.8.8 Major Bridge/ Minor Bridge & Cross Drainage Structures

0.8.8.1 Bridges

2 Major Bridges at Km. 13/197 and 24/205 are submersible bridges, which are proposed

to High level Bridges and hence requires reconstruction.

2 Major Bridges at Km. 27/179 and 37/980 are in good condition having RCC T-Beam

Type Super Structure with Pile/deep foundations, hence these are retained without

widening.

1 Major Bridge at Km. 54/390 is submersible bridge, however due to propose bypass one

new Major Bridge has been proposed.

In case of Minor Bridges, out of 18, reconstruction is proposed for 3 Minor Bridges withSteel substructure and superstructure which are in poor condition and partially damaged.

6 other Minor Bridges are to be reconstructed to high level bridges as they are

submersible bridges. 1 Minor Bridge at Km. 54/605 is submersible bridge; however the

same has been bypassed.

0.8.8.2 Culverts

Fully buried culverts are replaced by new pipe culverts. The drainage condition along the

project corridor is very poor and needs to be improved for effective drainage, additional

balancing culverts has been provided for the stretch where there are no structures in entire

km length of project road. Also additional balancing culverts have been provided for the

stretch where there is ponding or stream parallel and on edge of project road.

The brief details of Improvement Proposal of Bridges and Culverts are as under:

Sr.No.

Type ofStructure

ExistingNos.


Retainedwithout

widening

WideningProposed

Reconstruction New Total

1 Major Bridge 5 2 0 2 1 5 -2 Minor Bridge 18 2 5 9 0 16 2 Nos. are

Bypassed3 Pipe Culvert 16 0 16 0 192 208 -4 Box Culvert 0 0 0 0 11 11 -5 Slab Culvert 9 0 9 0 0 9 -6 Buried Culvert 2 0 0 2 0 2 Recons. With

Pipe CulvertTotal 50 4 30 13 204 251



Annexure-V

0.8.9 Provision of New Underpasses, Over Bridges & ROB

Along the project alignment, there is no requirement for proposal of new Flyover, VUP,

and ROB.

0.9 Cost Estimate

Preliminary cost estimate for the project Road is finalised based on the improvement

proposed. The preliminary cost estimate is worked out based on the block quantities

calculated for major items of work to be executed in the project and also rates derived

after detail analysis.

Table 0.31 : Summary of Cost Estimate

Section Proposed Length(Km)

Total Amount(in Rs.)

Baysi – Dighalbank(Ch 00+000 to 74+306)

Civil Construction Cost74.306 4,761,679,012/-

Baysi – Dighalbank(Ch 00+000 to 74+306)

Total Project Cost74.306 7,188,880,205/-

0.10 Environmental Impact Assessment

Direct impact zone for the project corridor will be within the proposed ROW, although

magnitude of indirect impact will varies depending upon location of environmental

receptors and type of impact, as a primary requirement of EIA process, primary baseline

data will be collected in the right of way as well as the area falling within 500 meters on

either side of the right of way.

The study is carried out as per the requirements stipulated by the Ministry of Environment

and Forests, Government of India for Environmental Impact Assessment of Rail / Roads /

Highway Projects, in accordance with ADB‟ s Safeguard Policy Statement 2009, World

Bank's Operational Policy (OP) 4.01 and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations.

As per the EIA Notification, 2006 and its further amendment in 2009 and 2011, Baysi-

Bahadurganj-Dighalbank (“Project Road”) is a section of SH-99 having total length of 75.2

km. Proposed project road is only expansion of existing state highway and it is also not

passing through hilly terrain and /or ecologically sensitive area therefore it does not falls in

category A and B of Infrastructure Projects (7f), as per the Schedule of EIA Notification,

2006 .hence Environmental Clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest is not

required for the proposed project.

As per the environmental screening and assessment of likely impacts, the project has

been classified as Category “B” in accordance with ADB‟ s Safeguard Policy Statement

2009, WB OP\4.01 and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Guidelines for

Environmental and Social Considerations. No additional studies or need of undertaking

detailed EIA is envisaged at this stage.



Annexure-V

Data was collected from secondary sources for the macro-environmental setting like

climate, physiography (Geology and slope), biological and socio-economic environment

within Project Influence Area.

Existing ambient Air, Noise, Water and Soil quality data on various sections of the project

corridors has been collected to establish a baseline database details of the monitoring

results has been described in the Volume-VIII of the Report.

The project districts as whole are almost devoid of forest. Only 0.46% of the total

geographical area of the Purnia district and 0.48% in Kishanganj district are under forest.

No forest is in the vicinity of the subproject road. However, roadside linear plantation is

designated as protected forest and hence requisite clearance/permission shall be obtained

from forest department.

All along the project road, dense trees are observed. The main tree species observed are

Kadam, Mango, Aam, Arjun, Siris Gamha, Peepal, Jalebi Beri, etc. Due to proposed

widening of the road, 3824 no. trees will be affected

Environmental Assessment of the subproject ascertains that the project is not likely to

cause significant environmental impacts. Most of the impacts are localised and temporary

in nature and can be mitigated with minor to negligible residual impacts except due to land

acquisition. The project received immense support from local people with some concern

and apprehension related to compensation for land and structures.

The significant impact during construction is mainly associated with minor increase in dust

borne air pollution, increased noise level, nuisance due to movement and operation of

vehicles, establishment of temporary facilities, hindrance in accessibility to common

property resources etc.

The Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan (EMMP) consists of a set of mitigation,

monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during the design, construction and

operation phases of the project to eliminate adverse environmental impacts, to offset

them, or to reduce them to acceptable levels has been prepared . Detail Environmental

Monitoring & Management Plan (EMMP) has been provided in Volume-VIII.

0.11 Social Impact Assessment and RAP

Execution of the project shall have direct impact on people. It is therefore necessary to

undertake Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study for the project to assess the potential

critical impact of the project on community in order to suggest mitigation measures, which

are required to be incorporated during the planning stage. Also prepare a time bound

action plan to assist the project affected persons (PAPs) in getting their entitlements

(compensation - for affected land, structure and other properties and assets and R&R

assistances) to enable them in improving or at least restoring their living standards and

income earning capacity.

RAP for the project has been prepared based on the review and analysis of all applicable

legal and policy frameworks of the country and ADB policy requirements.



Annexure-V

One of the key problems faced by the local people presently is the lack of means of

transport, as very few public transport ply on these roads due to the poor road condition.

The Project, by improving road condition, is anticipated to improve access and transport

options manifold thereby benefiting the locals particularly the poor.

The social stratification of the subproject area shows that the dominance of other

backward caste (OBC) is almost 90.04 % households. The second stratum of the social

grouping in the area is of Higher Caste (General) population with 4.67% households

followed by Scheduled Caste 3.07% households. None of the schedule tribe (ST)

population present in subproject area.

The subproject area is dominated by Muslim community as they form 71.57% of the DPs.

Among other, 26.21 % are from Hindu community.

The impacts of the present project largely include loss of land (residential, commercial and

forest); structure (residential, commercial and government & institution owned) income and

livelihood (owners, employees, squatters).

According to the LAP prepared 77.548 ha. of land will be acquired for the subproject. The

area is excluding the area already lies with Road Construction Department in terms of

existing roads falling in the alignment.

The number of structures that will be affected due to proposed acquisition of land is

enumerated as 1305. Among these 481 are titleholders while number of squatters is found

773 including 421 no. of Kiosk also 51 Encroacher is found in ROW. As per census

survey, out of 1305 affected structure, 220 (16.86%) structures are of residential type, 582

(44.60%) are of commercial type, 421 (32.26%) structure are kiosk used as commercial for

livelihood generation, 23 (1.76%) are of residential cum commercial type structure and 59

no. (4.52%) are temporary structures villagers are using theses temp. structures as

storage area for cooking fuel and animal fodder.

The loss of CPR due to the project includes Religious structure like temples, shrine,

Mosque and cultural property compound walls are (52), other community structures and

community structures compound walls are (43). There are total 95 Community Property

Resources are affected due to the project. The project alignment has avoided the structure

area and proper mitigation measures will be taken for maintaining the safety and sanctity

of these places. Also there are 158 hand pumps, 1 well, 32 water taps and 3 water huts

are impacted.

The Detail Report for Social Impact Assessment and resettlement plan has been provided

in Volume-VII.

0.12 Results of Economic Analysis

Economic analysis was carried out using HDM-4 software. The sensitivity analysis is

carried out by varying cost and benefit as under:

Scenario 1 : Base cost and Base Benefits

Scenario 2 : Base cost plus 20% and Base Benefits

Scenario 3 : Base cost and Base Benefits minus 20%

Scenario 4 : Drop in traffic growth rates by 50%

Scenario 5 : No generated traffic benefits



Annexure-V

Scenario 6 : Two-year project implementation delay

Scenario 7 : Less than optimal road maintenance such as delay or omission of

periodic maintenance

Scenario 8 : Base cost plus 20% and Base Benefits minus 20%

The analysis has been done by changing the cost and benefit streams independently as

well as in combination. The end results of this study have been presented in a series of

EIRRs and NPVs.

The summary of economic analysis and sensitivity analysis with benefits due to traffic time

savings for project road is summarised below:

Table 0.32 : Results of Economic Analysis

Option Net

Economic

Benefit

(NPV @ 12%)

EIRR for Sensitivity

Scen

ari

o1

Scen

ari

o2

Scen

ari

o3

Scen

ari

o4

Scen

ari

o5

Scen

ari

o6

Scen

ari

o7

Scen

ari

o8

With time saving 5598.16 20.8 18.1 17.6 17.9 20.9 19.3 22.6 15.2

The project road is economically viable for proposed improvement as it yields more than

12% return (assumed interest rate for the analysis). It is also viable for various sensitivity

alternatives.

0.13 Results of Financial Analysis

To assess whether the project is a profitable proposition, the returns to investors are

measured by the post-tax project FIRR and the equity FIRR, which is estimated from the

cash-flow statements, based on discounted cash-flow technique. To qualify the project in

terms of attractive financial returns, the following criteria have been adopted:

Post tax IRR on Project Investment : minimum 12%

Post tax IRR on Equity : minimum 12%

DSCR : >1.0

BCR : >1.3

NPV @ 12% : must be positive

0.13.1 Findings of Financial Analysis

With the assumptions already stated above the financial analysis for the project corridor

has been undertaken. The results of financial analysis have been presented in the table

given below for BOT and annuity option;

Table 0.33 : Findings Of Financial Analysis (BOT)

Concession

Period

Govt. Grant

(Const.)

In %

Debt :

Equity

FIRR (post tax) Average

DSCR

BCR NPV @ 12 %

(Cr.)On Whole

Investment

On

Equity

15 Years40.00%

(237.52 cr.)70 : 30 - - - - -234.44



Annexure-V

Table 0.34 : Findings of Financial Analysis (Annuity)

Concession

Period

Debt :

Equity

FIRR (post tax) Annuity Amount

(cr. / Year)On Whole Investment

15 Years 70 : 30 12.03% 104.0 Crore

Financial analysis results show that the project is not getting viable under BOT option with

40 % grant. If annuity option is adopted that the project road provides 12.03% IRR on

investment at 15 years concession period at 104.0 crores

0.14 Departure from Standards and Design Constrains

Typical layout details of bridge approach as per Fig+ 1 of Ministry’s Circular No+

RW/NH/3304412/88-S&R(B) dated 24 March 2009 have been followed in general

with following exceptions.

Where roadway width at approaches of structure is greater than the structure

width, width of structure is not continued in 90m length of approaches on both

the side of structures as per circular and width in approaches is matched with

road way width with taper of 1 in 15.

In urban area where cross section with footpath/drain has been proposed,

width of structure is not continued in 90m length of approaches on either side

of structures as per circular and width in approaches is matched with road way

width with taper of 1 in 15.

In structures that are proposed to widening/ retained without widening, width

of structure is not continued in 90m length of approaches on either side of

structures as per circular and width in approaches is matched with road way

width with taper of 1 in 15 and.

No extra widening is provided at the locations of urban areas where provision of

Footpath / Drain has been made.

Minor repairs of CD structures like spalling of concrete, chipping of concrete,

plastering of masonry substructures, cleaning of vent, replacement/repair of

parapet/headwall of culverts, cleaning/replacement of drainage sprout etc are part

of project to maintain its intended use.

0.15 Issues Specific to the Project

Water stagnation is observed at many locations on both side of project road near

toe of embankment. Earthen drain doesn’t exist along the project road. No

adequate slope protection measures and cross drainage measures are found.

Overtopping has also been observed at few locations on the project road. Specific

improvement measures for water logging and overtopping have been given for

project road.

The Parman River is running parallel on left hand side of the project road between

km 9/800 to 10/200 which exposes the embankment slopes to direct frontal attack

of river+ Hence panel pitching is proposed to protect the embankment slopes for

better stability instead of simple stone pitching.

Right of Way (ROW) boundary pillars were not found during reconnaissance/field

survey at any locations. As per information received from Road Construction

Department (RCD), Road Division Purnia and Kishanganj, the ROW details for



Annexure-V

entire Purnia District was available with RCD, Road Division, Purnia which

indicates that 24 m to 30 m ROW is available throughout the section, whereas in

Kishanganj District only few Land Acquisition Maps were available in RCD office,

indicating that existing ROW is 24 meters. During the study of various Land

Acquisition Plan and Village (Revenue) Map it was observed that the authentic

ROW varies from 5 m to 30 m.

During the meeting held with BSRDCL officials at Madhepura, it was decided to

consider the LAP duly signed by LAO officer as authentic and for other LAP,

Consultant has to consider the ROW as per Revenue Map only. Consultant has

followed the instruction and based on that existing ROW has been worked out

based on village (Revenue) Maps only where LAP duly signed by LAO officers not

available. The same has been used for preparation of proposed ROW and for

preparation of Land Acquisition Cost.

Aggregates are available at around 207 km lead from the project road which will

have significant implication on the civil construction cost.

At many sections it is observed that villagers spread out corns on half/full width of

the pavement for drying and thus practically creating traffic jam and safety issues.

0.16 Recommendations

Detailed Project Study confirms that the rehabilitation and upgrading of the project

corridor as a whole is technically feasible. It is recommended that the

implementation of the project should commence without delay, as proposed

hereunder:

Based on the lane capacity analysis results, the project road requires 2 lanes with

paved shoulder in Homogenous section-1 (from Km 0/000- Km45/200) and two lanes

with earthen shoulder in Homogenous section-2 (Km 45/200-Km 75/200) for capacity

augmentation and efficient movement of traffic up to the horizon year 2032.

The project road can be improved without causing significant adverse

environmental impacts to the natural, social, economic or cultural environments.

Level of congestion, available right-of-way, existing road geometry and safety

features were studied before finalizing bypass locations for towns/villages along

the project corridor. Ribbon development is observed on the project road at most

of the urban settlements. Based on this study, needs of bypasses have been

worked out.

Bypasses have been proposed at the following locations.

Table 0.35 : Proposed Bypass

Sr.

No.


(m)

Existing

Chainage

Length

(m)

Village/Town



Annexure-V

Start

Ch.

End

Ch.

Start

Ch.

End

Ch.

1 53+850 55+805 1955 54/170 56/605 2435 Bahadurganj

Total 1955 Total 2435

Realignments have been proposed at following locations.

Table 0.36 : Proposed Realignments

Existing Chainages Length

(m)

Design Chainages Length

(m)

Remarks

Chainage

From

Chainage

To

Chainage

From

Chainage

To

8/097 8/357 260 8100 8355 255

8/502 8/784 282 8500 8775 275

23/846 24/282 436 23760 24140 380 Realignment and

Reconstruction of

Bridge

50/205 50/507 302 49900 50200 300

74/632 74/985 353 73715 74000 285

1633 1495

As per the proposed design standards project highway should be design with

minimum 65km/hr speed. Existing geometry of the project highway has been

improved to achieve the minimum design speed as per proposed standards

except with following locations which are proposed as “Speed Restriction Zone”

and improved with design speed of 40km/hr to 50 km/hr to reduce land

acquisitions and R&R in the project.

Table 0.37 : Speed Restriction Zone

Chainage Length Design Speed

From To (m) kmph

0+000 0+360 0.360 40

6+500 6+925 0.425 40

8+300 8+430 0.130 50

9+750 10+945 1.195 40 to 50

11+500 11+855 0.355 50

12+900 13+530 0.630 50 to 40

26+200 26+750 0.550 50

27+800 27+900 0.100 50

37+420 37+660 0.240 40

47+950 48+100 0.150 50

55+175 55+555 0.380 50

55+860 56+330 0.470 50

64+100 64+205 0.105 50

73+110 73+265 0.155 50

Total 5.245

Total 17.773 Hectare Land Acquisition is proposed in Purnia District and 58.823

Hectare Land Acquisition is proposed in Kishanganj District.

Aggregates are available at around 207 km lead from the project road which will

have significant implication on the civil construction cost.



Annexure-V

Water stagnation along the toe of embankment was observed during survey and

investigations along the project road. Following improvement measures have been

proposed at such water logging areas:

Stone Pitching

Concrete wall at end of embankment toe

Sand Blanket layer for capillary cut off

Table 0.38 : Details of Location of Sand Layer for Capillary cut-off in Water

Logged Area

Existing Chainage Design Chainage Length

From To From To

4/800 5/300 4+800 5+300 0.500

6/500 7/450 6+500 7+450 0.950

8/100 10/315 8+100 10+305 2.205

11/715 13/020 11+705 13+005 1.300

29/300 29/650 29+010 29+360 0.350

30/300 30/600 30+010 30+310 0.300

33/055 33/205 32+760 32+910 0.150

35/290 36/700 35+010 36+410 1.400

37/050 37/250 36+760 36+960 0.200

48/740 50/200 48+450 49+900 1.450

51/100 53/255 50+790 52+880 2.090

Total 10.895

Based on the Engineering Design, proposed Improvement of the project road

have be summarised as below:

Length (m) % of Total ProjectLength

1 Reconstruction from Subgrade 29.945 40.300%a Rural Area Flexible Pavement 24.545 33.032%b Urban Area Flexible Pavement 1.690 2.274%c Urban Area Rigid Pavement 3.710 4.993%2 Reconstruction from GSB 39.716 53.449%3 New Construction 4.645 6.251%a Bypass 1.955 2.631%b Realignments 1.495 2.012%c Geometric Improvements 1.195 1.608%

Total 74.306 100.000%

The process of land acquisition has to be initialised immediately after the approval

of the alignment, to expedite construction of bypasses and re-alignments.

The project can be constructed within 18months period with strategic planning and

through one construction package. The construction work may begin within 2

months after LOI. The estimated civil construction cost is Rs. 4,761,679,012/-

(Amount in INR)

Section Proposed

Length

(Km)

Civil Construction

Cost

(Rs.)

Baysi – Dighalbank (Ch 00/000 to 75/200) 74.306 4,761,679,012/-



Annexure-V

The project road is economically viable for proposed improvement as it yields

more than 12% return (assumed interest rate for the analysis). The proposed

improvement is also viable for various sensitivity alternatives.

Financial analysis results show that the project is not getting viable under BOT

option with 40 % grant. If annuity option is adopted that the project road provides

12.03% IRR on investment at 15 years concession period at 104.0 crores

0.17 Indo Nepal Border Road Project

The consultants has discussed with local authorities regarding their future development

plans in the project road area. According to them, there is a proposal from central

government of constructing 726km road along the border of India and Nepal, termed as

Indo-Nepal border road. Out of this total length, about 557km will be passing across the

state of Bihar and 98 km would be in Kishanganj district of Bihar.

The alignment of this border road is using some stretch of the project road near

Dighalbank village. Alignment of Indo-Nepal border road is merging with the project road

at km 73/840 near Harwadanga village and diverging at km 76/800 near Dighalbank

village.

Figure : Tentative Alignment of Indo-Nepal Border Road

Indo NepalBorder

Approx, 2k.m

pre feasibility report -...

Documents