FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT VOL-I MAIN REPORT Katunda-Rawatbhata-Chechat Section of SH-9A (Highway – III) (Design Length- 90.212 Km)

Government of Rajasthan, India Feasibility study two-laning (i) Kapasan - Rasmi – Karoi section of MDR – 107 (the “Highway – I”); (ii) Keer ki Chowki – Mavli section of MDR - 33(the “Highway – II”); (iii) Katunda – Rawatbhata – Chechat section of SH -9A (the “Highway- III”); totalling 179 Kms. (the “Project”) through Public Private Partnership (the “PPP”) on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (the “DBFOT”) basis. (Package 25)

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT VOL-I MAIN REPORT Katunda-Rawatbhata-Chechat section of SH-9A (Highway – III) (Design Length- 90.212 km)

M/s Intratech Civil Solutions & Consultant. Kamlesh M. Chauhan. Avalon City Flat No. 304. Building No. B-I IIIrd Floor Mumbai – Pune Highway. Opp. CME Gate, Dapoli. Pune – 411012 Email – [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER – 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….1-28

CHAPTER – 2 PROJECT APPRECIATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1-21

CHAPTER – 3 Socio-Economic Profile………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………..1-18

CHAPTER – 4 Traffic Survey & Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1-44

CHAPTER – 5 Engineering Survey & Investigation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……1-14

CHAPTER – 6 Design Standards……………………………. …………….…….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1-11

CHAPTER – 7 Summary of Improvement Proposals …………….…….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1-22

CHAPTER – 8 Summary of EIA & SIA …………….…….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1-20

CHAPTER – 9 Cost Estimates………………………………………………..…….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1-7

CHAPTER – 10 Financial Analysis…………………………………………..…….…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1-8

CHAPTER – 11 Conclusion & Recommendations…………………..…….……………………………………………………………………………………………….1-7

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Chapter-1: Executive Summary

The Government of Rajasthan has taken initiatives in the up-gradation and development of its road network in the State. In this context, Public Works Department Rajasthan is having a glorious history in the development of National Highways, State Highways and Major District Roads at various locations in the state of Rajasthan.

Most of the projects were operated under BOT scheme “Public – Private Partnership” scheme and other being developed under EPC, MEGA and regular contract scheme. Several other projects under PMGSY scheme are looked after by STATE PWD, RAJASTHAN for up gradation of State Highways & Major District Roads. The department is also mainly entrusted with construction and maintenance of Roads, Bridges and Government buildings etc.

Keeping in view the growing importance of road network in the state is physical, social and economic and environment fabric, PWD Rajasthan with active support of Government of Rajasthan initiated a comprehensive Feasibility Study for the 3444.0 Kms of road network. The road network is divided into 10 Packages, out of them, the one package has been entrusted to M/s Intratech Civil Solutions & Consultant for providing the Consultancy Services for preparation of Feasibility study for improvement and up-gradation of the State Highways with a total length of 179 Kms in the State of Rajasthan, India vide Letter of Award dated 27/01/2015. The commencement date is 02/02/2015 and the period for completion of assignment is 12 months. The description of the roads presented in the Package No. 25 has been given in Table No. 1.1:

In order to fulfill the above, M/s Intratech Civil Solutions & Consultant have been entrusted by Public Works Department of Rajasthan for the task of carrying out the Feasibility Study for improvement and up gradation of existing State Highways to two lane/ two lane with Granular shoulder configuration for the following section of project roads in the state of Rajasthan, India vide Letter of Acceptance No. F.7 (65)/PPP/SHA/2014-15 Package 25/D- 396 Dt. 08.01.2015. Table 1.1 Details of Roads of Package-25 In Rajasthan State. Sr. Length as per Design Length No. Name of Road District agreement (KM) (KM) Kapasan- Rashmi - Karoi Road Chittaurgarh, 1 42.18 km (SH-96) Bhilwara 42.0 km Keer Ki chowki- Mavli Road Chittaurgarh, 2 31.7 km (SH-98) Udaipur 27.0 km Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chittaurgarh, Chechat 90.212 km 3 Kota 110.0 km (SH-9A) Total Length (in Kms) 179.0 km 164.092 km

Page 1 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Package No. 25: There are total 03 State Highway (SH’s) falling in the Chittaurgarh, Bhilwara & Udaipur Region with a total length of 164.092 Kms in the state of Rajasthan. This report deals with the third Road i.e. Katunda – Rawatbhata - Chechat Road (SH-9A) which needs to be upgraded to Two Lane with granular Shoulders and the details of this road is given in Table No. 1.2.

Table 1.2 Details of Project Road Chainage (in Km) Length as per Length as Topographic Sr. No. Name of Road SH No. From To per Design Survey (in Km) (in Km) (in Km) (in Km) Katunda- 1 Rawatbhata- SH-9A Km 0+000 Km 110+818 110.818 90.212 Chechat Road

Page 2 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

1. Project Road

The Project road is located in Rajasthan, the state is also known as “The Land of Desert” in India. The State shares its border with Gujarat state in south, Madhya Pradesh state in east, Uttar Pradesh state in North-East, Haryana and Punjab States in the North; with Pakistan country in the West. The State extends to about 342,239 Sq. Km. Rajasthan started experiencing industrial development between 1950 and 1960. Large and small scale industries started springing up in the Kota, Jaipur, Udaipur, Bhilwara and other Industrial Estates of Rajasthan. The main industries of Rajasthan include textile, rugs, woolen goods, vegetable oil and dyes. Heavy industries consist of copper and zinc smelting and the manufacture of railway rolling stock. The other industries related to Private Sector include steel, cement, ceramics and glass wares, electronic, leather and footwear, stone and other chemical industries.

This report deals with the Katunda- RawatBhata- Chechat (SH-9A) for a total length of 110km (as per agreement).

 As per site Condition Katunda- RawatBhata- Chechat section of SH-9A is divided in three parts. Part-I is from Katunda to MP Border(km0-km14, length-14km), Part-II is MP section (km14- km 34, length20km) & Part-III is from MP Border to Chechat (km34-km109, length- 75km)i.e. the total length is 109km which is 1km lesser than length as per agreement.  Start Point of Project road is 2km away from NH-76 (Chittaurgarh- kota section). So, a stretch of 2km is added in our project road to connect the project road (SH-9A) to NH-76.  MP section (km14- km 34, length20km) falls in Madhya Pradesh. so this stretch will be taken in this project & it will be out of Scope.  Km 109 onwards is toll road maintained by RSRDC till Ramganj Mandi.

After considering above points the final stretches to develop as SH-9A are:-

1. From NH-76 to Km0 (length-2km) 2. From km0- km 14(MP Border) (length-14km) 3. From km34(MP Border) - km 109 (length-75km) Total length-91km

As Per Topographic Survey the lengths are:-

1. From NH-76 to Km0 (length-2km) 2. From km0- km 14.22(MP Border) (length-14.22km) 3. From km34.81(MP Border) - km 109.17 (length-74.36km) Total length-90.58 km

Finally the Design length are as follows:-

1. From NH-76 – to MP Border (km 0-km 16.204) Homogeneous Section-I (length-16.204km) 2. From MP Border(km36.81) – to Rawatbhata (km 73.85) Homogeneous Section-I (length-37.040km)

Page 3 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

3. From Rawatbhata (km73.85) to chechat (km110.818) Homogeneous Section-I (length-37.040km) Total Design length-90.212 km

The project road traverses through Chittorgarh & Kota Districts in Rajasthan. Total length of the project corridor is running between Latitudes of 24.899426° N; Longitudes of 74.346355° E and Latitudes of 25.227105° N; Longitudes of 74.421065° E.

The location plan of the project road section is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Summary of the existing features of the project are shown in Table 1.3.

Page 4 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Figure 2.1: Location Map of Region

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table 1.3: Summary of the existing features of the project road

Sl. Particulars Existing Details Remarks No.

Km-0+000 of NH-76

1 Start Point (Chittaurgarh - Kota section)

Km 42+259 of NH-76B

2 End Point (Bhilwara-Rajsamand Section)

3 Total Length 110.818 km Design Length is 90.212 Km.

4 Districts 2 Nos. Chittorgarh & Kota Districts

5 Terrain Plain terrain

6 Right of Way(m) 6m to 67m

The project road has 3.0m /3.75 m / 5.5 m Carriageway

7 Carriage way with 1/ 1.5m earthen shoulders throughout the project corridor, which is in Major/Minor 8 06Fair Nos. conditions (0 Major except& 06 Minor) at Bridge isolated stretches in village portions the project corridor 9 VCW/FCW 07 Nos.

10 Pipe Culverts 21 Nos.

11 Pipe laid 14 Nos.

Slab / Cut 13 19 Nos. Stone Culverts

14 Minor Junctions 23 Nos.

15 Major Junction 03 Nos.

16 Villages/Towns 21 Nos.

Earthen Drains were found in Existing Rural Areas & RCC Drains 17 Drainage System were Present in Built-up of Rawatbhata Only.

Page 6 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Sl. Particulars Existing Details Remarks No. Fuel Stations: One Fuel stations were observed on the road at Km 39+100 & 66+900. Miscellaneous 18 Services Telephone Facilities: Telephone facility are available in all villages on the road.

Police Station:- One Police

Station is located on the Road at 58+800 (Bhainsrogarh Thana)

Page 7 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

Project Description

Socio Economic Profile chapter illustrates a brief of the socio – economic profile of the project influenced area (PIA) for SH-96 having a length of 90.580 kms. The road primarily runs in N-E & E-S direction and connects districts viz, Chittaurgarh, Bhilwara and other important Blocks and Tehsil Headquarters located enroute. This highway segment serves as the artery, provides connectivity to existing State Highway & MDRs in Rajasthan State.

Demographic Profile

Chittaurgarh District: Chittaurgarh district is located between 23o 32’ and 250 13’ latitude and 740 21’ and 750 49’ longitude covering an area of 10,856 sq.km. The district is part of Udaipur Division and is divided into five sub-divisions namely Begun, Chittaurgarh, Kapasan, Nimbahera and Pratapgarh. Administratively the district is divided into 13 tehsils and 14 development blocks. Total number of villages in the district is 2415 and it also has 8 urban towns. Rural and Urban population of the district is 15.15 lakh and 2.89 lakh respectively.

Rainfall & Climate: - Average annual rainfall (1977-06) of the district is 762.7mm. However normal rainfall for the period 1901 to 1970 is 767.2mm. The annual rainfall gradually decreases from southern part to northern part. The maximum average rainfall is 905mm at Choti Sadri and minimum average rainfall is 595 mm at Bhopal/Sagar. The climate of the district is dry except S-W monsoon season. The cold season is from December to February and is followed by summer from March to June. From mid of September to end of November constitute post monsoon season. The district experiences either mild or normal drought once in two years. Severe type of drought has been recorded very rarely. Most severe type of drought has never occurred in the district.

Geomorphology & Drainage: - The district is characterized by undulating topography.Hill ranges towards east of Chittaurgarh town runs north-south with intervening valleys parallel to each other. Chittaurgarh and Pratapgarh tehsils are partly hilly and partly plain. The district has the regional slope from south to north. The height varies from 317m to 617m,amsl. Pal khera hill is the highest, having height of 617m.

Bhilwara District: - The district is situated between 250 01’ & 250 58’ North latitude and 740 01’ & 750 28’ East longitude covering geographical area of 10,455 sq km. Bhilwara district is part of Ajmer Division. The district is divided into 4 sub-divisions namely Bhilwara, Gulabpura, Mandalgarh & Shahpura and comprises of 12 tehsils & 11 blocks. Total number of villages in the district is 1745 (2001 census). Rural & Urban population of the district is 19,33,149 & 4,02,462 respectively. Decennial population growth rate of the district is 21.58% since 1991. The district is known for its textile industries and mineral wealth.

Rainfall & Climate: - Mean annual rainfall (1986-2005) of the district is 633.9 mm whereas normal rainfall (1901-70) is lower than average rainfall and placed at 603.3. Almost 95% of the total annual rainfall is received during the southwest monsoon, which enters the district in the last week of June and withdraws in the middle of September. Probability of average annual rainfall exceeding 900 mm is only 10%. However, there is 90% probability that the average

Page 8 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan rainfall will be more than 400 mm. The probability of occurrence of mean annual rainfall is 45%. Drought analysis based on agriculture criteria indicates that the district is prone to mild and normal type of droughts. Occurrence of severe and very severe type of drought is very rare. January is the coldest month with mean maximum and minimum temperatures being lowest at 22.20 C & 7.30 C. Temperature in summer month, June, reaches up to 460 C. There is drop in temperature due to onset of monsoon and rises again in the month of September.

Page 9 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

3. TRAFFIC SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS

To comprehensively appreciate the traffic and travel characteristics on the project corridor from Katunda to Chechat, the type of surveys, locations and duration, as identified at the inception stage of the study have been followed during data collection exercise with minor modifications on account of the project corridor, the road has been segmented in to two sections, keeping in view the homogeneity of the traffic, as given below:

 Homogenous Section-1: (HS-1) Starting at Km 0 at Katunda and ending at MP Border at Km 16+204. The length of the homogenous section is 16.204 Km.  Homogenous Section-2: (HS-2) Starting at Km 36+810 At MP Border and ending at after Rawatbhata Town Km 73+850. The length of the homogenous section is 37.040 Km.  Homogenous Section-3: (HS-3) Starting at Km 73+850 after Rawatbhata Town and ending at Chechat at Km110+818. The length of the homogenous section is 36.968 Km.

The traffic characteristics on the project road for the base year are essential for formulating improvement programs and in estimating the economical/commercial viability of the project. The objectives of the traffic study are:

• Traffic estimation in terms of volume on various sections.

• Growth factor estimation for traffic forecasting.

• Capacity assessment based on traffic forecasting for next 30 years.

• Pavement and intersection design

Average Annual Daily Traffic and it Composition

The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) obtained from the volume count surveys for all the locations are given in Table no. 1.4. To study the variation in the intensity of traffic, consultants have analyzed the variation of traffic along the project road. The following observations are made from the analysis for each location along the project stretch.

Page 10 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table 4.13: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (First Traffic Survey) (07.03.2015- 13.03.2015) Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 Average Daily PCU Categories Traffic Factor ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT Vehicles PCUs Vehicles PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicles PCUs

2 Wheeler 0.5 1559 780 1069 535 1451 726 1415 708 850 425 2958 1479 1360 680 3 Wheeler 1.0 20 20 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 1 1 9 9 Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 378 378 281 281 444 444 518 518 177 177 301 301 368 368 Mini Bus 1.5 6 9 1 2 2 3 3 5 1 2 1 2 3 5 Private Bus 3.0 38 114 29 87 35 105 36 108 18 54 14 42 34 102 Govt. Bus 3.0 9 27 11 33 14 42 16 48 0 0 1 3 11 34 LCV / Tempo 1.5 92 138 60 90 108 162 110 165 48 72 89 134 87 130 2-Axle 3.0 75 225 67 201 58 174 58 174 26 78 58 174 67 200 3-Axle 3.0 85 255 87 261 81 243 68 204 28 84 29 87 84 253 MAV (4-6) 4.5 63 284 53 239 64 288 60 270 11 50 10 45 60 270 Agriculture Tractor 1.5 16 24 11 17 8 12 10 15 3 5 3 5 12 18 Agriculture Tractor Trailer 4.5 135 608 36 162 33 149 67 302 33 149 88 396 68 306 Ex. Car/Jeep 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 Ambulance 1 3 3 2 2 5 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 Bi-Cycle 0.5 82 41 53 27 51 26 68 34 14 7 0 0 62 31 Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 8 Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted Traffic 89 58 57 36 58 38 72 43 17 15 3 3 68 44 Non Tollable Traffic 1819 1490 1177 754 1552 927 1568 1072 905 596 3053 1884 1516 1057 Tollable Traffic 746 1430 589 1194 806 1461 869 1492 309 517 503 788 714 1362

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Total Traffic 2565 2920 1766 1948 2358 2388 2437 2564 1214 1113 3556 2672 2230 2419

Table 4.16: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (Second Traffic Survey) (24.04.2015- 30.04.2015)

Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 Average Daily PCU Categories Traffic Factor ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT Vehicles PCUs Vehicles PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicles PCUs

2 Wheeler 0.5 1553 777 933 467 1814 907 1027 514 1063 532 2671 1336 1433 717 3 Wheeler 1.0 23 23 1 1 1 1 15 15 2 2 2 2 8 9 Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 396 396 447 447 577 577 823 823 211 211 411 411 473 474 Mini Bus 1.5 9 14 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 6 Private Bus 3.0 42 126 37 111 50 150 53 159 24 72 22 66 43 129 Govt. Bus 3.0 10 30 13 39 6 18 21 63 0 0 4 12 10 29 LCV / Tempo 1.5 108 162 83 125 145 218 162 243 60 90 124 186 112 168 2-Axle 3.0 83 249 46 138 28 84 79 237 9 27 89 267 52 157 3-Axle 3.0 64 192 141 423 29 87 133 399 17 51 13 39 78 234 MAV (4-6) 4.5 90 405 26 117 22 99 21 95 22 99 25 113 46 207 Agriculture Tractor 1.5 29 44 7 11 22 33 9 14 3 5 16 24 19 29 Agriculture Tractor Trailer 4.5 157 707 98 441 55 248 162 729 54 243 228 1026 103 465 Ex. Car/Jeep 1 7 7 6 6 4 4 8 8 0 0 2 2 6 6 Ambulance 1 3 3 7 7 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 Bi-Cycle 0.5 64 32 46 23 36 18 86 43 27 14 0 0 49 25 Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 8 Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Toll Exempted Traffic 76 54 60 42 42 29 98 60 30 22 5 5 59 42 Non Tollable Traffic 1838 1605 1099 962 1934 1218 1311 1332 1152 804 2922 2393 1624 1262 Tollable Traffic 802 1574 794 1402 858 1235 1293 2021 344 552 689 1096 818 1404 Total Traffic 2640 3179 1893 2364 2792 2453 2604 3353 1496 1356 3611 3489 2442 2665 Above AADT is including seasonal Correction Factor as mention in Chapter -4. As Variation in AADT of First Traffic Survey & Second Traffic Survey is less than 10% , So Average of Both AADT’s is Considered. Average of Both AADT is shown in Table No. 4.17. Table 4.17: Final (Average of Annual Average Daily Traffic)

PCU Km 1+800 KM- 14+900 Km- 39+000 Km- 60+800 Km- 73+600 Km- 109+000 Average of all Categories Factor Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 locations Vehicles PCUs Vehicles PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicles PCUs

2 Wheeler 0.5 1557 779 997 499 1644 822 1210 605 963 482 2807 1404 1530 765 3 Wheeler 1.0 22 22 3 3 2 2 10 10 3 3 2 2 7 7 Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 385 385 353 353 501 501 650 650 192 192 349 349 405 405 Mini Bus 1.5 8 12 2 3 2 3 3 5 2 3 2 3 3 5 Private Bus 3.0 40 120 33 99 42 126 44 132 21 63 18 54 33 99 Govt. Bus 3.0 10 30 13 39 11 33 19 57 0 0 3 9 9 28

LCV / Tempo 1.5 100 150 71 107 124 186 133 200 54 81 105 158 98 147

2-Axle 3.0 79 237 58 174 45 135 68 204 19 57 72 216 57 171

3-Axle 3.0 76 228 111 333 58 174 97 291 24 72 23 69 65 195

MAV (4-6) 4.5 75 338 41 185 46 207 43 194 17 77 17 77 40 180 Agriculture Tractor 1.5 22 33 10 15 15 23 10 15 4 6 10 15 12 18 Agriculture Tractor Trailer 4.5 145 653 64 288 43 194 109 491 43 194 150 675 92 416 Ex. Car/Jeep 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 6 6 0 0 2 2 3 3 Ambulance 1 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 Bi-Cycle 0.5 73 37 50 25 44 22 77 39 21 11 0 0 44 22 Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 6

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted Traffic 84 58 60 40 52 35 87 54 25 20 5 5 52 35 Non Tollable Traffic 1830 1545 1134 845 1756 1076 1426 1175 1038 705 2974 2101 1693 1241 Tollable Traffic 773 1500 682 1293 829 1365 1057 1733 329 545 589 935 710 1229 Total Traffic 2603 3045 1816 2138 2585 2441 2483 2908 1367 1250 3563 3036 2403 2470

Diversion Analysis has been carried out for our project road . Net Effect of traffic on Diversion Analysis is shown below:

Vehicle Type Net Diversion Car 57 Mini Bus 1 Bus 11 LCV 13 2A 7 3A 8 MAV 6

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table 4.25: Final AADT INCLUDING DIVERTED TRAFFIC (Design Traffic)

Km 1+800 KM- 14+900 Km- 39+000 PCU Categories Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Factor Vehicles PCUs Vehicles PCUs Vehicle PCUs 2 Wheeler 0.5 1557 779 997 499 1644 822 3 Wheeler 1.0 22 22 3 3 2 2 Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 442 442 410 410 558 558 Mini Bus 1.5 9 14 3 5 3 5 Private Bus 3.0 51 153 44 132 53 159 Govt. Bus 3.0 10 30 13 39 11 33 LCV / Tempo 1.5 113 170 84 126 137 206 2-Axle 3.0 86 258 65 195 52 156 3-Axle 3.0 84 252 119 357 66 198 MAV (4-6) 4.5 81 364 47 211 52 233 Agriculture Tractor 1.5 22 33 10 15 15 23 Agriculture Tractor Trailer 4.5 145 653 64 288 43 194 Ex. Car/Jeep 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 Ambulance 1 4 4 5 5 4 4 Bi-Cycle 0.5 73 37 50 25 44 22 Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted Traffic 84 58 60 40 52 35 Non Tollable Traffic 1830 1545 1134 845 1756 1076 Tollable Traffic 876 1683 785 1475 932 1548 Total Traffic 2706 3228 1919 2320 2688 2624

Page 15 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Km- 60+800 Km- 73+600 Km- 109+000 Average of PCU Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 AADT Categories Facto Vehicle PCU Vehicle PCU Vehicl PCU r Vehicles PCUs s s s s e s 2 Wheeler 0.5 1210 605 963 482 2807 1404 1530 765 3 Wheeler 1.0 10 10 3 3 2 2 7 7 Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 707 707 249 249 406 406 462 462 Mini Bus 1.5 4 6 3 5 3 5 4 7 Private Bus 3.0 55 165 32 96 29 87 44 132 Govt. Bus 3.0 19 57 0 0 3 9 9 28 LCV / Tempo 1.5 146 219 67 101 118 177 111 167 2-Axle 3.0 75 225 26 78 79 237 64 192 3-Axle 3.0 105 315 32 96 31 93 73 219 MAV (4-6) 4.5 49 220 23 103 23 103 46 206 Agriculture Tractor 1.5 10 15 4 6 10 15 12 18 Agriculture Tractor 4.5 109 491 43 194 150 675 Trailer 92 416 Ex. Car/Jeep 1 6 6 0 0 2 2 3 3 Ambulance 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 Bi-Cycle 0.5 77 39 21 11 0 0 44 22 Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bullock Cart 6.0 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 6 Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted Traffic 87 54 25 20 5 5 52 35 Non Tollable Traffic 1426 1175 1038 705 2974 2101 1693 1241 Tollable Traffic 1160 1914 432 728 692 1117 813 1411 Total Traffic 2586 3089 1470 1433 3666 3218 2506 2652

Traffic growth rate during the design life in percentage

Growth rate by socio- economic factors has been calculated & analysed, it is less than 5%. As per IRC 37:2012 growth rate of 5% should be used.

Hence Traffic growth rate is adopted 5% for projection of present traffic.

Page 16 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Vehicle Damage Factor

The Adopted VDF calculated for both homogeneous sections is presented in Fig 2.2 & Fig 2.3

Fig 2.2 Adopted VDF for Homogenous Section I & II

Fig 2.3 Adopted VDF for Homogenous Section-III

Page 17 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

4. PAVEMENT DESIGN

(For VGF MODE)

Design Life of Pavement Layers

Bituminous Surfacing

Referring to the “Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two-laning of State Highway on B.O.T Basis”, IRC: SP 73-2007, the pavement has been designed for a design life of 8 years or operation period whichever is more. However as per the discussion with the client, it is made to understand that we need to design our bituminous layers for an initial period of 12 years followed by strengthening in subsequent years. Accordingly the pavement has been designed for 12 years post construction period (=1.5 year)

Base and Sub-Base

The unbounded layers are designed for minimum design period of 15 years or Designed Concession Period whichever is more as per IRC: SP 73-2007

Rigid Pavement

The rigid pavements are designed for minimum design period of 30 years as per IRC: SP 73-2007

Design traffic (Cumulative number of standard Axles)

The traffic loading in terms of cumulative number of equivalent 8.16 standard axle loads have been computed for 8,12, 15 ,20 & 24 years. The detailed cumulative standards axles (CSA) are calculated and the summery is given in Table 4.1 Table 4.1: Design Traffic in Terms of ESAL Chainage (Km) Homogenous 12 years 24 years From To Section (Km) (2030) (2042) 0+000 1+800 HS-l 6.22 17.41 1+800 58+800 HS-II 6.28 17.54 58+800 107+000 HS-III 2.50 6.98

Design of New Flexible Pavement

Design of new flexible pavement applies to widening portion of main carriageway, reconstruction stretches (if any). IRC 37-2012 was referred as a design.

Design life of pavement

Page 18 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Bituminous surfacing Referring to the “manual of specification and standards for two-laning of state highways on B.O.T basis”, IRC: SP 73-2007 , the bituminous layers needs to be designed for an initial design life of 8 years followed by strengthening in subsequent years. However as per the discussion with the client, it is made to understand that we need to design our bituminous layers for an initial period of 12 years followed by strengthening in subsequent years. During the period from initial till strengthening, functional overlays in the form of thin bituminous surfacing shall be provided at the regular interval of 6 years i.e., in the years 6/18 since strengthening is to be carried out in 12th year.

Construction Period: Jan, 2018 to June, 2019 (1.5 years) Concession Period: Jan, 2018 to Dec, 2042 (25 years) Operation Period: June, 2019 to Dec, 2042 (23.5 years)

The Summary of Laboratory Test Results for Borrow Material

Grain size Analysis Atterberg Limits Optimum Maximum Silt Moisture dry CBR Sl.No Chainage,Km Gravel Sand and Liquid Plastic Plasticity Content Density (%) Side % % Clay Limit Limit Index (%) (g/cm3) %

1 35+200 RHS 10.75 50.97 38.28 33.54 19.98 13.56 11.88 1.875 8.45 2 60+450 RHS 14.54 44.59 40.87 34.47 18.79 15.68 12.46 1.895 8.68 1 3 107+150 RHS 9.89 50.57 39.54 32.25 16.38 15.87 10.89 1.92 8.08 CBR RESULTS

As Per above results the average CBR is <8. So, the value of adopted CBR is 7%.

Pavement design for Widened & Reconstruction section

Homogeneous Section-1 Adopted CBR-8% As per plate No.-6 of IRC-37:2012 the Pavement Design is:-

Design MSA Adopted BC DBM WMM GSB Years MSA  B 12 i 6.22 7 30 55 250 170 t 24 u 17.41 20 40 90 250 200 m Bituminous Layers shall be designed for 12 years (2030) , So the Pavement Composition shall be :

Page 19 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

BC-30mm & DBM-55mm  The unbounded layers are designed for minimum design period of 15 years or Designed Concession Period whichever is more as per IRC: SP 73-2007. So, GSB & WMM Layers are designed for 25 years (2042). WMM- 250mm, GSB-200mm

Homogeneous Section-2 Adopted CBR-8% As per plate No.-6 of IRC-37:2012 the Pavement Design is:-

Design MSA Adopted SDBC/BC DBM WMM GSB Years MSA

12 6.28 7 30 55 250 170

24 17.54 20 40 90 250 200

 BitumBituminous Layers shall be designed for 12 years (2030) , So the Pavement Composition shall be : BC-30mm & DBM-55mm  The unbounded layers are designed for minimum design period of 15 years or Designed Concession Period whichever is more as per IRC: SP 73-2007. So, GSB & WMM Layers are designed for 25 years (2042). WMM- 250mm, GSB-200mm

Homogeneous Section-3 Adopted CBR-8% As per plate No.-6 of IRC-37:2012 the Pavement Design is:-

Design MSA Adopted SDBC/BC DBM WMM GSB Years MSA

12 2.50 5 25 50 250 150

24 6.98 7 30 55 250 180

 Bituminous Layers shall be designed for 12 years (2030) , So the Pavement Composition shall be : BC-30mm (in place of SDBC , BC is considered as per MORTH Specification) & DBM-50mm  The unbounded layers are designed for minimum design period of 15 years or Designed Concession Period whichever is more as per IRC: SP 73-2007. So, GSB & WMM Layers are designed for 25 years (2042). WMM- 250mm, GSB-180mm

Page 20 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Design crust thickness for the flexible pavement as arrived is given below in table 2.2.1

Table 2.2.1 Homogenous CB MSA Recommen Adopted Pavement Section Section (Km) R ded Composition In Widening (%) Overlay Position (mm) (mm) From To Length Actual Adopte BC DBM BC DBM WWM GSB (in Km) d

0+000 1+800 1.80 8 6.22 7 30 - 30 55 250 200 HS-l 1+800 58+800 57.00 8 6.28 7 30 - 30 55 250 200 HS-II 58+800 107+00 48.20 8 2.50 5 30 - 30 50 250 180 HS-III 0

Strengthening Design as per IRC: 81-1997

The design of pavement strengthening in subsequent years shall be carried out by taking into account the Balance traffic i.e. 24 years minus 12 years by using IRC: 81-1997 as per the details given below:

Table 4.3.1: Pavement Overlay Composition after 12 years

Homogenous CBR MSA Recommended Section (Km) % Overlay Section (mm) From TO Length 12 24 Strengthening years years MSA BC DBM 0+000 1+800 1.80 8 7 17.41 10.41 40 - HS-l 1+800 58+800 57.00 8 7 17.54 10.54 40 - HS-II 58+800 107+000 48.20 8 5 6.98 1.98 30 - HS-III

(For ANNUITY MODE)

Design Life of Pavement Layers

Bituminous Surfacing

Referring to the “Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two-laning of State Highway on Annuity Basis”, IRC: SP 73-2007, the pavement has been designed for a design life of 8 years or operation period whichever is more. Accordingly the pavement has been designed for 8 years post construction period (=1.5 year)

Base and Sub-Base

The unbounded layers are designed for minimum design period of 15 years or Designed Concession Period whichever is more as per IRC: SP 73-2007

Rigid Pavement

Page 21 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

The rigid pavements are designed for minimum design period of 30 years as per IRC: SP 73-2007

Design traffic (Cumulative number of standard Axles)

The traffic loading in terms of cumulative number of equivalent 8.16 standard axle loads have been computed for 8,12, & 15 years. The detailed cumulative standards axles (CSA) are calculated and the summery is given in Table 1.1

Table 1.1: Design Traffic in Terms of ESAL Chainage (Km) Homogenous 8 years 13 years From To Section (Km) (2026) (2031) 0+000 1+800 HS-l 3.73 6.92 1+800 58+800 HS-II 3.77 6.98 58+800 107+000 HS-III 1.50 2.78

Design life of pavement

Bituminous surfacing Referring to the “manual of specification and standards for two-laning of state highways on B.O.T basis”, IRC: SP 73-2007 , the bituminous layers needs to be designed for an initial design life of 8 years. During the period from initial till strengthening, functional overlay in the form of thin bituminous surfacing shall be provided at 5TH year i.e., & strengthening is to be carried out in 8th year.

Construction Period: Jan, 2018 to June, 2019 (1.5 years) Concession Period: Jan, 2018 to June, 2030 (11.5 years) Operation Period: July, 2019 to June, 2030 (10.0 years)

Overlay design as per IRC: 81.1997

The design of overlays for the existing carriageway pavement has been carried out taking into account the traffic, strength of the existing pavement based on detailed pavement investigation including BBD testing. The strengthening (overlay) requirements for the existing road pavement have been worked out based on IRC: 81-1997. Characteristic deflection when combined with design MSA gives the overlay thickness

Pavement design for Widened & Reconstruction section as per IRC: 37:2012

Homogeneous Section-I

Adopted CBR-8% As per plate No.-6 of IRC-37:2012 the Pavement Design is:-

Page 22 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Years MSA Adopted BC DBM WMM GSB MSA

8 3.73 5 25 SDBC 50 250 180

15 8.44 10 40 60 250 230

 Bituminous Layers shall be designed for 8 years (2026) , So the Pavement Composition shall be : BC-30mm (in place of SDBC , BC is considered as per MORTH Specification) & DBM-50mm  The unbounded layers are designed for minimum design period of 15 years or Designed Concession Period whichever is more as per IRC: SP 73-2007. So, GSB & WMM Layers are designed for 15 years (2033).i.e. WMM- 250mm, GSB-230mm

Homogeneous Section-II

Adopted CBR-8% As per plate No.-6 of IRC-37:2012 the Pavement Design is:-

Years MSA Adopted SDBC DBM WMM GSB MSA

8 3.77 5 25 50 250 150

15 8.50 9 40 60 250 230

Homogeneous Section-III

Adopted CBR-8% As per plate No.-6 of IRC-37:2012 the Pavement Design is:-

Years MSA Adopted SDBC DBM WMM GSB MSA

8 1.50 2 20 50 225 150

Page 23 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

15 3.38 5 25 50 250 180

 Bituminous Layers shall be designed for 8 years (2024) , So the Pavement Composition shall be : BC-30mm (in place of SDBC , BC is considered as per MORTH Specification) & DBM-50mm  The unbounded layers are designed for minimum design period of 15 years or Designed Concession Period whichever is more as per IRC: SP 73-2007. So, GSB & WMM Layers are designed for 15 years (2031).i.e. WMM- 250mm, GSB-180mm

Design crust thickness for the flexible pavement as arrived is given below in table 4.2.1 Table 4.2.1 Recommen Adopted Pavement Homogenous MSA ded Composition In Widening Section Section (Km) Overlay Position (mm) CB (mm) R From To Length (%) Actual Adopte BC DBM BC DBM WWM GSB (in Km) d

0+00 1+800 1.80 8 3.73 5 30 - 30 50 250 230 HS-l 0 1+80 58+800 57.00 8 3.77 5 30 - 30 50 250 230 HS-II 0 58+80 107+00 48.20 8 1.50 2 30 - 30 50 250 180 HS-III 0 0 Ref: Plateno.-6, IRC- 37:2012

Strengthening Design as per IRC: 81-1997

The design of pavement strengthening in subsequent years shall be carried out by taking into account the Balance traffic i.e. 13 years minus 8 years by using IRC: 81-1997 as per the details given below:

Table 4.3.2: Pavement Overlay Composition after 8 years

Homogenous CBR MSA Recommended Section (Km) % Overlay (mm) Section From TO Length 8 13 Strengthening years years MSA BC DBM 0+000 1+800 1.80 8 5 6.92 1.92 30 - HS-l 1+800 58+800 57.00 8 5 6.98 1.98 30 - HS-II 58+800 107+000 48.20 8 2 3.38 1.38 30 - HS-III

Page 24 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

5. IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL

Detailed Traffic Survey has been conducted on the project road for 7 days at 3 locations. As per the traffic analysis, total AADT in PCU as on date ranges from 1470 to 3228 PCU. Since the present day PCU is less than 7500 PCU, the project road is proposed for development to 2 lane with granular shoulder configuration as per PWD Note No. F.6 (25) AR/Gr 3/2014 dated 27th August, 2014.

Accordingly, Development to 2 Lane with granular shoulder option is planned for the development of project road.

TCS Schedules: Tentative TCS schedules based on horizontal alignment plan Start End Total S.No. TCS Development Proposal Chainage Chainage length HS-1

1 0 14600 14600 TCS-I Reconstruction Due to BC soil

Page 25 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

23 58750 62350 3600 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 24 62350 62450 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 25 62450 62600 150 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 26 62600 62700 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 27 62700 62800 100 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 28 62800 62900 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 29 62900 63100 200 TCS-VIII CC Widening 3-10m 30 63100 63350 250 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 31 63350 63650 300 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 32 63650 63750 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 33 63750 64550 800 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 34 64550 64650 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 35 64650 67750 3100 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 36 67750 68150 400 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 37 68150 71150 3000 TCS-IX CC Repair 10m 38 71150 73850 2700 X CC Repair 14m 37040 HS-3 39 73850 74550 700 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 40 74550 74650 100 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 41 74650 75200 550 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 42 75200 75300 100 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 43 75300 76350 1050 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 44 76350 76500 150 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 45 76500 79750 3250 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 46 79750 80050 300 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) New Construction , Earthen 47 80050 83500 3450 Roads (3-7) 48 83500 84850 1350 TCS-I Bypass / New Construction 49 84850 94850 10000 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 50 94850 95250 400 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 51 95250 96500 1250 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 52 96500 97850 1350 TCS-I Bypass / New Construction 53 97850 108750 10900 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 54 108750 109050 300 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 55 109050 110818 1768 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 36968

MAJOR & MINOR BRIDGES Provision has been made for the following structures in the estimate. S. No. Type Major Bridge Minor Bridge Total

1 Reconstruction - 9 9

Page 26 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

2 Retain & Repair 01 10 11

3 Widening - 5 5

Total 1 24 25

HPC & SLAB CULVERTS A summary of all the types of culverts proposed are:- Type Widening Reconstruction Retain & New Total Repair construction Pipe 1 57 9 17 84 Slab 2 25 5 - 32 Total 3 82 14 17 116

Drainage and Protection works

Lined drains are proposed to be constructed in urban areas .

Major & Minor Junctions

Detailed Estimates has been prepared for major and minor junctions as per site requirement.

Traffic Safety features, Road Furniture and road markings

Detailed Estimates has been prepared for traffic safety features, road furniture and road markings as per site requirement.

Page 27 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6. PROJECT FACILITIES

Bus Shelter

Considering the overall safety of traffic and minimum hindrance to through traffic, 20 nos. pick-up bus shelters have been proposed both side along the project road.

Sr. No. Design Chainage Side of Road Village Name km/m

1 0+000 LHS Katunda Start Point 2 0+650 RHS Katunda End Point 3 9+500 LHS Rayti 4 11+250 LHS Rayta Start Point 5 11+900 RHS Rayta End Point 6 43+000 LHS Borav 7 43+400 RHS Borav 8 67+100 LHS Rawatbhata 9 71+900 RHS Rawatbhata 10 82+100 LHS Jharjari 11 82+800 RHS Jharjari 12 86+050 LHS Badodiya 13 91+850 LHS Ladpur 14 92+400 LHS Jalkheda 15 93+500 RHS Jalkheda 16 96+950 LHS Dhavadkala 17 104+350 LHS Devli 18 104+950 RHS Devli 19 109+000 LHS Chechat 20 109+170 RHS Chechat

Service Roads

In keeping the view of low traffic and least habitation in the enrouted villages; there is no requirement of service road in the towns/villages.

Toll Plaza Provision has been made for 03 Nos. toll plaza including vehicles rescue & medical aid post at Ch- 5+000, 45+000 & 88+000.

Landscaping The landscaping and tree plantation along the project road shall be done as per IRC: SP: 21 - 2009. In the topographic survey it is seen that 300 trees are proposed for cutting out of 427

Page 28 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan trees. These trees are proposed to be cut as per actual requirement at site in a phased manner. It is proposed to have a new plantation at 10m c/c on both side side of project corridor.

7. Cost Estimates

The cost estimates have been prepared for reconstruction/widening of the existing two lane carriageway including strengthening of the existing pavement, strengthening / widening of existing bridge structures, construction of new bridges, rehabilitation and reconstruction/ widening of cross drainage structures, longitudinal drains, junction improvements, road furniture, street lighting, bus shelters etc. The rates for the items of work have been assessed from BSR Kota , July 2013 and escalation of 5% per year is adopted. i.e. total escalation of 10.25% as on date 01.08.2015.

Proposed typical cross section for project highway is given in table 1.8 below:

Table No. 1.8: Type of Typical Cross Section

Sr. No. TCS-No Description of Typical Cross Section

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 1 TCS-1 Country (With Subgrade)

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 2 TCS-2 Country in concentric widening Poor (3-7)

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 3 TCS-3 Country in eccentric widening (3-7)

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 4 TCS-4 Country in concentric widening Fair (3-7)

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 5 TCS-5 Country in eccentric widening Fair (3-7)

6 TCS-6 Overlay of Two-Lane Carriageway

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 7 TCS-7 Country in cc widening Fair (5.5-10)

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 8 TCS-8 Country in cc widening Fair (3-10)

TCS-9 9 Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open

Page 29 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Country in cc repair -10 m

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 10 TCS-10 Country in cc repair -14 m

Table No. 1.9: Length of Typical Cross Section

Design Design Design in in in Total Proposed S.NO. Discription (Km) (Km) (Km) Length TCS Type HS-I HS-II HS-III 1 Reconstruction Due to BC soil 15254 2900 23918 42072 Reconstruction Due to 2 400 400 TCS-I Submergence 3 Bypass / New Construction 6150 6150 4 Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 5550 5550 TCS-II 5 Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 650 650 TCS-III 6 Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 17950 17950 TCS-IV 7 Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 1400 1400 TCS-V 8 OVERLAY 7390 7390 TCS-VI 9 CC Widening 5.5-10m 950 1100 700 2750 TCS-VII 10 CC Widening 3-10m 200 200 TCS-VIII 11 CC Repair 10m 3000 3000 TCS-IX 12 CC Repair 14m 2700 2700 X 16204 37040 36968 90212

The summary of cost estimate is presented in table 1.10 below Table No. 1.10: Summary of Cost Estimate (VGF)

% of Total S. No. Item Total (Rs.) Civil in Crores Cost A CIVIL WORK For Road Work 1 SITE CLEARANCE 3,646,003 0.36 0.27 2 EARTHWORK 68,860,355 6.89 5.17 3 GRANULAR SUB-BASE, BASE-COURSE 383,781,922 38.38 28.80 4 BITUMINOUS COURSES 429,644,909 42.96 32.24 SUB TOTAL (A) 885933188.76 88.59 66.49

B CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 5 Reconstruction & New Construction of HPC (68no.) 24025781.94 2.40 6 Widening of HPC (1no.) 395339.65 0.04 7 Widening of Slab Culvert (4no.) 2957216.47 0.30 8 Reconstruction of Slab Culvert (25no.) 43209834.37 4.32 9 Reconstruction of Minor Bridge (9no.) 53466318.39 5.35 10 Widening of Minor Bridge (5no.) 12834824.17 1.28

Page 30 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

11 Repair of Major & Minor Bridge (13no.) 2200000.00 0.22 12 Repair of Slab Culvert (14no.) 400000.00 0.04 SUB TOTAL OF CROSS DRAINAGE 139489314.98 13.95 STRUCTURES (B) 10.47 C MISCELLENEOUS ITEMS TRAFFIC SIGNS MARKING AND ROAD 13 9,812,499 0.98 APPURTENANCES 0.74 14 RCC DRAINS & PROTECTION WORKS 17,650,935 1.77 1.32 15 CC PAVEMENT 100,343,987 10.03 7.53 16 JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT 7,565,401 0.76 0.57 SUB TOTAL OF MISC ITEMS (C) 135,372,823 13.54 10.16 Sub Total of BSR Items (D= A+B+C) 1,160,795,326 116.08 87.12 Add 10.25% Escallation as on date 1.08.2015 (E) 118,981,521 11.90 8.93 Total of BSR Items (F= D+E) 1,279,776,847 127.98 96.05 D NON BSR ITEMS 17 TOLL PLAZA(3 NO.) 36,000,000 3.60 2.70 18 BUS SHELTER (20 No.) 2,000,000 0.20 0.15 19 HORTICULTURE 14,686,514 1.47 1.10 SUB TOTAL OF NON BSR ITEMS (G) 52,686,514 5.27 3.95 Total CIVIL COST (H= F+G) 1,332,463,361 133.25 100.00 Cost per Km 14,770,356 1.48 ADD 25% AS PER MCA (I) 333,115,840.24 33.31 Total Project Cost (J=H+I) 1,665,579,201 166.56 Cost per Km. 18,462,945 1.85 Add Environmental Monitoring Budget(K) 9,359,530 0.94 Add Resettlement & Rehabilitation Budget(L) 23,502,689 2.35 Add Utility Shifting Cost (M) 4,530,000 0.45 Grand Project Cost (N=J+K+L+M) 1,702,971,420 170.30 Cost per Km. 18,877,438 1.89

Table No. 1.11: Summary of Cost Estimate (Annuity)

Page 31 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

10 Widening of Minor Bridge (5no.) 12834824.17 1.28 11 Repair of Major & Minor Bridge (13no.) 2200000.00 0.22 12 Repair of Slab Culvert (14no.) 400000.00 0.04 SUB TOTAL OF CROSS DRAINAGE 139489314.98 13.95 STRUCTURES (B) 10.47

C MISCELLENEOUS ITEMS TRAFFIC SIGNS MARKING AND ROAD 13 9,812,499 0.98 APPURTENANCES 0.74 14 RCC DRAINS & PROTECTION WORKS 17,650,935 1.77 1.32 15 CC PAVEMENT 100,343,987 10.03 7.53 16 JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT 7,565,401 0.76 0.57 SUB TOTAL OF MISC ITEMS (C) 135,372,823 13.54 10.16 Sub Total of BSR Items (D= A+B+C) 1,160,795,326 116.08 87.12 Add 10.25% Escallation as on date 1.08.2015 (E) 118,981,521 11.90 8.93 Total of BSR Items (F= D+E) 1,279,776,847 127.98 96.05 D NON BSR ITEMS 17 TOLL PLAZA(3 NO.) 36,000,000 3.60 2.70 18 BUS SHELTER (20 No.) 2,000,000 0.20 0.15 19 HORTICULTURE 14,686,514 1.47 1.10 SUB TOTAL OF NON BSR ITEMS (G) 52,686,514 5.27 3.95 Total CIVIL COST (H= F+G) 1,332,463,361 133.25 100.00 Cost per Km 14,770,356 1.48 ADD 15% AS PER MCA (I) 199,869,504.14 19.99 Total Project Cost (J=H+I) 1,532,332,865 153.23 Cost per Km. 16,985,909 1.70 Add Environmental Monitoring Budget(K) 9,359,530 0.94 Add Resettlement & Rehabilitation Budget(L) 23,502,689 2.35 Add Utility Shifting Cost (M) 4,530,000 0.45 Grand Project Cost (N=J+K+L+M) 1,569,725,084 156.97 Cost per Km. 17,400,402 1.74

8. Financial Analysis (VGF)

The following assumptions are the basis of financial analysis which has been discussed With RJPWD officials during meetings.

Annexure-III: Salient Feature of Project

1 Existing Length of Project (km) 90.565

2 Design Length of Project (km) 90.212

3 Base Year for O & M Cost 2015

4 Base Year for Civil Construction cost 2015

5 Interest assumed on Debt portion 0.125

Page 32 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6 Debt Equity Ratio 2.9375

7 Escalation during Construction 0.05

8 Expected Start of Concession Period Jan,17

9 Expected Start of Revenue July,18

10 Concession Period 25 Years

11 Expected date of End of Concession Period Dec, 2041

12 PCU (2015) 3228

13 PCU (2041) 11966

14 Proposed Configuration 2-Lane with Granular Shoulder

15 Toll Plaza Operating Cost (per annum) 0.75 Cr/Year/Toll Plaza

16 Periodic Maintenance Cost (every 6th year) 30 Lacs/Km

17 Annual Maintenance Cost (per annum) 1.75 Lacs/km

18 Insurance (on TPC) 0.0015

19 Rate of Inflation 0.05

20 Growth rate in Traffic 0.05

21 Growth rate in toll rates As per toll rules

2016= 20%

22 Phasing of Construction 2017= 60%

2018= 20%

23 Income Tax rate 0.339

24 MAT rate 0.2001

25 Tax Holiday (in years) 10 years

26 Moratorium Period (in years) 2 years

27 Loan repayment period 20 years

The length of project highway is 90.212 km. The project road is divided in three homogeneous section along the project road. Table 8.2 : Summary of Toll Plaza

Total Length Length of 2-lane Sr. No. Location Section of Toll (km) carriageway

Page 33 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Plaza

TP-1

1 (Km. Km. 0+000 - Km. 16+204 16.204 90.212 5+000)

TP-2 Km. 36+810 - Km. 2 37.040 37.040 (Km. 73+850 44+000)

TP-3 Km. 73+850 - Km. 3 36.968 36.968 (Km. 110+818 88+000)

The Financial analysis is carried out for the following only one alternative as detailed below.

Table 1.14: Details of Different options for Financial Analysis Sr. Option No. Description No. 1 Option-I VGF 40% (30% during Construction and 10% during O&M)

The summary of financial results from detailed financial analysis is given in Table-1.15 given below:

Alternativ Alternativ S.No. Particular e-1 e-2 Option-1 (With VGF

40%) Government Contribution (in %) during 1 30% 78% construction period Government Contribution (in %) during 2 10% 10% operation period

3 FIRR on Equity #DIV/0! 15.76%

4 FIRR on project 1.19% 1.01%

5 NPV with 12% IRR (in Cr.) -102.30 8.71

Page 34 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6 Average DSCR 0.89 2.81

The Project is financially non viable as per the above financial calculations. The detailed financial analysis is presented in Annexure Volume.

So this project is proposed in Annuity Mode, Annuity calculations are attached below.

Page 35 of 38 ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Public Works Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

9. ANNUITY CALCULATIONS

1 : Financial Abstract Government Contribution (during Construction 50.0% Period) Government Contribution (during operation Period) 50% Base Year 2015 Rupee Crores TPC 153.23 Fiancial Overhead of Construction Period 8% Escalation Factor 5% Toll Period (excluding construction period) 10 Rate of Interest 12.50% Construction Period (Years) 1.5

Road Length in Kms. 90.212

Toll Plaza Operating Cost 0.75

Annual Maintanance (in Million) 0.0175

Periodic Maintanance 0.30 Tax Rate 33.90%

Page 36 of 38

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R1/H1

Annuity Calculation

Total Base Yearly Quarterly Distribution Finacial Year % to Year Distribution 2016 2017 2018 Total cost Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% Construction Completed 20% 60% 20% 100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Year Wise Investment 32.1 169.0 169.0 Total Investment 101.36 35.48 32.18 33.79 33.79 33.79 35.48 8 2 2 Source of Fianance 169.0 Total Investment 2 16.0 Govt. Contribution during construction 50.00% 50.68 17.74 84.51 16.09 16.89 16.89 16.89 17.74 67.62 50% 9 Total Cost excluding Govt. 101.4 84.51 Contribution 0 Equity Contribution 30.00% 25.35 4.83 5.07 5.07 5.07 5.32 25.35 15% Term Loan/Fund 70.00% 59.16 11.26 11.83 11.83 11.83 12.42 59.16 35% 32.1 33.7 33.7 33.7 35.4 169.0 Total 8 9 9 9 8 2

Page 37 of 38

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R1/H1

Annuity Payment during O&M Period (in Cr.)

1 Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2 Total annuity eligible 67.62 63.56 59.50 55.44 48.68 41.92 35.16 28.40 18.94 9.48 3 Rate of Interest 12.50% 4 % Annuity Applicable 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 7% 7% 5 Annuity 2.03 2.03 2.03 3.38 3.38 3.38 3.38 4.73 4.73 4.73 Ist Biannual 6 Interest 4.23 3.97 3.72 3.46 3.04 2.62 2.20 1.77 1.18 0.59 7 Annuity 2.03 2.03 2.03 3.38 3.38 3.38 3.38 4.73 4.73 4.73 2nd Biannual 8 Interest 4.10 3.85 3.59 3.25 2.83 2.41 1.99 1.48 0.89 0.30 9 Yearly Annuity 4.06 4.06 4.06 6.76 6.76 6.76 6.76 9.46 9.46 9.46 10 Total Interest 8.33 7.82 7.31 6.71 5.87 5.03 4.19 3.25 2.07 0.89 11 Net Annuity including Interest 12.39 11.88 11.37 13.47 12.63 11.79 10.95 12.71 11.53 10.35

********

Page 38 of 38

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Chapter-2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project road segment is identified for Improvement and Up gradation to 2- Lane configuration from Katunda- Rawatbhata - Chechat Road (SH-9A) for a length of about 90.580 km. The road primarily connects blocks viz, Chittaurgarh - Bhilwara and other important Villages. This highway segment serves as the artery, provides connectivity to existing MDR & State Highway No. – 09 in Rajasthan State. The Project Road starts from Three legged junction at SH – 09A (Kapasan to Chittorgarh Section) and terminates at NH-76B Junction (Bhilwara- Rajsamand Section) in Karoi. The project road passes through Chittorgarh & Bhilwara district of Rajasthan. The location map of the project stretch is shown as figure 2.1 and Start & End point of the Project road have been shown in figure 2.2 to 2.4.

Figure 2.1: Location Map of Katunda- Rawatbhata - Chechat Road

2.1 Start Point

Page 1 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

The Project Road starts from Three legged junction at SH – 09A (Kapasan to Chittaurgarh Section).

Figure 2.1: Start Point of Project Section-I

Page 2 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Figure 2.2: Start Point of Project Section - II

Figure 2.3: Aerial View of Start Point

Page 3 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2.2 End Point

The Project Road terminates at NH-76B Junction (Bhilwara- Rajsamand Section) in Karoi.

Figure 2.4: End Point of Project Section – I

Page 4 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Figure 2.4: End Point of Project Section – II

Figure 2.5 Aerial View of End Point 2.3 Importance Page 5 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

 Project Road has a vital importance from view of connectivity between NH-76 & State Highway 09A. The project road is acting as an important link for State Highway and Major District Roads.

 The project road will act as an important link for State Highway – 09A & NH-76 and presently condition of the stretch is fair but deficient geometry exists thoughout the reach, therefore, curve improvement along the road is basic requirement. After construction of project road, the traffic coming from NH-76 will expected to ply on the project road which is going to be a shortest route.

The area is famous for the Lac cultivation. A large part of the India's total lac production comes from this area. Lac, a natural polymer (resin) is produced by a tiny insect, Kerria lacca (Kerr), which is purposely cultured on shoots of several species of trees, mainly palas, kusum and ber. This agricultural profession of lac cultivation is a subsidiary source of income for a large number of families in the area.

Majority of the population is in the Rawatbhata & Chechat and they are dependent on agriculture and forests for their livelihood. Lack of food security from the land has compelled many tribal families to migrate out of their own villages. This is despite the fact that the existing landholdings can provide stable livelihoods to the tribal families. Lack of land development, irrigation, credit, know-how for improved agriculture, access to market etc. act as serious constraints leading to a large number of impoverished tribal families.

2.4 Junctions

The project road connects different categories roads such as State Highway, National Highway & Village roads. There are 03 Major Junction and 26 Minor Junctions exists along the project road. The junctions located on project road are depicted in Table-2.1. Table – 2.1 List of junctions located on Project Road Located Destinations of Cross Type of Type of Relative Locatio Road or railway Road Width of Remar S.No Junctio to n (NH/SH/MDR/PMGSY/ (CC/BT/ Road(m) ks n Centrelin ODR/VR) Earthen) e Major NH-(Chhitaurgarh- 1 0+000 T-Type Both Side CC 16.00 Junctio Shivpuri) n Major 2 0+250 MDR to Begun T-Type RHS BT 3.75 Junctio n 3 3+350 VR to Begun Y-Type RHS BT 3.75 4 5+450 VR to Thukrai T-Type LHS BT 3.75 5 5+680 VR to Awlaheda T-Type RHS BT 3.75 6 6+520 VR to Shadi T-Type LHS BT 3.75 1. VR to Upenkala Four 7 9+650 LHS BT 3.75 2.VR to Rayti Legged 8 11+750 VR to Joganiyamata T-Type RHS BT 3.75

Page 6 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

9 38+150 VR to Gopalpur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 10 40+000 VR to laxmipur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 VR to Dhamnagar 11 42+900 T-Type RHS BT 3.75 Khurd 12 43+000 VR to Sukhpura T-Type LHS BT 3.75 13 51+100 VR to Bhurjar T-Type LHS CC 3.00 14 58+900 CMGSY to Gawlipura T-Type RHS BT 3.75 15 60+900 VR to Bhaisrogarh Y-Type RHS BT 3.75 16 61+600 VR to Jagpura T-Type LHS BT 3.75 17 63+850 VR to Sakhloka Dhuda T-Type RHS BT 3.75 18 65+850 VR to Dam T-Type RHS BT 3.75 To KOTA(SH-33) LHS CC 15.00 Major 19 67+300 X-type Junctio City Road RHS BT 3.75 n 20 71+900 To Plant T-Type RHS BT 4.00 21 86+900 VR to Rainkheda T-Type RHS BT 3.75 22 88+600 VR to Keetda T-Type LHS BT 3.75 23 92+150 VR to Ladpur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 VR to Khedarda LHS BT 3.75 24 98+500 X-type VR to Alod RHS BT 3.75 104+95 25 VR to Bundi T-Type LHS BT 3.75 0 107+40 26 VR to Quary T-Type LHS BT 3.75 0

Fig. 2.24 Major Junction @Ch-0+000 (Start Point) Fig. 2.25 Minor Junction @ Ch-5+350

Page 7 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig. 2.26 Minor Junction @Ch-7+450 Fig. 2.27 Minor Junction @ Ch-7+680

Fig. 2.28 Minor Junction @Ch-8+520 Fig. 2.29 Minor Junction @ Ch-11+650

Fig. 2.30 Minor Junction @Ch-44+900 Fig. 2.31 Minor Junction @ Ch-53+100

Page 8 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig. 2.32 Minor Junction @Ch-60+900 Fig. 2.33 Minor Junction @ Ch-62+900

Fig. 2.34 Minor Junction @Ch-63+600 Fig. 2.35 Minor Junction @ Ch-65+850

Fig. 2.36 Minor Junction @Ch-67+850 Fig. 2.37 Major Junction @ Ch-69+300

Page 9 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig. 2.38 Minor Junction @Ch-88+900 Fig. 2.39 Minor Junction @ Ch-100+500

Fig. 2.40 Minor Junction @Ch-111+170

Fig. 2.6: Major & Minor Junctions along the Project Road

2.5 Towns / Villages along the Project Highway

Numbers of villages/ town are situated by the side of the project stretch. List of such villages together with population as per 2011 census is given below in tabular form:

Table – 2.2 Page 10 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

List of Villages/Towns on the Project Highway Sr. Length Populatio Village Start Ch. End Ch. Block District No (km) n 1 . Katunda 0+000 0+650 0.65 2141 Begun Chittaurgar 2 Balwant 0+100 0+300 0.2 444 Begun Chittaurgarh 3 RaytiNagar 9+500 9+900 0.4 854 Begun Chittaurgarh 4 Rayta 11+250 11+900 0.65 1190 Begun Chittaurgarh 5 Turkari 12+650 13+200 0.55 606 Begun Chittaurgarh 6 Borwadi 13+750 14+050 0.3 282 Begun Chittaurgarh 7 Kesarpura 36+600 36+900 0.3 354 Begun Chittaurgarh 8 Tamboliya 38+750 39+650 0.9 440 Begun Chittaurgarh 9 Borav 43+000 43+400 0.4 2689 Begun Chittaurgarh 10 Dhamangarh 51+100 51+400 0.3 250 Begun Chittaurgarh 11 Rawatbhata 67+100 71+900 4.8 34690 Rawatbhat Chittaurgarh 12 Deep pura 79+000 79+400 0.4 457 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 13 Jharjari 82+100 82+800 0.7 1623 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 14 Badodiya 86+050 86+250 0.2 1452 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 15 Ladpur 91+850 92+150 0.3 1237 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 16 Jalkheda 92+400 93+500 1.1 1432 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 17 Mohanpura 95+400 95+950 0.55 774 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 18 Dhavadkala 96+950 97+200 0.25 1192 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 19 Devli 104+350 104+950 0.6 1626 Chechata Kotah 20 Fanda 107+100 107+400 0.3 569 Chechat Kota 21 Chechat 109+000 109+170 0.17 10259 Chechat Kota Total Length 14.02

Fig. 2.9 Katunda Village Fig. 2.10 Rayti Village

Page 11 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig. 2.11 Rayta Village Fig. 2.12 Turkadi Village

Fig. 2.13 BorWardi Village Fig. 2.14 Kesarpura Village

Fig. 2.15 Tamboliya Town Fig. 2.16 Berva Village

Page 12 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig. 2.17 Dhamangarh Village Fig. 2.18 Rawat Bhata Town

Fig. 2.19 Badodiya Village Fig. 2.20 Mohanpura Village

Fig. 2.21 Dhavadkala Village Fig. 2.22 Devli Village

Page 13 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig. 2.23 Chechat Town

Kapasan Town Chokhakheda Village

Roosikhedi Village Babriyakheda Village

Page 14 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Dindoli Village Pahoona Village

Karoi Town

Fig. 2.7: Villages

2.6 Existing Road alignment

The alignment generally passes through plain terrain. In Some Stretch Road also passes through Hilly & Rolling Terrain. Table 2.3 shows the chainage wise detail of vertical geometry. Generally the horizontal alignment of the project road is mostly in rural area flared up with agricultural land use. However it consists of the sharp curves with deficient geometric at several locations.

Page 15 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Table 2.3 Vertical Geometry Details

Start Ch. End Ch. Type of Terrain Remark 0+000 52+200 Plain 52+200 57+000 Hilly 57+000 58+000 Plain 58+000 64+000 Hilly 64+000 74+400 Plain 74+400 81+000 Hilly 81+000 111+170 Plain

Fig. 2.8: Existing Road Geometry

2.7 Pavement

During reconnaissance survey visual condition of the project road reveals that project road is in fair condition for about 18% of the road length. Rest 82% needs improvements (Poor Condition), especially for the reaches traversing through urban areas. Table 2.4 & 2.5 Showing Detailed Condition of Project Road:

Table 2.4: Summary of Condition of pavement details

Start End Ch. Length (in Type Width Condition Remark Ch. km) (in 0+000 2+000 2 BT 5.0 Poor M) 0+000 4+100 4.1 BT 7.0 Poor 4+100 4+400 0.3 CC 7.0 Poor 4+400 12+600 8.2 BT 7.0 Poor 12+600 13+200 0.6 CC 5.5 Poor Turkari 13+200 13+700 0.5 BT 7.0 Poor 13+700 14+050 0.35 CC 5.5 Poor Borwardi 14+050 14+220 0.17 BT 7.0 Poor 14+220 34+810 20.59 BT 5.5 Poor MP Section (Out of Scope) Page 16 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

34+810 38+900 4.09 BT 7.0 Poor 38+900 39+600 0.7 CC 5.5 Fair Tamboliya 39+600 42+300 2.7 BT 7.0 Fair 42+300 42+400 0.1 CC 5.5 Fair 42+400 46+000 3.6 BT 7.0 Fair 46+000 46+700 0.7 BT 3.0 Fair 46+700 46+800 0.1 CC 5.5 Fair 46+800 59+800 13.0 BT 3.0 Poor 59+800 60+400 0.6 BT 3.75 Poor 60+400 60+950 0.55 BT 3.0 Poor 60+950 61+150 0.2 CC 3.0 Poor 61+150 65+800 4.65 BT 3.75 Poor 65+800 66+000 0.2 CC 3.75 Poor 66+000 66+200 0.2 CC 5.5 Fair 66+200 66+800 0.6 CC 10.0 Fair 66+800 69+200 2.4 CC 10.0 Fair 69+200 71+900 2.7 CC 14.0 Fair 71+900 79+000 7.1 BT 3.0 Poor 79+000 81+100 2.1 Earthen 3.0 Poor 81+100 81+800 0.7 BT 3.0 Poor 81+800 82+300 0.5 CC 3.0 Poor 82+300 82+900 0.6 Earthen 3.0 Poor 82+900 90+000 7.1 BT 3.0 Poor 90+000 93+100 3.1 BT 5.5 Poor 93+100 93+500 0.4 CC 5.5 Poor 93+500 95+300 1.8 BT 5.5 Poor 95+300 96+000 0.7 BT 3.75 Poor 96+000 98+000 2.0 BT 5.5 Poor 98+000 100+000 2.0 BT 3.75 Poor 100+000 104+200 4.2 BT 3.0 Poor 104+200 104+500 0.3 BT 7.0 Poor 104+500 107+100 2.6 BT 3.0 Poor 107+100 107+400 0.3 CC 7.0 Fair 107+400 109+170 1.77 BT 7.0 Fair Total 111.17 Km

Table 2.2 Summary of Cross Section of project Road

Carriageway Total Length Length in (km) Type Width

Page 17 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

35.95 BT 3 39.35 0.7 CC 2.7 Earthen 3.75 8.15 7.95 BT 0.2 CC 5 2.0 2.0 BT 5.5 9.35 6.9 BT 2.45 CC 7.0 26.03 25.43 BT 0.6 CC 10.0 3.0 3.0 CC 14.0 2.7 2.7 Total 90.580

Table 2.6: Summary of Existing Cross-section details

Length(km) % of total Condition length Fair 15.87 18% Poor 74.71 82% Total 90.580km 100%

Poor Condition Fair Condition

Fig. 2.9 Road Condition

DRAINAGE

Earthen Drains were found in Rural Areas & RCC Drains were Present in Built-up of Rawatbhata Village Only.

2.8 EXISTING ROW:

Revenue maps reveals that the existing Right of Way (ROW) of the project road varies between 3m to 55m. The chainage wise existing ROW details are shown below:

Page 18 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Detail of Existing ROW S.NO. From Chainage To Chainage ROW 1 0 100 27 2 100 200 11 3 200 300 11 4 300 400 10 5 400 500 8 6 500 600 9 7 600 700 10 8 700 800 9 9 800 900 10 10 900 1000 11 11 1000 1100 19 12 1100 1200 28 13 1200 1300 26 14 1300 1400 25 15 1400 1500 22 16 1500 1600 17 17 1600 1700 13 18 1700 1800 18 19 1800 1900 14 20 1900 2000 16 21 2000 2100 15 22 2100 2200 15 23 2200 2300 15 24 2300 2400 16 25 2400 2500 23 26 2500 2600 25 27 2600 2700 29 28 2700 2800 29 29 2800 2900 32 30 2900 3000 27 31 3000 3100 31 32 3100 3200 25 33 3200 3300 22 34 3300 3400 21 35 3400 3500 23 36 3500 3600 19 37 3600 3700 38 38 3700 3800 29 39 3800 3900 34 40 3900 4000 40 41 4000 4100 14 Page 19 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

42 4100 4200 49 43 4200 4300 55 44 4300 4400 15 45 4400 4500 11 46 4500 4600 19 47 4600 4700 16 48 4700 4800 19 49 4800 4900 21 50 4900 5000 18 51 5000 5100 11 52 5100 5200 8 53 5200 5300 14 54 5300 5400 16 55 5400 5500 9 56 5500 5600 14 57 5600 5700 25 58 5700 5800 21 59 5800 5900 20 60 5900 6000 17 61 6000 6100 19 62 6100 6200 20 63 6200 6300 11 64 6300 6400 8 65 6400 6500 7 66 6500 6600 11 67 6600 6700 9 68 6700 6800 9 69 6800 6900 10 70 6900 7000 10 71 7000 7100 11 72 7100 7200 9 73 7200 7300 15 74 7300 7400 13 75 7400 7500 15 76 7500 7600 14 77 7600 7700 15 78 7700 7800 17 79 7800 7900 20 80 7900 8000 24 81 8000 8100 19 82 8100 8200 20 83 8200 8300 17 84 8300 8400 22 Page 20 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

85 8400 8500 18 86 8500 8600 20 87 8600 8700 21 88 8700 8800 26 89 8800 8900 24 90 8900 9000 24 91 9000 9100 22 92 9100 9200 30 93 9200 9300 29 94 9300 9400 27 95 9400 9500 25 96 9500 9600 26 97 9600 9700 21 98 9700 9800 20 99 9800 9900 18 100 9900 10000 18 101 10000 10100 33 102 10100 10200 34 103 10200 10300 31 104 10300 10400 18 105 10400 10500 15 106 10500 10600 15 107 10600 10700 24 108 10700 10800 14 109 10800 10900 13 110 10900 11000 18 111 11000 11100 17 112 11100 11200 14 113 11200 11300 18 114 11300 11400 12 115 11400 11500 17 116 11500 11600 22 117 11600 11700 19 118 11700 11800 15 119 11800 11900 19 120 11900 12000 21 121 12000 12100 20 122 12100 12200 21 123 12200 12300 24 124 12300 12400 19 125 12400 12500 19 126 12500 12600 27 127 12600 12700 26 Page 21 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

128 12700 12800 21 129 12800 12900 22 130 12900 13000 24 131 13000 13100 21 132 13100 13200 20 133 13200 13300 18 134 13300 13400 20 135 13400 13500 19 136 13500 13600 23 137 13600 13700 25 138 13700 13800 19 139 13800 13900 20 140 13900 14000 25 141 14000 14100 18 142 14100 14200 23 143 14200 14300 24 144 14300 14400 22 145 14400 14500 26 146 14500 14600 21 147 14600 14700 14 148 14700 14800 11 149 14800 14900 15 150 14900 15000 9 151 15000 15100 16 152 15100 15200 18 153 15200 15300 17 154 15300 15400 20 155 15400 15500 21 156 15500 15600 14 157 15600 15700 18 158 15700 15800 12 159 15800 15900 8 160 15900 16000 16 161 16000 16100 11 162 16100 16200 16 163 16200 16204 17 164 36810 36900 20 165 36900 37000 28 166 37000 37100 28 167 37100 37200 30 168 37200 37300 23 169 37300 37400 27 170 37400 37500 31 Page 22 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

171 37500 37600 31 172 37600 37700 30 173 37700 37800 31 174 37800 37900 28 175 37900 38000 28 176 38000 38100 27 177 38100 38200 30 178 38200 38300 21 179 38300 38400 20 180 38400 38500 19 181 38500 38600 14 182 38600 38700 13 183 38700 38800 12 184 38800 38900 15 185 38900 39000 15 186 39000 39100 18 187 39100 39200 18 188 39200 39300 17 189 39300 39400 15 190 39400 39500 14 191 39500 39600 12 192 39600 39700 25 193 39700 39800 26 194 39800 39900 28 195 39900 40000 26 196 40000 40100 30 197 40100 40200 29 198 40200 40300 23 199 40300 40400 15 200 40400 40500 27 201 40500 40600 22 202 40600 40700 20 203 40700 40800 17 204 40800 40900 20 205 40900 41000 15 206 41000 41100 16 207 41100 41200 17 208 41200 41300 11 209 41300 41400 12 210 41400 41500 10 211 41500 41600 17 212 41600 41700 13 213 41700 41800 14 Page 23 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

214 41800 41900 16 215 41900 42000 15 216 42000 42100 13 217 42100 42200 18 218 42200 42300 22 219 42300 42400 30 220 42400 42500 13 221 42500 42600 12 222 42600 42700 15 223 42700 42800 17 224 42800 42900 17 225 42900 43000 24 226 43000 43100 23 227 43100 43200 27 228 43200 43300 22 229 43300 43400 20 230 43400 43500 19 231 43500 43600 17 232 43600 43700 15 233 43700 43800 12 234 43800 43900 17 235 43900 44000 16 236 44000 44100 40 237 44100 44200 35 238 44200 44300 40 239 44300 44400 38 240 44400 44500 22 241 44500 44600 21 242 44600 44700 17 243 44700 44800 17 244 44800 44900 8 245 44900 45000 14 246 45000 45100 5 247 45100 45200 6 248 45200 45300 15 249 45300 45400 12 250 45400 45500 15 251 45500 45600 31 252 45600 45700 20 253 45700 45800 14 254 45800 45900 8 255 45900 46000 13 256 46000 46100 14 Page 24 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

257 46100 46200 10 258 46200 46300 12 259 46300 46400 9 260 46400 46500 15 261 46500 46600 8 262 46600 46700 9 263 46700 46800 7 264 46800 46900 13 265 46900 47000 7 266 47000 47100 11 267 47100 47200 7 268 47200 47300 7 269 47300 47400 7 270 47400 47500 9 271 47500 47600 27 272 47600 47700 37 273 47700 47800 37 274 47800 47900 38 275 47900 48000 32 276 48000 48100 32 277 48100 48200 33 278 48200 48300 31 279 48300 48400 26 280 48400 48500 26 281 48500 48600 30 282 48600 48700 26 283 48700 48800 13 284 48800 48900 13 285 48900 49000 17 286 49000 49100 35 287 49100 49200 30 288 49200 49300 32 289 49300 49400 35 290 49400 49500 34 291 49500 49600 23 292 49600 49700 29 293 49700 49800 30 294 49800 49900 31 295 49900 50000 31 296 50000 50100 35 297 50100 50200 26 298 50200 50300 31 299 50300 50400 27 Page 25 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

300 50400 50500 27 301 50500 50600 28 302 50600 50700 30 303 50700 50800 27 304 50800 50900 23 305 50900 51000 20 306 51000 51100 20 307 51100 51200 22 308 51200 51300 28 309 51300 51400 35 310 51400 51500 33 311 51500 51600 29 312 51600 51700 30 313 51700 51800 34 314 51800 51900 29 315 51900 52000 27 316 52000 52100 28 317 52100 52200 33 318 52200 52300 26 319 52300 52400 24 320 52400 52500 28 321 52500 52600 37 322 52600 52700 32 323 52700 52800 32 324 52800 52900 30 325 52900 53000 28 326 53000 53100 39 327 53100 53200 41 328 53200 53300 31 329 53300 53400 24 330 53400 53500 25 331 53500 53600 36 332 53600 53700 44 333 53700 53800 44 334 53800 53900 36 335 53900 54000 39 336 54000 54100 53 337 54100 54200 49 338 54200 54300 33 339 54300 54400 26 340 54400 54500 33 341 54500 54600 38 342 54600 54700 41 Page 26 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

343 54700 54800 Forest Area 344 54800 54900 Forest Area 345 54900 55000 Forest Area 346 55000 55100 Forest Area 347 55100 55200 Forest Area 348 55200 55300 Forest Area 349 55300 55400 Forest Area 350 55400 55500 Forest Area 351 55500 55600 Forest Area 352 55600 55700 Forest Area 353 55700 55800 Forest Area 354 55800 55900 Forest Area 355 55900 56000 Forest Area 356 56000 56100 Forest Area 357 56100 56200 Forest Area 358 56200 56300 Forest Area 359 56300 56400 Forest Area 360 56400 56500 Forest Area 361 56500 56600 Forest Area 362 56600 56700 Forest Area 363 56700 56800 Forest Area 364 56800 56900 Forest Area 365 56900 57000 Forest Area 366 57000 57100 Forest Area 367 57100 57200 Forest Area 368 57200 57300 Forest Area 369 57300 57400 Forest Area 370 57400 57500 Forest Area 371 57500 57600 Forest Area 372 57600 57700 Forest Area 373 57700 57800 Forest Area 374 57800 57900 Forest Area 375 57900 58000 Forest Area 376 58000 58100 Forest Area 377 58100 58200 Forest Area 378 58200 58300 Forest Area 379 58300 58400 Forest Area 380 58400 58500 Forest Area 381 58500 58600 Forest Area 382 58600 58700 Forest Area 383 58700 58800 Forest Area 384 58800 58900 Forest Area 385 58900 59000 Forest Area Page 27 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

386 59000 59100 30 387 59100 59200 29 388 59200 59300 29 389 59300 59400 33 390 59400 59500 33 391 59500 59600 25 392 59600 59700 24 393 59700 59800 26 394 59800 59900 29 395 59900 60000 40 396 60000 60100 30 397 60100 60200 27 398 60200 60300 31 399 60300 60400 31 400 60400 60500 25 401 60500 60600 22 402 60600 60700 28 403 60700 60800 32 404 60800 60900 30 405 60900 61000 36 406 61000 61100 25 407 61100 61200 23 408 61200 61300 24 409 61300 61400 34 410 61400 61500 28 411 61500 61600 26 412 61600 61700 22 413 61700 61800 23 414 61800 61900 24 415 61900 62000 14 416 62000 62100 13 417 62100 62200 12 418 62200 62300 13 419 62300 62400 14 420 62400 62500 9 421 62500 62600 14 422 62600 62700 6 423 62700 62800 6 424 62800 62900 10 425 62900 63000 7 426 63000 63100 5 427 63100 63200 5 428 63200 63300 13 Page 28 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

429 63300 63400 14 430 63400 63500 18 431 63500 63600 20 432 63600 63700 20 433 63700 63800 20 434 63800 63900 25 435 63900 64000 26 436 64000 64100 23 437 64100 64200 24 438 64200 64300 28 439 64300 64400 30 440 64400 64500 27 441 64500 64600 26 442 64600 64700 23 443 64700 64800 32 444 64800 64900 44 445 64900 65000 40 446 65000 65100 52 447 65100 65200 54 448 65200 65300 33 449 65300 65400 30 450 65400 65500 28 451 65500 65600 30 452 65600 65700 32 453 65700 65800 34 454 65800 65900 32 455 65900 66000 36 456 66000 66100 35 457 66100 66200 37 458 66200 66300 35 459 66300 66400 35 460 66400 66500 37 461 66500 66600 35 462 66600 66700 34 463 66700 66800 30 464 66800 66900 27 465 66900 67000 27 466 67000 67100 25 467 67100 67200 26 468 67200 67300 27 469 67300 67400 25 470 67400 67500 24 471 67500 67600 22 Page 29 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

472 67600 67700 42 473 67700 67800 36 474 67800 67900 36 475 67900 68000 31 476 68000 68100 31 477 68100 68200 35 478 68200 68300 32 479 68300 68400 37 480 68400 68500 30 481 68500 68600 30 482 68600 68700 31 483 68700 68800 30 484 68800 68900 31 485 68900 69000 31 486 69000 69100 28 487 69100 69200 26 488 69200 69300 23 489 69300 69400 23 490 69400 69500 23 491 69500 69600 24 492 69600 69700 24 493 69700 69800 25 494 69800 69900 25 495 69900 70000 28 496 70000 70100 29 497 70100 70200 27 498 70200 70300 34 499 70300 70400 33 500 70400 70500 32 501 70500 70600 30 502 70600 70700 35 503 70700 70800 33 504 70800 70900 26 505 70900 71000 26 506 71000 71100 27 507 71100 71200 29 508 71200 71300 28 509 71300 71400 25 510 71400 71500 26 511 71500 71600 27 512 71600 71700 26 513 71700 71800 22 514 71800 71900 6 Page 30 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

515 71900 72000 6 516 72000 72100 6 517 72100 72200 6 518 72200 72300 6 519 72300 72372 6 520 72372 72400 Forest Area 521 72400 72500 Forest Area 522 72500 72600 Forest Area 523 72600 72700 Forest Area 524 72700 72800 Forest Area 525 72800 72900 Forest Area 526 72900 73000 Forest Area 527 73000 73100 Forest Area 528 73100 73200 Forest Area 529 73200 73300 Forest Area 530 73300 73400 Forest Area 531 73400 73500 Forest Area 532 73500 73600 Forest Area 533 73600 73700 Forest Area 534 73700 73800 Forest Area 535 73800 73900 Forest Area 536 73900 74000 Forest Area 537 74000 74100 Forest Area 538 74100 74200 Forest Area 539 74200 74300 Forest Area 540 74300 74400 Forest Area 541 74400 74500 Forest Area 542 74500 74600 Forest Area 543 74600 74700 Forest Area 544 74700 74800 Forest Area 545 74800 74900 Forest Area 546 74900 75000 Forest Area 547 75000 75100 Forest Area 548 75100 75200 Forest Area 549 75200 75300 Forest Area 550 75300 75400 Forest Area 551 75400 75500 Forest Area 552 75500 75600 Forest Area 553 75600 75700 Forest Area 554 75700 75800 Forest Area 555 75800 75900 Forest Area 556 75900 76000 Forest Area 557 76000 76100 Forest Area Page 31 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

558 76100 76200 Forest Area 559 76200 76300 Forest Area 560 76300 76400 Forest Area 561 76400 76500 Forest Area 562 76500 76600 Forest Area 563 76600 76700 Forest Area 564 76700 76800 Forest Area 565 76800 76900 Forest Area 566 76900 77000 Forest Area 567 77000 77100 Forest Area 568 77100 77200 Forest Area 569 77200 77300 Forest Area 570 77300 77400 Forest Area 571 77400 77500 Forest Area 572 77500 77600 Forest Area 573 77600 77700 Forest Area 574 77700 77800 Forest Area 575 77800 77900 Forest Area 576 77900 78000 Forest Area 577 78000 78100 Forest Area 578 78100 78200 Forest Area 579 78200 78300 Forest Area 580 78300 78400 Forest Area 581 78400 78500 Forest Area 582 78500 78600 Forest Area 583 78600 78700 Forest Area 584 78700 78800 Forest Area 585 78800 78900 Forest Area 586 78900 79000 Forest Area 587 79000 79100 Forest Area 588 79100 79200 Forest Area 589 79200 79300 Forest Area 590 79300 79400 Forest Area 591 79400 79500 Forest Area 592 79500 79600 Forest Area 593 79600 79700 Forest Area 594 79700 79800 Forest Area 595 79800 79900 Forest Area 596 79900 80000 Forest Area 597 80000 80100 Forest Area 598 80100 80200 Forest Area 599 80200 80300 Forest Area 600 80300 80372 Forest Area Page 32 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

601 80372 80400 10 602 80400 80500 14 603 80500 80600 11 604 80600 80700 11 605 80700 80800 7 606 80800 80900 16 607 80900 81000 13 608 81000 81100 10 609 81100 81200 10 610 81200 81300 6 611 81300 81400 11 612 81400 81500 10 613 81500 81600 5 614 81600 81700 6 615 81700 81800 5 616 81800 81900 4 617 81900 82000 8 618 82000 82100 3 619 82100 82200 15 620 82200 82300 18 621 82300 82400 9 622 82400 82500 10 623 82500 82600 12 624 82600 82700 12 625 82700 82800 14 626 82800 82900 20 627 82900 83000 19 628 83000 83100 10 629 83100 83200 14 630 83200 83300 13 631 83300 83400 11 632 83400 84850 Bypass 633 84850 85000 12 634 85000 85200 16 635 85200 85400 6 636 85400 85600 6 637 85600 85800 7 638 85800 86000 6 639 86000 86200 6 640 86200 86400 6 641 86400 86600 6 642 86600 86800 6 643 86800 87000 6 Page 33 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

644 87000 87200 6 645 87200 87400 11 646 87400 87600 15 647 87600 87800 15 648 87800 88000 8 649 88000 88200 21 650 88200 88400 12 651 88400 88600 13 652 88600 88800 11 653 88800 89000 19 654 89000 89200 13 655 89200 89400 17 656 89400 89600 23 657 89600 89800 14 658 89800 90000 17 659 90000 90200 16 660 90200 90400 6 661 90400 90600 13 662 90600 90800 6 663 90800 91000 6 664 91000 91200 7 665 91200 91400 6 666 91400 91600 6 667 91600 91800 8 668 91800 92000 10 669 92000 92200 7 670 92200 92400 6 671 92400 92600 16 672 92600 92800 30 673 92800 93000 6 674 93000 93200 6 675 93200 93400 9 676 93400 93600 15 677 93600 93800 18 678 93800 94000 20 679 94000 94200 20 680 94200 94400 19 681 94400 94600 10 682 94600 94800 6 683 94800 95000 11 684 95000 95200 8 685 95200 95400 12 686 95400 95600 6 Page 34 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

687 95600 95800 7 688 95800 96000 12 689 96000 96200 8 690 96200 96400 6 691 96400 96600 6 692 96600 97800 Bypass 693 97800 98000 11 694 98000 98200 6 695 98200 98400 18 696 98400 98600 22 697 98600 98800 18 698 98800 99000 20 699 99000 99200 14 700 99200 99400 14 701 99400 99600 8 702 99600 99800 6 703 99800 100000 8 704 100000 100200 10 705 100200 100400 8 706 100400 100600 6 707 100600 100800 7 708 100800 101000 10 709 101000 101200 7 710 101200 101400 8 711 101400 101600 8 712 101600 101800 16 713 101800 102000 23 714 102000 102200 30 715 102200 102400 24 716 102400 102600 22 717 102600 102800 24 718 102800 103000 24 719 103000 103200 23 720 103200 103400 18 721 103400 103600 20 722 103600 103800 25 723 103800 104000 18 724 104000 104200 21 725 104200 104400 26 726 104400 104600 26 727 104600 104800 24 728 104800 105000 27 729 105000 105200 27 Page 35 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

730 105200 105400 27 731 105400 105600 26 732 105600 105800 20 733 105800 106000 19 734 106000 106200 17 735 106200 106400 21 736 106400 106600 17 737 106600 106800 24 738 106800 107000 25 739 107000 107200 22 740 107200 107400 16 741 107400 107600 16 742 107600 107800 16 743 107800 108000 16 744 108000 108200 13 745 108200 108400 17 746 108400 108600 17 747 108600 108800 18 748 108800 109000 15 749 109000 109200 19 750 109200 109400 19 751 109400 109600 13 518 109600 109800 19 519 109800 110000 18 520 110000 110200 35 521 110200 110400 43 522 110400 110600 43 523 110600 110800 50 524 110800 110818 31

2.9 Cross drainage structures

There are 128 nos. structure found in 90.580 km length, which is seems to be adequate. 10 new additional culverts are provided based on the detailed study of the hydraulic parameters of the catchment area.

Table 2.6- Summary of Existing Structures

Major Minor Slab Box Hume Pipe Pipe Causeways Bridge Bridge Culvert Culvert Culvert Layed 1 Nos. 24 Nos. 34 Nos. 01 Nos. 84 Nos. 02 Nos. 18 Nos.

Page 36 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Hume Pipe Culverts – 84 nos. Table: 2.7 Existing Sr. Existing Design Existing Span Existing No. Chainage Chainage Structure Type Arrangement (m) structure Width

1 8+100 8+090 FCW FCW 7

2 8+700 8+695 FCW FCW 7

3 11+520 11+510 3ROW100 HPC 12.7

4 12+655 12+645 2ROW100 HPC 10.2

5 13+650 13+640 FCW FCW 7

6 37+020 37+005 1ROW900 HPC 8.3

7 37+880 37+860 1ROW900 HPC 8.7

8 38+340 38+320 1ROW600 HPC 8.4

9 39+030 39+015 1ROW1200 HPC 12.4

10 44+770 44+750 1ROW600 HPC 8.4

11 45+450 45+420 4ROW600 HPC 8.5

12 46+350 46+320 2ROW600 HPC 8.1

13 48+300 48+270 2ROW1200 HPC 12.5

14 48+500 48+465 2ROW1000 HPC 12.7

15 49+680 49+650 1ROW1200 HPC 12.2

16 50+950 50+915 1ROW2300 BOX 8.5

17 51+100 51+075 1ROW300 Pipe Layed

18 51+600 51+575 2ROW600 HPC 8.4

19 53+690 53+655 1ROW600 HPC 9

20 54+000 54+015 1ROW300 Pipe Layed

21 55+810 55+775 2ROW600 HPC 8.3

22 55+885 55+850 4ROW600 HPC 8.5

Page 37 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Existing Sr. Existing Design Existing Span Existing No. Chainage Chainage Structure Type Arrangement (m) structure Width 23 56+100 56+060 2ROW600 HPC 8.4

24 56+550 56+510 2ROW900 HPC 8.4

25 56+825 56+795 3ROW600 HPC 8.4

26 57+950 57+910 FCW FCW 8.4

27 61+200 61+155 2ROW900 HPC 7.3

28 63+240 63+175 3ROW600 HPC 7.4

29 63+520 63+460 1ROW600 HPC 7.4

30 63+690 63+635 2ROW600 HPC 5

31 63+800 63+740 FCW FCW 14.6

32 73+710 73+625 6ROW600 HPC 13.5

33 73+900 73+825 2ROW600 HPC 7.5

34 79+250 79+170 2ROW1000 HPC 8

35 79+590 79+500 2ROW1000 HPC 7.4

36 79+960 79+870 1ROW1000 VCW 7.3

37 80+075 79+985 1ROW1000 VCW 7.5

38 80+650 80+560 1ROW600 HPC 7

39 80+750 80+655 FCW FCW 7

40 81+060 80+960 FCW FCW 7

41 81+200 81+110 FCW FCW 7.5

42 83+935 83+900 1ROW600 HPC 7.6

43 86+410 86+215 4ROW600 VCW 7.6

44 86+520 86+320 1ROW600 HPC 7.6

45 87+190 86+990 2ROW900 HPC 10.2

Page 38 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Existing Sr. Existing Design Existing Span Existing No. Chainage Chainage Structure Type Arrangement (m) structure Width

46 88+020 87+820 1ROW600 VCW 10.8

47 88+860 88+660 1ROW600 HPC 10

48 89+115 88+915 1ROW300 HPC 10.5

49 89+240 89+040 3ROW600 HPC 10

50 89+885 89+675 4ROW900 HPC 10

51 90+270 90+070 2ROW600 HPC 10

52 90+800 90+600 1ROW600 HPC 10

53 90+970 90+760 1ROW600 HPC 10

54 91+550 91+335 1ROW900 HPC 10.3

55 92+050 91+830 1ROW900 HPC 10.2

56 92+480 92+265 1ROW600 FCW 10.3

57 92+575 92+355 1ROW600 HPC 10

58 94+570 94+345 2ROW900 HPC 10.5

59 95+050 94+830 2ROW600 HPC

60 95+200 94+980 FCW FCW 10.3

61 95+815 95+595 5ROW900 HPC 10

1ROW900 62 98+930 98+610 HPC 10 3ROW600

63 99+250 98+915 2ROW600 VCW 10

64 99+575 99+245 3ROW900 HPC 10

65 99+900 99+570 2ROW600 HPC 10

66 100+270 99+935 2ROW900 HPC 10

67 100+480 100+150 3ROW900 HPC 10

Page 39 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Existing Sr. Existing Design Existing Span Existing No. Chainage Chainage Structure Type Arrangement (m) structure Width

68 101+300 100+965 1ROW600 HPC 10.3

69 101+470 101+150 1ROW900 HPC 10

70 101+950 101+620 2ROW900 HPC 10

71 102+100 101+760 1ROW600 HPC 10

72 102+660 102+330 2ROW600 HPC 10

73 102+715 102+380 2ROW900 HPC 7.3

74 102+780 102+445 3ROW600 VCW 7.3

75 102+820 102+500 3ROW900 HPC 7.3

76 102+860 102+525 8ROW1000 HPC 8

77 103+875 103+535 1ROW600 HPC 8

78 105+050 104+710 1ROW900 HPC 7.8

79 106+590 106+250 2ROW900 HPC

80 106+950 106+610 FCW 8.8

81 107+650 107+300 3ROW900 HPC

82 108+750 108+400 FCW 12.6

83 109+960 109+610 1ROW1000 HPC 12.8

84 110+725 110+370 3ROW900 HPC 8

(B) Slab Culverts – 27 nos Table: 2.8 Sr. Existing Design Existing No. Chainage Chainage Existing Span Structure Type Existing Arrangement (m) structure Width

1 0+090 0+090 1x1.3 Slab 7.6

2 0+990 0+990 1x1.2 Slab 12

3 7+645 7+635 2x2.4 Slab 7.4

Page 40 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

4 10+990 10+980 1x1.2 Slab 7

5 11+700 11+700 1x1.4 Slab 7.7

6 12+810 12+800 2x1.5 Slab 7.8

7 13+250 13+235 1x1.2 Slab 7.5

8 14+520 14+505 1x1.2 Slab 7.6

9 43+700 43+670 1x1.8 Slab 8.2

10 44+260 44+240 1x1.8 Slab 7.6

11 49+240 49+210 1x1.4 Slab 8.3

12 51+330 51+300 1x3 Slab 8.3

13 65+600 65+535 2x1.1 Slab 7.7

14 68+250 68+165 1x1.5 Slab 6.5

15 69+000 68+935 1x1 Slab 6.5

16 69+850 69+780 1x1.1 Slab 12.9

17 70+050 69+975 1x1.3 Slab 12.3

18 71+125 71+055 1x1.7 Slab 14

19 72+550 72+470 1x1.7 Slab 13.9

20 74+910 74+830 1x1.2 Slab 7.6

21 74+975 74+900 1x1.2 Slab 7.1

22 78+310 78+225 1x0.8 Slab 7.2

23 80+450 80+355 1x3 Slab 7

24 85+600 85+410 1x2.9 Slab 7.4

25 86+075 85+880 1x2.8 Slab 7.4

26 88+580 88+400 1x5.8 Slab 7.2

27 92+900 92+685 1x2.8 Slab 13.5

2.11 RAIL-ROAD CROSSING: There is no rail road level crossing exists at project corridor.

Page 41 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2.12 ONGOING DEVELOPMENT PLANS Patch Work was going on between km-8-9 on project road. No other development plan reported for this road during preliminary survey. 2.14 SOIL STRATA Table 2.9 shows variations in Soil of Project Road. Table2.9 As per Existing chainage Total Ex. Start Length Ex. End Ch. Length Type of Soil Remark Ch. (km) (km) 0+000 2+000 2.0 Both Side 0+000 14+220 14.22 Expansive Soil (BC Soil) Both Side 40.22 36+000 38+000 2.0 Both Side 85+000 107+000 22.0 Both Side 34+810 36+000 1.19 Both Side Non Expansive Soil (Red 38+000 85+000 47.0 50.36 Both Side Soil) 107+000 109+170 2.17 Both Side 90.58 Total km

2.15 SERVICE ROADS There are no service roads along the road.

2.16 LAND AQUISITION As per Circular of PWD, Rajasthan Proposed ROW is 30m. However, to start construction on site 16m ROW is required.

Hence land acquisition requirement for both 16m & 30m proposed ROW has been worked out & listed below:-

Details of Land Acquisition are:-

Summary of Land Acquisition S.N. Type of land Area of Land to be Acquired (in Hec) Proposed ROW - 16m 1 Govt. Land 4.400 2 Private land 9.630 3 Forest land(30m) 27.9 Total Land to be Acquired (in Hec) 41.930 Proposed ROW - 30m 1 Govt. Land 21.607 2 Private land 41.141 3 Forest land(30m) 27.9 Total Land to be Acquired (in Hec) 90.648

Page 42 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2.17 TRAFFIC The vehicles basically use the road as connection between SH-09 (Chittaurgarh- Udaipur Section) to NH-76B (Rajsamand- Bhilwara Section), also the road is being used for connecting local villages located on either side of road. The traffic mostly consists of agricultural vehicles like tractor trolleys & also Truck, 2axle, 3axle vehicles due to sand mine of Banas River. Other vehicles using the road are Local public buses, two wheelers and bicycles.

2.18 TRAFFIC SURVEY LOCATON The traffic survey shall be conducted at

A) Classified Volume Count Survey At 1. At Km 1+800 (After Balwant Nagar Village) 2. At Km 12+900 (Before M.P. Border) 3. At Km 37+000 (After M.P. Border) 4. At Km 58+800 (At Bhainsrogarh Junction) 5. At Km 71+600 ( After RawatBhata Town) 6. At Km 107+000 ( Before Chechat Town)

B) OD & Axle Load Spectrum Survey 1. At Km 58+800 (At Bhainsrogarh Junction)

c) Turning Movement Survey 1. At Km 0+000 (starting Point) 2. At Km 66+300 (Major Junction, to Kota) 3. At Km 71+300 (Junction, to Gandhi Sagar Dam)

2.21 BYPASSES AND REALIGNMENTS: Based on the preliminary investigation of the existing road geometry as discussed in section 2.2 and based on the visual inspection of the availability of land for widening to the desired standard in the built-up areas, it is envisaged that 2 lane with hard shoulder with side drains are necessary. The available land width in these stretches, except at Jharjhani Village & Mohanpura Village, vary as per table no. 2.4, which is sufficient to fit a 2-lane with hard shoulder cross-section without major demolition of the residential and commercial structures. However, in Jharjhani village and Mohanpura village, the road is passing through densely populated city portion and a bypass is required for smooth and congestion free movement of traffic in this stretch.

BYPASS PROPOSALS:-

All Bypass proposals will be finalized after collection of Land Plans from Revenue Department for minimizing land Acquisition. Tentative Proposals are given below:-

1. Jharjhari Village

Page 43 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

TABLE 2.6 MERITS & DEMERITS

S.NO. ITEM OPTION-I OPTION-II

(EXISTING ALIGNMENT) (BYPASS)

1 DESIGN SPEED 20Km/Hr 80 Km/Hr

2 BT WIDTH 0m 7m

3 LENGTH 1.55km 1.45km

4 ROW 8m 30m

5 LAND ACQUISITION Required (dismantling of Required (Ag land) permanent structures is required)

6 GEOMETRIC Deficient As per standard STANDARDS

7 SAFETY unsafe safe

8. CONSTRUCTION Comparatively less More COST

Page 44 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2. Mohanpura Village

TABLE 2.7 MERITS & DEMERITS

S.NO. ITEM OPTION-I OPTION-II

(EXISTING ALIGNMENT) (BYPASS)

1 DESIGN SPEED 20Km/Hr 80 Km/Hr

2 BT WIDTH 0m 7m

3 LENGTH 1.4km 1.3km

4 ROW 8m 30m

5 LAND ACQUISITION Required (dismantling of Required (Ag land) permanent structures is required)

6 GEOMETRIC Deficient As per standard STANDARDS

7 SAFETY unsafe safe

8. CONSTRUCTION Comparatively less More COST

2.22 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES Various services available along the existing highway are as follows:-

Fuel Stations: One Fuel stations were observed on the road at Km 21+550. Page 45 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Telephone Facilities: Telephone facility is available in all villages on the road.

Police Station:- No Police Stations was located on the Road .

2.23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, REHABILITATION AND SENSITIVITY This road mainly passes through agricultural fields, populated area & Forest area in some part. Project for road widening, rehabilitation shall not cause any adverse effect on ecology and environment of the adjoining area.

1. A Stretch of 9.3 km fall in Forest area stated below :-

Jawaharsagar Km 54+598 - Km Sanctuary 4.3 58+898 Mukundra Hills Km 75+372- Km (Tiger Reserve) 5.0 80+372 Total Length 9.3

2.23 SPECIAL FEATURE 1. Bhainsrogarh Fort

Page 46 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2.24 RESOURCES

Labor: - Enough unskilled labour is available in the region. Subgrade / Aggregates:-Good quality subgrade/aggregate is available on project road. (Average lead 10km) Location- a) Near Ch- 35+200 b) Near Ch- 60+450 c) Near Ch- 107+150 Bitumen:-The bitumen supply to this area, in general, comes from Mathura Refinery; required quantity supply can be arranged from there. Proposed Plant Location- 1. Between CH- 45+000 – 47+000 (avg lead-12km) for HS-1 & HS-II 2. Between CH- 90+000 – 92+000 (avg lead-10km) for HS-1 & HS-II 2.25 UTILITIES

Electrical Poles: - Electrical poles are fixed both on the left hand side / right hand side mainly in village area of the road.

Optical Fiber Cables (OFC):- As per local inquiry, No OFC has been laid.

Water Supply Main Lines: - As per local inquiry water supply exists in main settlements along the road.

Page 47 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Chapter-3: SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE

3.1 Introduction

This report deals with. Katunda – Rawatbhata - Chechat Road (SH-9A) which needs to be upgraded to Two Lane with granular Shoulders and the details of this road is given in Table No. 1.2.

Table 3.2 Details of Project Road

Sr. No. Name of Road SH No. Chainage (in Km) Length as per Length as

From To Topographic per Design

Survey (in Km) (in Km) (in Km) (in Km) 1 Katunda- SH-9A Km 0+000 Km 90.58 90.212 Rawatbhata- 90.58 Chechat Road

3.2 Objective

The main objective of the consultancy service is for carrying out Feasibility study for finalizing alignment, cost and proper structuring and implementation for State Highway in Rajasthan. PWD, Rajasthan accordingly proposes to procure the services of feasibility Consultants for carrying out suitable feasibility study for selection of the alignment, field investigation, hydraulic studies, providing detailed structural design, evaluate detailed cost analysis, LA and R&R plan, utility shifting & relocation plan, environmental analysis and recommending implementation mode for taking up the project. Financial analysis/modeling shall be submitted along with Draft Feasibility Report as guidance to PWD for taking up the project on Annuity basis with active support of State/Central Government. The consultant shall clearly specify the type of contract to be implemented for taking up the work considering the financial & economic viability of the Road sections.

Page 1 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Page 2 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

3.3 Historical Background

The Indus Valley Civilization, one of the world's first and oldest, was in parts of what is now Rajasthan. Kalibangan, in Hanumangarh district, was a major provincial capital of the Indus Valley Civilization, now part of Pakistan. It is believed that Western Kshatrapas (405–35 BC) were Saka rulers of the western part of India (Saurashtra and Malwa: modern Gujarat, Southern Sindh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan). They were successors to the Indo-Scythians and were contemporaneous with the Kushans, who ruled the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. The Indo-Scythians invaded the area of Ujjain and established the Saka era (with their calendar), marking the beginning of the long-lived Saka Western Satraps state. Matsya, a state of the Vedic civilisation of India, is said to roughly corresponded to the former state of Jaipur in Rajasthan and included the whole of Alwar with portions of Bharatpur. The capital of Matsya was at Viratanagar (modern Bairat), which is said to have been named after its founder king Virata. Traditionally the Meenas, Gurjars, Bhils, Rajputs, Rajpurohit, Charans, Jats, Yadavs, Bishnois, PhulMali (Saini) and other tribes made a great contribution in building the state of Rajasthan. All these tribes suffered great difficulties in protecting their culture and the land. Millions of them were killed trying to protect their land. A number of Gurjars had been exterminated in Bhinmal andAjmer areas fighting with the invaders. Bhils once ruled Kota. Meenas were rulers of Bundi and the Dhundhar region. Gurjars ruled many dynasties in this part of the country. In fact, this region was long k nown as Gurjaratra. Up to the tenth century almost the whole of North India, excepting Bengal, acknowledged the supremacy of the Gurjars with their seat of power at Kannauj. The Gurjar Pratihar Empire acted as a barrier for Arab invaders from the 8th to the 11th century. The chief accomplishment of the Gurjara Pratihara empire lies in its successful resistance to foreign invasions from the west, starting in the days of Junaid. Historian R. C. Majumdar says that this was openly acknowledged by the Arab writers themselves. He further notes that historians of India have wondered at the slow progress of Muslim invaders in India, as compared with their rapid advance in other parts of the world. Now there seems little doubt that it was the power of the Gurjara Pratihara army that effectively barred the progress of the Arabs beyond the confines of Sindh, their first conquest for nearly 300 years. The Mehrangarh Fort at Jodhpurwas built by Rao Jodha in 1459. The earlier contributions of warriors and protectors of the land (the Meenas, Gurjars, Ahirs, Jats and Bhils) were ignored and lost in history due to the stories of great valour shown by certain specific clans in later years, which gained more prominence than the earlier acts of bravery. Modern Rajasthan includes most of Rajputana, which comprises the erstwhile nineteen princely states, two chiefships, and the British district of Ajmer-Merwara. Marwar (Jodhpur), Bikaner, Mewar (Udaipur), Alwar and Dhundhar (Jaipur) were some of the main Rajput princely states. Bharatpur and Dholpur were Jat princely states whereas Tonk was a princely state under a Muslim Nawab. Rajput families rose to prominence in the 6th century CE. The Rajputs put up a valiant resistance to the Islamic invasions and protected this land with their warfare and chivalry for more than 500 years. They also resisted Mughal incursions into India and thus contributed to their slower-than-anticipated access to the Indian subcontinent. Later, the Mughals, through a combination of treachery and skilled warfare, were able to get a firm grip on northern India, including Rajasthan. Mewar led other kingdoms in its resistance to outside rule. Most notably, Rana Sanga fought the Battle of Khanua against Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire. Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya, the Hindu Emperor, also known as Hemu in the history of India, was born in the village of Machheri in Alwar District in 1501. He won 22 battles against

Page 3 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Afghans, from Punjab to Bengal and defeated Akbar's forces twice at Agra and Delhi in 1556, before acceding to the throne of Delhi and establishing the "Hindu Raj" in North India, albeit for a short duration, from Purana Quila in Delhi. He was killed in the Second Battle of Panipat.) Maharana Pratap of Mewar resisted Akbar in the famous Battle of Haldighati (1576) and later operated from hilly areas of his kingdom. The Bhils were Maharana's main allies during these wars. Most of these attacks were repulsed even though the Mughal forces outnumbered Mewar Rajputs in all the wars fought between them. The Haldighati war was fought between 10,000 Mewaris and a 100,000-strong Mughal force (including many Rajputs like Kachwahas from Dhundhar). Maharana Pratap Singh, legendary sixteenth-centuryRajput ruler of Mewar Over the years, the Mughals began to have internal disputes which greatly distracted them at times. The Mughal Empire continued to weaken, and with the decline of the Mughal Empire in the 18th century,Rajputana came under suzerainty of the Marathas. The Marathas, who were Hindus from the state of what is now Maharashtra, ruled Rajputana for most of the eighteenth century. The Maratha Empire, which had replaced the Mughal Empire as the overlord of the subcontinent, was finally replaced by the British Empire in 1818. Following their rapid defeat, the Rajput kings concluded treaties with the British in the early 19th century, accepting British suzerainty and control over their external affairs in return for internal autonomy. Rajasthan's formerly independent kingdom created a rich architectural and cultural heritage, seen even today in their numerous forts and palaces (Mahals and Havelis), which are enriched by features of Islamic and Jain architecture. The development of frescos in Rajasthan is linked with the history of the Marwaris, who played a crucial role in the economic development of the region.[citation needed] Many wealthy families throughout Indian history have links to Marwar. These include the legendary Birla, Bajaj and Mittal families.

Page 4 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

3.4 Geography, Forests & Agriculture

Geography:

The geographic features of Rajasthan are the Thar Desert and the Aravalli Range, which runs through the state from southwest to northeast, almost from one end to the other, for more than 850 kilometres (530 mi). Mount Abu lies at the southwestern end of the range, separated from the main ranges by the West Banas River, although a series of broken ridges continues into Haryana in the direction of Delhi where it can be seen as outcrops in the form of the Raisina Hill and the ridges farther north. About three-fifths of Rajasthan lies northwest of the Aravallis, leaving two-fifths on the east and south direction. The northwestern portion of Rajasthan is generally sandy and dry. Most of this region is covered by the Thar Desert which extends into adjoining portions of Pakistan. The Aravalli Range does not intercept the moisture-giving southwest monsoon winds off the Arabian Sea, as it lies in a direction parallel to that of the coming monsoon winds, leaving the northwestern region in a rain shadow. The Thar Desert is thinly populated; the town of Bikaner is the largest city in the desert. The Northwestern thorn scrub forests lie in a band around the Thar Desert, between the desert and the Aravallis. This region receives less than 400 mm of rain in an average year. Temperatures can exceed 45 °C in the summer months and drop below freezing in the winter. The Godwar, Marwar, and Shekhawati regions lie in the thorn scrub forest zone, along with the city of Jodhpur. The Luni River and its tributaries are the major river system of Godwar and Marwar regions, draining the

Page 5 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

western slopes of the Aravallis and emptying southwest into the great Rann of Kutch wetland in neighbouring Gujarat. This river is saline in the lower reaches and remains potable only up to Balotara in Barmer district. The Ghaggar River, which originates in Haryana, is an intermittent stream that disappears into the sands of the Thar Desert in the northern corner of the state and is seen as a remnant of the primitive Saraswati river. The Aravalli Range and the lands to the east and southeast of the range are generally more fertile and better watered. This region is home to the Kathiarbar-Gir dry deciduous forests ecoregion, with tropical dry broadleaf forests that include teak, Acacia, and other trees. The hilly Vagad region lies in southernmost Rajasthan, on the border with Gujarat. With the exception of Mount Abu, Vagad is the wettest region in Rajasthan, and the most heavily forested. North of Vagad lies the Mewar region, home to the cities of Udaipur and Chittaurgarh. The Hadoti region lies to the southeast, on the border with Madhya Pradesh. North of Hadoti and Mewar lies the Dhundhar region, home to the state capital of Jaipur. Mewat, the easternmost region of Rajasthan, borders Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Eastern and southeastern Rajasthan is drained by the Banas and Chambal rivers, tributaries of the Ganges. The Aravalli Range runs across the state from the southwest peak Guru Shikhar (Mount Abu), which is 1,722 m in height, to Khetri in the northeast. This range divides the state into 60% in the northwest of the range and 40% in the southeast. The northwest tract is sandy and unproductive with little water but improves gradually from desert land in the far west and northwest to comparatively fertile and habitable land towards the east. The area includes the Thar Desert. The south-eastern area, higher in elevation (100 to 350 m above sea level) and more fertile, has a very diversified topography in the south lies the hilly tract of Mewar. In the southeast, a large area within the districts of Kota andBundi forms a tableland. To the northeast of these districts is a rugged region (badlands) following the line of the Chambal River. Farther north the country levels out; the flat plains of the northeastern Bharatpur district are part of an alluvial basin. Merta City lies in the geographical center of Rajasthan.

Forests: Rajasthan, the largest state of India having its geographical area 3, 42,239sq.km. which is 11% of the country's geographical area. It is situated in the northwestern part of the Indian Union & lies between 23º30´ and 30º 11’ North latitude and 69º 29’ and 78º 17’ East longitude. Rajasthan state is largely an arid state for most of its part. It has only 9.5 % of total geographical area recorded as forest. The Tropic of Cancer passes through south of Banswara town presenting an irregular rhomboid shape, the state has a maximum length of 869 km. from west to east and 826 km. from north to south. The western boundry of the state is part of the Indo-Pak international boundary, running to an extent of 1,070 km. It touches four main districts of region, namely, Barmer, Jaisalmer, Bikaner and Ganganagar. The state is girdled by Punjab and Haryana states in the north, Uttar Pradesh in the east, Madhya Pradesh in the southeast and Gujarat in the southwest.

Page 6 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

The forests of Rajasthan are spread unequally in Northern, Southern, Eastern and South Eastern parts. The forests are mostly adapho-climatic climax forests. According to the legal status the forests of the State can be classified as under:

Page 7 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Page 8 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Agriculture: 1. Two third of the total geographical area is under Desert. Agriculture in Rajasthan is primarily rainfed. The average Rainfall is 46.4 cms. 2. The period of monsoon is shortest, ranging around 2 to 2.5 months. Its onset is late and withdrawal early as compared to other States and one or two dry spells is a common phenomenon. 3. 90 percent of the total rainfall is received during monsoon season (July-Sept.). In addition to spatial variation in rainfall, there is great variation from year to year 4. About 63 percent of the total cultivation is under Kharif season and is mostly dependent (91%) on rainfall, which is uneven, aberrant and uncertain. 5. About 74.16 percent of the irrigated area (73.08 lac ha.) is under wells, tube-wells etc. Th e underground water is unsecured as the water table is falling down. 6. Approximately 24.34 percent of the irrigated area is under canal irrigation where water delivery (canal opening) is not coinciding with critical crop growth stages. 7. Efficient use of water is a pertinent issue in all command areas. 8. Mono-cropping system is predominant in almost all the 10 Agro Climatic Zones. 9. Rajasthan has only 1% Country’s total Surface Water Resources.

3.5 Economy

Rajasthan's economy is primarily agricultural and pastoral. Wheat and barley are cultivated over large areas, as are pulses, sugarcane, and oilseeds. Cotton and tobacco are the state's cash crops. Rajasthan is among the largest producers of edible oils in India and the second largest producer of oilseeds. Rajasthan is also the biggest wool-producing state in India and the main opium producer and consumer. There are mainly two crop seasons. The water for irrigation comes from wells and tanks. The Indira Gandhi Canal irrigates northwestern Rajasthan. The main industries are mineral based, agriculture based, and textiles. Rajasthan is the second largest producer of polyester fibre in India. The Pali and Bhilwara District produces more cloth than Bhiwandi, Maharashtra and the bhilwara is the largest city in suitings production and export and Pali is largest city in cotton and polyster in blouse pieces and rubia production and export. Several prominent chemical and engineering companies are located in the city of Kota, in southern Rajasthan. Rajasthan is pre-eminent inquarrying and mining in India. The Taj Mahal was built from the white marble which was mined from a town called Makrana. The state is the

Page 9 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

second largest source of cement in India. It has rich salt deposits at Sambhar, copper mines at Khetri, Jhunjhunu, and zinc mines at Dariba, Zawar mines at Zawarmala for zinc, Rampura

Page 10 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Aghucha (opencast) near Bhilwara. Dimensional stone mining is also undertaken in Rajasthan. Jodhpur sandstone is mostly used in monuments, important buildings and residential buildings. This stone is termed as "chittar patthar". Rajasthan is also a part of the Mumbai-Delhi Industrial corridor is set to benefit economically. The State gets 39% of the DMIC, with major districts of Jaipur, Alwar, Kota and Bhilwara benefiting. Rajasthan is earning 150 million (approx. US$2.5 million) per day as revenue from crude oil sector. This earning is expected to reach 250 million per day in 2013 (which is an increase of 100 million or more than 66 percent). The government of India has given permission to extract 300,000 barrels of crude per day from Barmer region which is now 175,000 barrels per day. Once this limit is achieved Rajasthan will become leader in Crude extraction in Country. Bombay High leads with a production of 250,000 barrels crude per day. Once the limit if 300,000 barrels per day is reached, the overall production of the country will increase by 15 percent. Cairn India is doing the work of exploration and extraction of crude oil in Rajasthan.

3.6 Education

During recent years, Rajasthan has made significant progress in the area of education. The state government has been making sustained efforts to improve the education standard. In 2014, IIT, IAS, Medical and CA all India toppers are from Rajasthan. In recent decades, the literacy rate of Rajasthan has increased significantly. In 1991, the state's literacy rate was only 38.55% (54.99% male and 20.44% female). In 2001, the literacy rate increased to 60.41% (75.70% male and 43.85% female). This was the highest leap in the percentage of literacy recorded in India (the rise in female literacy being 23%). At the Census 2011, Rajasthan had a literacy rate of 67.06% (80.51% male and 52.66% female). Although Rajasthan's literacy rate is below the national average of 74.04% and although its female literacy rate is the lowest in the country (closely followed by Bihar at 53.33%), the state has been praised for its efforts and achievements in raising male and female literacy rates. Rajasthan has three of India's finest educational institutions, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani IIT Jodhpur and IIM Udaipur. Kota, Rajasthan, is known for its excellent coaching for the engineering and medical college entrance examinations. Rajasthan has nine universities and more than 250 colleges, 55,000 primary and 7,400 secondary schools. There are 41 engineering colleges with an annual enrolment of about 11,500 students. The state has 23 polytechnic colleges and 152 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) that impart vocational training. In rural areas of Rajasthan, the literacy rate is 76.16% for males and 45.8% for females. This has been debated across all the party level except BJP, when the governor of Rajasthan set a minimum educational qualification for the village panchayat elections.

Page 11 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

3.7 Demography

Rajasthan has a mainly Rajasthani population of approximately 68,621,012. Rajasthan's population is made up mainly of Hindus, who account for 88.8% of the population. Muslims make up 8.5%, Sikhs 1.4% and Jains 1.2% of the population. The state of Rajasthan is also populated by Sindhis, who came to Rajasthan from Sindh province (now in Pakistan) during the India- Pakistan separation in 1947. Hindi is the official and the most widely spoken language in the state (91% of the population as per the 2001 census), followed by Bhili (5%), Punjabi (2%), and Urdu (1%).

Table 3.7: Demography of State

Description 2011 2001 Approximate Population 6.86 Crores 5.65 Crore Actual Population 68,548,437 56,507,188 Male 35,550,997 29,420,011 Female 32,997,440 27,087,177 Population Growth 21.31% 28.33% Percentage of total Population 5.66% 5.49% Sex Ratio 928 922 Child Sex Ratio 888 946 Density/km2 200 165 Density/mi2 519 428 Area km2 342,239 342,239 Area mi2 132,139 132,139 Total Child Population (0-6 Age) 10,649,504 10,651,002 Male Population (0-6 Age) 5,639,176 5,579,616 Female Population (0-6 Age) 5,010,328 5,071,386 Literacy 66.11 % 60.41 % Male Literacy 79.19 % 70.32 % Female Literacy 47.76 % 43.85 % Total Literate 38,275,282 27,702,010 Male Literate 23,688,412 18,047,157 Female Literate 14,586,870 9,654,853

Page 12 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

3.8 DISTRICT CHITTAURGARH

History:

Chittorgarh is the epitome of Chattari Rajput (a Hindu Kshatriya (Warrior) caste) pride, romance and spirit, for people of Chittor always chose death before surrendering against anyone. It reverberates with history of heroism and sacrifice that is evident from the tales still sung by the bards of Rajasthan. Though it can now be called a ruined citadel there is much more to this huge fort. It is a symbol of all that was brave, true and noble in the glorious Rajput tradition. It was named Chitrakut after Chitrangada Mori, a Rajput chieftain as inscribed on ancient Mewari coins. The fort is surrounded by a circular wall which has seven huge gates before one can enter the main fort area. Some accounts say that the Mori dynasty was in possession of the fort when Bappa Rawal the founder of the kingdom of Mewar seized Chittor garh (Chittor fort) and made it his capital in 734 AD. Some other accounts say Bappa Rawal received it as a part

Page 13 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

of the dowry after marriage with the last Solanki princess. After that date his descendants ruled Mewar, which stretched from Gujarat to Ajmer, until the 16th century. Chittor was one of the most contested seats of power in India with probably some of the most glorious battles being fought over its possession. It is famous in the annals of the Mewar Dynasty as its first capital (prior to this, the Guhilots, forerunners of the Mewar Dynasty, ruled from Idar, Bhomat, and Nagda), and renowned in India's long struggle for freedom. By tradition, it remained the Mewar capital for 834 years. With only brief interruptions, the fort has always remained in possession of the Sisodias of the Guhilot (or Gehlot/Guhila) clan of Rajputs, who descended from Bappa Rawal. The first attack was by Alauddin Khilji in 1303 AD, who was enamoured by the beauty of Padmini of which he had only heard. Rani Padmini preferred death to abduction and dishonour and committed jauhar (an act of self-immolation by leaping into a large fire) along with all the other ladies of the fort.[1] All the men left the fort in saffron robes to fight the enemy unto death. Chittorgarh was captured in 1303 AD by Ala ud din Khilji, Sultan of Delhi who led a huge army. Elderly people then had the responsibility to raise the children. It was recaptured in 1326 by the young Hammir Singh, a scion of the same Gehlot clan. The dynasty (and clan) fathered by him came to be known by the name Sisodia after the village where he was born. Rana Kumbha (1433–68) was a versatile man, a brilliant poet, and musician. He built Mewar up to a position of unassailable military strength, building a chain of thirty forts that girdled the kingdom. But, perhaps more important Rana Kumbha was a patron of the arts to rival Lorenzo de' Medici, and he made Chittorgarh a dazzling cultural center whose fame spread across Hindustan. By the 16th century, Mewar had become the leading Rajput state. Rana Sanga of Mewar led the combined Rajput forces against theMughal emperor Babur in 1527, but was defeated at the Battle of Khanua. Later in 1535 Bahadur Shah, the Sultan of Gujarat, besieged the fort, causing immense carnage. It is said that again, as in the case of Jauhar led by Padmini in 1303, all 32,000 men then living in the fort donned the saffron robes of martyrdom and rode out to face certain death in the war, and their women folk committed Jauhar led by Rani Karnawati. The ultimate sacrifice for freedom, Jauhar was again performed for the third time after the Mughal Emperor Akbarcaptured Chittorgarh in 1568. Then, the capital was moved west to Udaipur, in the foothills of the Aravalli Range, where Rana Udai Singh II (the young heir apparent) had established a residence in 1559. Udaipur remained the capital of Mewar until it acceded to the union of India in 1947, and Chittorgarh gradually lost its political importance. Chittorgarh is also associated with two very widely known historical figures of India. The first, Meera Bai, is the most famous female Hindu spiritual poetess, whose compositions are still popular throughout North India. Her poems follow the Bhakti tradition and she is considered to

Page 14 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

be most passionate worshipper of lord Krishna. Folklore says that her love for Krishna was epitomized by her final disappearance in the temple of Krishna in Dwarka. She is believed to have entered the sanctum of the temple in a state of singing ecstasy after which the sanctum doors are believed to have closed on their own. When they were later opened, the sari of Mirabai was seen enwrapped around the idol of Lord Krishna, symbolizing the culmination of her union with her Lord. The great Maharana Pratap, son of Rana Udai Singh II, is regarded as a personification of the values Rajputs cherish and die for. He took an oath to spend his life living in the jungles and fighting until he could realize his dream of reconquering Chittorgarh from Akbar (and thus reclaiming the glory of Mewar). It was the dream greatly cherished by Maharana Pratap, and he spent all his life to achieve this goal. He underwent hardships and a life of eating breads made of grass while fighting his lifelong battle. Maharana Pratap is the greatest hero in the eyes of the Rajputs of Mewar. In the absolute dark era of Rajput history, Maharana Pratap alone stood firmly for his honour and dignity, never compromising his honour for safety. With the reputation of a brave man of great character even among his enemies, he died free in 1597. Chittorgarh remains replete with historic associations and holds a very special place in the hearts of Rajputs, as it was a bastion of the clan at a time when every other stronghold had succumbed to invasion. It is often called as the "Bhakti aur Shakti ki nagari" (land of devotion and strength). The fort and the city of Chittorgarh also hosts the biggest Rajputfestival "Jauhar Mela". It takes place annually on the anniversary of one of the jauhars, not the one by Padmini which is most famous. This festival is to commemorate the bravery of Rajput ancestors and all three Jauhars which happened at Chittorgarh. A huge number of Rajputs which include the descendants of most of the princely families do a procession to celebrate the Jauhar. The fort at Chittorgarh also contains the ancient and beautiful temple to Goddess Kali called the Kalika Mata Temple.

Geography:

Chittorgarh is located at 24.88°N 74.63°E.[2] It has an average elevation of 394 metres (1292 ft). Chittorgarh is located in the southern part of the state of Rajasthan, in the northwestern part of India. It is located beside a high hill near the Gambheri River.Chittorgarh is located between 23° 32' and 25° 13' north latitudes and between 74° 12' and 75° 49' east longitudes in the southeastern part of Rajasthan state.The district encompasses 10,856 square km (3.17 per cent of the Rajasthan State) area of land.

Page 15 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Rainfall & Climate: Average annual rainfall (1977-06) of the district is 762.7mm. However normal rainfall for the period 1901 to 1970 is 767.2mm. The annual rainfall gradually decreases from southern part to northern part. The maximum average rainfall is 905mm at Choti Sadri and minimum average rainfall is 595 mm at Bhopalsagar. The climate of the district is dry except S-W monsoon season. The cold season is from December to February and is followed by summer from March to June. From mid of September to end of November constitute post monsoon season. The district experiences either mild or normal drought once in two years. Severe type of drought has been recorded very rarely. Most severe type of drought has never occurred in the district.

Economy:

In 2006 the Ministry of Panchayati Raj named Chittorgarh one of the country's 250 most backward districts (out of a total of 640).[1] It is one of the twelve districts in Rajasthan currently receiving funds from the Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme (BRGF).

Demographics:

In 2011, Chittaurgarh had population of 1,544,338 of which male and female were 783,171 and 761,167 respectively. In 2001 census, Chittaurgarh had a population of 1,330,360 of which males were 676,565 and remaining 653,795 were females. Chittaurgarh District population constituted 2.25 percent of total Maharashtra population. In 2001 census, this figure for Chittaurgarh District was at 2.35 percent of Maharashtra population. There was change of 16.08 percent in the population compared to population as per 2001. In the previous census of India 2001, Chittaurgarh District recorded increase of 19.96 percent to its population compared to 1991. Out of the total Chittaurgarh population for 2011 census, 18.47 percent lives in urban regions of district. In total 285,264 people lives in urban areas of which males are 146,756 and females are 138,508. Sex Ratio in urban region of Chittaurgarh district is 944 as per 2011 census data. Similarly child sex ratio in Chittaurgarh district was 892 in 2011 census. Child population (0-6) in urban region was 35,292 of which males and females were 18,649 and 16,643. This child population figure of Chittaurgarh district is 12.71 % of total urban population. Average literacy rate in Chittaurgarh district as per census 2011 is 82.75 % of which males and females are 90.81 % and 74.27 % literates respectively. In actual number 206,846 people are literate in urban region of which males and females are 116,339 and 90,507 respectively. As per 2011 census, 81.53 % population of Chittaurgarh districts lives in rural areas of villages. The total Chittaurgarh district population living in rural areas is 1,259,074 of which males and females are 636,415 and 622,659 respectively. In rural areas of Chittaurgarh district, sex ratio is 978 females per 1000 males. If child sex ratio data of Chittaurgarh district is considered, figure is 916 girls per 1000 boys. Child population in the age 0-6 is 177,215 in rural areas of which males were 92,471 and females were 84,744. The child population comprises 14.53 % of total rural population of Chittaurgarh district. Literacy rate in rural areas of Chittaurgarh district is 56.84 % as per census data 2011. Gender wise, male and female literacy stood at 73.26 and 40.24 percent respectively.

Page 16 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

In total, 614,979 people were literate of which males and females were 398,512 and 216,467 respectively. Average literacy rate of Chittaurgarh in 2011 were 61.71 compared to 53.99 of 2001. If things are looked out at gender wise, male and female literacy were 76.61 and 46.53 respectively. For 2001 census, same figures stood at 71.54 and 35.99 in Chittaurgarh District. Total literate in Chittaurgarh District were 821,825 of which male and female were 514,851 and 306,974 respectively. In 2001, Chittaurgarh District had 599,044 in its district. With regards to Sex Ratio in Chittaurgarh, it stood at 972 per 1000 male compared to 2001 census figure of 966. The average national sex ratio in India is 940 as per latest reports of Census 2011 Directorate. In 2011 census, child sex ratio is 912 girls per 1000 boys compared to figure of 926 girls per 1000 boys of 2001 census data.

Table 3.4

Description 2011 2001

Actual Population 1,544,338 1,330,360 Male 783,171 676,565 Female 761,167 653,795 Population Growth 16.08% 19.96% Area Sq. Km 7,822 7,822 Density/km2 197 167 Proportion to Rajasthan Population 2.25% 2.35% Sex Ratio (Per 1000) 972 966 Child Sex Ratio (0-6 Age) 912 926 Average Literacy 61.71 53.99 Male Literacy 76.61 71.54 Female Literacy 46.53 35.99 Total Child Population (0-6 Age) 212,507 220,863 Male Population (0-6 Age) 111,120 114,687 Female Population (0-6 Age) 101,387 106,176 Literates 821,825 599,044 Male Literates 514,851 401,966 Female Literates 306,974 197,078 Child Proportion (0-6 Age) 13.76% 16.60% Boys Proportion (0-6 Age) 14.19% 16.95% Girls Proportion (0-6 Age) 13.32% 16.24%

*****

Page 17 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Page 18 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Chapter-04: TRAFFIC SURVEY & ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction A team has been formed under the leadership of the traffic engineer who had been carried out in accordance with the guidelines specified by IRC: 9-1972 and IRC: 102-1988. The vehicles basically use the road as connection between Kapasan and Karoi town as the project road connects NH-76 (Chittaurgarh- Shivpuri Section) and SH-09A (Chechat- Ramganjmandi Section); also the road is being used for connecting local villages located on either side of road. The traffic mostly consists of agricultural vehicles like tractor trolleys etc. other vehicles using the road are Local public buses, two wheelers and bicycles.

4.2 Traffic Homogeneous Section

The traffic homogeneous sections have been identified based on the major traffic generators and diversion locations along the project corridor. Traffic surveys locations were selected so as to capture representative traffic volume on the homogeneous sections. With a view to capture section wise traffic flow characteristics, the total stretch has been segmented into three homogeneous sections.

The design length of project road is 90.212 Km. The project road is a single homogeneous section.

4.3 Collection and Review of Data

The data and information collected for the studies is broadly classified as follows:

 Review of all available reports and published information about the project road and the project influence area;  Information on existing transportation system in the project influence area;

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

 Historical data of classified traffic volume on existing road network;  Economic data and socio-economic parameters of the State/s and the project influence area including demographic data;  Accident statistics; and  Vehicle loading behavior (axle load spectrum);  Influence of rail network on road traffic. 4.4 Traffic Surveys Schedule

It is very important to know the existing information on traffic flow, commodity movement, traffic pattern and turning movements at junctions in order to assess the traffic behavior on a project road. To capture traffic flow characteristics, travel pattern, speed characteristics and other characteristics related to miscellaneous requirements on the project road, the following primary traffic surveys were conducted:

 Classified Volume Count (CVC) Survey  Turning Movement Count (TMC) Survey  Origin Destination Survey  Axle Load Survey

Traffic survey stations were selected after detailed reconnaissance survey and in line with the TOR. All traffic surveys were carried out as per IRC guidelines given in IRC: SP 19-2001, IRC: 108-1996, IRC SP: 41-1994, IRC: 102-1998, IRC 103- 1988 Pedestrian Facilities and IRC: 09- 1972. All above surveys were carried out manually by employing sufficient number of trained enumerators recording information in pre-designed formats. Enumerators were selected from locally available educated people familiar with traffic characteristics and condition of the project road. They were properly briefed and trained about the survey work before putting them on actual survey work in field. An experienced supervisor was kept in-charge for all the locations.

Proper briefing and demonstration to enumerators before the start of work was carried out with; Continuous independent checking by Supervisor/Traffic engineers in the field during the survey work; Checking of filled in survey formats by Traffic engineer; and Validation of computer data entry with raw data.

All the traffic surveys, except intersection count survey, were carried out to capture the traffic in both directions. In intersection count survey, the traffic was captured in each direction of flow through intersection.

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

The locations for the various surveys were so selected that all the vehicles can be viewed and interpreted easily without endangering the safety of enumerators, drivers and other road users. The most important part of all traffic surveys was to exercise adequate quality control. All the above traffic surveys were carried out as per schedule finalized after considering requirements of TOR. Traffic surveys were carried out at the locations already mentioned in Inception report. Traffic survey schedule for project road is presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: First Traffic Surveys Schedule

Sr. Location Chainage Duration No. (Km) Classified Volume Count Survey 1+800 7 Days 24 hours 1 Near Balwant Nagar Village (7th March to 13th March,2015) Near Borwardi Village 7 Days 24 hours 2 12+900 (Before MP Border) (7th March to 13th March,2015) Near Khemkheda Village 7 Days 24 hours 3 37+000 (After MP Border) (7th March to 13th March,2015) 7 Days 24 hours 4 Near Bhainsro Garh 58+800 (7th March to 13th March,2015) 7 Days 24 hours 5 After Rawat Bhata City 71+600 (7th March to 13th March,2015) 7 Days 24 hours 6 Before Chechat Town 107+000 (7th March to 13th March,2015) Turning Movement Count Survey

1 Katunda (Starting Point) 0+000 1 day 12 hours (11th March,2015)

2 Rawat Bhata City 66+300 1 day 12 hours (11th March,2015)

3 After Rawat Bhata City 71+300 1 day 12 hours (11th March,2015)

OD & Axle Load Survey 1 Near Bhainsro Garh 58+800 1 day 12 hours (09 March,2015)

2 Before Chechat Town 107+000 1 day 12 hours (12 Sept,2015)

4.5 Methodology of Traffic Surveys

4.5.1 Classified 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 as recommended in TOR. The classified volume count surveys have been carried out for 7 days, 24 hours at each location. The traffic was counted in number of vehicles by vehicle

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

category-wise in each direction in a 15- minute interval over 24 hours a day for 7 Days. For the purpose of counts, a day was divided into three shifts of 8 hours each and different groups of enumerators with a supervisor were assigned for each shift. The counts were recorded in the formats prepared and approved as per IRC specifications. The vehicles were broadly classified into motorized and non-motorized vehicles, which were further sub divided into specific categories of vehicles. The detailed vehicle classification system is presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Vehicle Classification System Adopted

Motorized Traffic Non-Motorized Traffic 2 -Wheeler Bi-Cycle 3 -Wheeler Cycle-Rickshaw Passenger Car Animal Drawn Vehicle (ADV)

Utility Vehicle (Jeep, Van etc.) Hand Cart Other Non-Motorized Vehicle Bus Mini Bus LCV LCV Standard-Passenger Bus

Truck MCV LCV :- Freight2-Axle Rigid Chassis HCV : 3-Axle Rigid Chassis MAV Semi Articulated

Articulated

The traffic count was conducted by the designated trained enumerators in three shifts in a day of eight hour each. The traffic count data was recorded at 60-minute intervals. 4.5.2 Origin – Destination (O-D) & Commodity Movement Survey

Origin and Destination of trips on the existing roads is needed to estimate the information regarding travel characteristics of different users on the project road. The traffic that will use the proposed facility if no toll charges are collected is defined as the Candidate traffic. Origin – Destination data is also needed for identifying the major influence areas of the road, as traffic growth is dependent upon the growth in economic activity in the influencing area. The Origin- Destination survey was carried out to study the travel pattern of goods and passenger traffic along the study corridor. The O-D survey was carried out for one day (12-hour, both directions) at two locations. The location of origin and destination zones has been determined in relation to each individual station and the possibility of traffic diversion to the Project road from/to other routes including bypasses. Appropriate locations were selected so as to conduct interviews without affecting movement of other vehicles. The schedule & locations of Origin – Destination Survey are given in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: Origin – Destination (O-D) Survey Schedule & Location

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Sr. No. Location Date of Survey Duration of Survey

1. Km. 58+800 09.03.2015 One day

2. Km.107+000 12.09.2015 One day

Roadside Interview Survey (RSI) Method was adopted for conducting the survey. The vehicles were stopped on random sample basis with the help of traffic police. Designated trained enumerators interviewed the drivers. A sample proportion of vehicles were interviewed from the total flow. Variable sampling flow requires a classified hourly count of all vehicles that pass in the direction being studied while interview is in progress. A volume count survey was carried out simultaneously to get the number of vehicles passing in both the directions. The O-D survey was limited Standard Bus, Mini Bus and cars in passenger vehicles category, LCV and trucks (2 axle / 3 axles, Multi – Axle Vehicle) in freight vehicle category. It was ensured that sample size is above 20% as per IRC: SP 19-2001, “Manual for Survey, Investigation and Preparation of Road Projects”. The following pertinent information on travel was collected during the interviews:  Origin and destination of trips;  Trip length;  Trip purpose;  Travel Time;  Vehicle Occupancy;  Type of goods and loading in case of the goods vehicles; and  Frequency of trips. Appropriate zoning system was adopted and coding was done for zones and type of vehicle & commodity being carried. The various zones adopted for analysis are listed in the Table 4.4.

4.5.3 Turning Movement Count Survey

The methodology adopted for the turning movement surveys is as per IRC: SP: 41-1994,” Guidelines on Design of At-Grade Intersections in Rural & Urban Areas”. There are a number of intersections along the project road. Most of the cross roads have either Bituminous or WBM surfacing and fall into the following categories: - NH - SH - MDR

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

- ODR - VR - Local street Turning movement surveys was conducted at 03 major intersections for estimation of peak hour traffic. The survey was conducted for 12 hours covering both morning and evening peak hours. These surveys were conducted manually by designated trained enumerators. The schedule & locations of turning movement surveys are given in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Turning Movement Survey Schedule & Location

Sr. No. Location Date of Survey 1. Km. 0+000 of Katunda 11.03.2015 2. Km. 58+300 of RawatBhata City 11.03.2015 3. Km. 71+300 after Rawat Bhata City 11.03.2015

The peak hourly traffic volume derived from the survey has been analyzed to identify requirements of suitable remedial measures, such as construction of underpasses, fly-over, interchanges and grade separated intersections along the project road alignment. Intersections with high traffic volume requiring special treatments either presently or in future have been identified. 4.5.4 Axle Load Survey

Axle load survey has been conducted at two locations. Axle load survey in both directions of travel has been carried out in the project road stretch on a random sample basis for LCV, Trucks, and Standard Bus for 24 hours. The services of traffic police of Govt. of Rajasthan were utilized to regulate the flow of vehicles. The schedule & locations of axle load Survey is given in Table 4.5. Table 4.5: Axle Load Survey Schedule & Locations

Sr. Location Date of Survey Duration of Survey No. 1. Km. 58+800 Near Bhainsro Garh 09.03.2015 One Day 2. Km. 107+000 Before Chechat Town 12.09.2015 One Day

4.6 Equivalency Factor (PCU's)

The following PCU values are taken for Traffic analysis Table 4.6: Passenger Car Units (PCU) for Rural Highways Vehicle Type Equivalency Factor

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Fast 2 Wheeler 0.5 Moving Vehicles 3 Wheeler 1.0 Car/Taxi/Jeep/Van 3.0

Bus Mini bus 1.5

Standard Bus 3.0

LCV 1.5

2 – Axle 3.0

Truck 3 – Axle 3.0

Multi Axle 4.5

Agricultural With trailer 4.5 Tractor Without trailer 1.5

Heavy Construction / Earth Moving Equipment 4.5

Slow Bicycle 0.5 Moving Vehicles Cycle rickshaw 2.0 Bullock cart 6.0

Hand cart 3.0

4.7 Analysis of AADT & PCU of First Traffic Survey

4.7.1 Analysis of Classified Volume Count Survey

Traffic volume count at three locations has been carried out continuously for 7 consecutive days for 24 hours on each day. 7-Day Continuous volume counts were undertaken to obtain a realistic picture of the current volume and composition of the traffic. The analysis of traffic counts provided an estimate of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The analysis has been carried out in terms of total number of vehicles and also in respect to Passenger Car Unit (PCU). Location wise results of analysis are discussed below: A. Near Balwant Nagar at Km. 1+800

Survey was carried out at Km 1+800 near Balwant Nagar. Selected location lies near Start point of Project road and is away from urban section to avoid influence of local traffic. ADT recorded at this station is 2565 nos. / 2920 PCU. Fast moving vehicles were recorded as 98.8% of the total traffic (in PCU).

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Fig 2.1 Classified Volume Count at Ch-1+800 Peak hour traffic flow of 188 nos. formed around 7.3% of the total traffic. Peak hour is identified during 15.00-16.00 hours. There will be variation of traffic for each day. The daily and hourly variation of traffic observed at Km 1+800 is presented graphically in Figure 2.2.

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Figure 2.2: Daily and Hourly Variation near Balwant Nagar Village at Km 1+800 The traffic compositions observed at Km 1+800 is presented graphically in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Composition of Traffic (By Volume) near Balwant Nagar Village at Km 1+800

B. Near Borwardi Village at Km. 12+900

Survey was carried out at Km 12+900 near Borwardi. ADT recorded at this station is 1766 nos. /1948 PCU. Fast moving vehicles were recorded as 98.5% of the total traffic (in

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

PCU). Peak hour traffic flow of 130 nos. formed around 7.42% of the total traffic. Peak hour is identified during 14.00-15.00 hours.

Fig 2.4 Classified Volume Count at Ch-12+900

There will be variation of traffic for each day. The daily and hourly variation of traffic observed at Km 14+900 is presented graphically in Figure 2.5.

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Figure 2.5: Daily and Hourly Variation near Borwardi at Km 12+900 The traffic compositions observed at Km 12+900 is presented graphically in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Composition of Traffic (By Volume) near Borwardi at Km 12+900

C. Near Khemkhedaq Village at Km. 37+000

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Survey was carried out at Km 37+000 near Khemkheda Village. ADT recorded at this station is 2358 nos. / 2388 PCU. Fast moving vehicles were recorded as 97.1% of the total traffic (in PCU). Peak hour traffic flow of 187 nos. formed around 7.9% of the total traffic. Peak hour is identified during 18.00-19.00 hours.

Fig 2.7 Classified Volume Count at Ch-37+000

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

There will be variation of traffic for each day. The daily and hourly variation of traffic observed at Km 37+000 is presented graphically in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Daily and Hourly Variation near Khemkheda at Km 37+000 The traffic compositions observed at Km 37+000 is presented graphically in Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9: Composition of Traffic (By Volume) near Khemkheda Village at Km 37+000 ] D. Near Bhainsro Garh at Km. 58+800

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Survey was carried out at Km 58+800 near Bhainsro Garh. ADT recorded at this station is 2437 nos. / 2564 PCU. Fast moving vehicles were recorded as 97.1% of the total traffic (in PCU). Peak hour traffic flow of 103 nos. formed around 7.3% of the total traffic. Peak hour is identified during 10.00-11.00 hours.

Fig 2.7 Classified Volume Count at Ch-58+800

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

There will be variation of traffic for each day. The daily and hourly variation of traffic observed at Km 60+800 is presented graphically in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Daily and Hourly Variation near Bhainsro Garh at Km 58+800 The traffic compositions observed at Km 58+800 is presented graphically in Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9: Composition of Traffic (By Volume) near Bhainsro Garh at Km 58+800

E. After RawatBhata City at Km. 71+600

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Survey was carried out at Km 71+600 after RawatBhata city. ADT recorded at this station is 1214 nos. / 1113 PCU. Fast moving vehicles were recorded as 97.1% of the total traffic (in PCU). Peak hour traffic flow of 89 nos. formed around 7.4% of the total traffic. Peak hour is identified during 11.00-12.00 hours.

Fig 2.7 Classified Volume Count at Ch-71+600

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

There will be variation of traffic for each day. The daily and hourly variation of traffic observed at Km 73+600 is presented graphically in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Daily and Hourly Variation after Rawat Bhata city at Km 71+600 The traffic compositions observed at Km 71+600 is presented graphically in Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9: Composition of Traffic (By Volume) after Rawat Bhata city at Km 71+600

F. Before Chechat Town at Km. 107+000

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Survey was carried out at Km 107+000 before Chechat town. ADT recorded at this station is 3556 nos. / 2672 PCU. Fast moving vehicles were recorded as 97.1% of the total traffic (in PCU). Peak hour traffic flow of 325 nos. formed around 9.14% of the total traffic. Peak hour is identified during 19.00-20.00 hours.

Fig 2.7 Classified Volume Count at Ch-107+000

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

There will be variation of traffic for each day. The daily and hourly variation of traffic observed at Km 107+000 is presented graphically in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Daily and Hourly Variation before Chechat town at Km 107+000 The traffic compositions observed at Km 107+000 is presented graphically in Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9: Composition of Traffic (By Volume) before Chechat town at Km 107+000

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Summary of ADT of all three Locations

Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 Km- Average Daily PCU Km 1+800 KM- 14+900 Km- 39+000 Km- 60+800 Km- 73+600 109+000 Categories Fact Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 or ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT Traffic Vehicl PC Vehicl PC Vehi PC Vehi PC Vehi PC Vehi PC Vehicl PC es Us es Us cle Us cle Us cle Us cle Us es Us 147 0.5 1559 780 1069 535 1451 726 1415 708 850 425 2958 2 Wheeler 9 1360 680

3 Wheeler 1.0 20 20 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 1 1 9 9

Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 378 378 281 281 444 444 518 518 177 177 301 301 368 368

Mini Bus 1.5 6 9 1 2 2 3 3 5 1 2 1 2 3 5

Private Bus 3.0 38 114 29 87 35 105 36 108 18 54 14 42 34 102

Govt. Bus 3.0 9 27 11 33 14 42 16 48 0 0 1 3 11 34

LCV / Tempo 1.5 92 138 60 90 108 162 110 165 48 72 89 134 87 130

2-Axle 3.0 75 225 67 201 58 174 58 174 26 78 58 174 67 200

3-Axle 3.0 85 255 87 261 81 243 68 204 28 84 29 87 84 253

MAV (4-6) 4.5 63 284 53 239 64 288 60 270 11 50 10 45 60 270

Agriculture Tractor 1.5 16 24 11 17 8 12 10 15 3 5 3 5 12 18 Agriculture Tractor 4.5 135 608 36 162 33 149 67 302 33 149 88 396 Trailer 68 306

Ex. Car/Jeep 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 2

Ambulance 1 3 3 2 2 5 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4

Bi-Cycle 0.5 82 41 53 27 51 26 68 34 14 7 0 0 62 31

Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 8

Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted 89 58 57 36 58 38 72 43 17 15 3 3 Traffic 68 44 Non Tollable 149 107 188 105 1819 1177 754 1552 927 1568 905 596 3053 1516 Traffic 0 2 4 7 143 119 146 149 136 746 589 806 869 309 517 503 788 Tollable Traffic 0 4 1 2 714 2 292 194 238 256 111 267 241 2565 1766 2358 2437 1214 3556 Total Traffic 0 8 8 4 3 2 2230 9

4.7.2 Peak Hour Factor (PHF) Page 20 of 20

The hourly variation of traffic illustrates the distribution of traffic over the day with respect to the time, and the peak hour factor is the maximum percentage of the total traffic that uses the project highway in one single hour of the day. It is of significance as highway capacities and design calculations are based on PHF. The peak hour factor observed at the survey location is summarized as shown in Table 4.10.

Page 20 of 20

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Table 4.10: Observed Peak Hour Traffic Characteristics Peak Hour SI. NO. Survey Location ADT (PCU) PHF (%) Peak Hour Volume (PCU)

1 Km. 1+800 Near Balwant Nagar 188 2565(2920) 7.3 15:00-16:00

Km. 12+900 Near Borwardi 2 130 1766(1948) 7.42 14:00-15:00

Km. 37+000 Near Khemkheda 3 187 2358(2388) 7.9 18:00-19:00

Km. 58+800 Near BhainsroGarh 4 103 2437(2564) 7.3 10:00-11:00

Km. 71+600 After RawatBhata City 5 89 1214(1113) 7.4 11:00-12:00

Km. 107+000 Before Chechat Town 6 325 3556(2672) 9.14 19:00-20:00

4.7.3 Directional Distribution of Traffic

The directional distribution analysis, as reported in Table 4.11 below, indicates directional distribution at all three survey locations, there is an almost equal distribution in both directions of travel. Survey Location Direction Distribution of Total Vehicle Katunda to Chechat 51.03% Km. 1+800 NearBalwant Nagar Chechat to Katunda 48.69% Katunda to Chechat 49.92% Km. 12+900 Near Borwardi Chechat to Katunda 50.07% Katunda to Chechat 49.74% Km. 37+000 Near Khemkheda Page 21 of 21 Chechat to Katunda 50.25% Km. 58+800 Near BhainsroGarh Katunda to Chechat 48.90% Chechat to Katunda 51.10% Km. 71+600 After RawatBhata City Katunda to Chechat 52.66% Chechat to Katunda 47.33% Km. 107+000 Before Chechat TownKatunda to Chechat 50.89% Chechat to Katunda 49.10% Table 4.11: Directional distribution (in PCU) at Survey Location (%)

Page 21 of 21

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

4.8 Seasonal Variation of Traffic Volume

Seasonal variation trends were observed based on sale of automobile fuel i.e. MS (Petrol) and HSD (Diesel), and average seasonal factors are worked out to arrive at Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). The monthly petrol and diesel sale data was collected from a fuel stations of project road for the period 2013 to 2014 (1 years). The data on monthly fuel consumption at both the fuel stations are presented in Table 4.12.

4.9 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

To derive the AADT from the ADT observed in March to account for seasonality in traffic a seasonal correction factor is used. As regular classified traffic count data is not available to assess seasonal variation in traffic on the Project road. The fuel sales data from the different fuel stations located along the project roadside are collected and used to calculate the seasonal correction factor. Table 4.12: seasonal Correction Factor on the Project Road

Monthly Variation Sales Monthly Variation Sales along Project Road along Project Road Average Month Year (Location-1) (Location-2)

Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol Petrol Diesel April 0.92 1.11 0.83 1.02 1.06 0.88 May 0.90 0.83 0.84 0.67 0.75 0.87 June 0.99 1.04 0.66 0.98 1.01 0.82 July 1.11 0.98 1.33 1.08 1.03 1.22 August 1.13 0.92 1.54 1.33 1.13 1.34 September 1.05 1.11 1.31 1.16 1.13 1.18 October 0.92 1.02 1.02 1.06 1.04 0.97 Page 22 of 22 November 1.18 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.89 1.02 December 0.93 1.04 0.93 1.08 1.06 0.93 January 0.91 1.11 1.09 1.16 1.13 1.00 February 0.96 1.04 1.10 1.00 1.02 1.03 March 1.12 0.98 1.09 0.91 0.94 1.11

Page 22 of 22

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

For the present Study, Fuel sales data on the project road was collected for the period April 13 to March 14 was considered for analyzing SCF. The SCF values assessed from Fuel Sales data are presented in 4.12. Since the survey was conducted in the month of march- 2015 and the average of seasonal factors was considered for the same month. For diesel vehicles SCF of 1.11 and for petrol vehicles SCF of 0.94 is considered. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) observed by normalizing the average daily traffic (ADT) at the survey location given in Table 4.13. Table 4.13: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (First Traffic Survey)

PCU Km 1+800 KM- 14+900 Km- 39+000 Km- 60+800 Km- 73+600 Km- 109+000 Average of all Categories Fact Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 locations or Vehicl PCU Vehicl Vehic Vehic Vehic PCU Vehic PCU Vehicl PCUs PCUs PCUs PCUs es s es le le le s le s es 139 0.5 1466 733 1005 503 1364 682 1331 666 799 400 2781 2 Wheeler 1 1458 729

3 Wheeler 1.0 19 19 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 1 1 5 5

Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 420 420 312 312 493 493 575 575 197 197 335 335 389 389

Mini Bus 1.5 7 11 2 3 3 5 4 6 2 3 2 3 3 5

Private Bus 3.0 43 129 33 99 39 117 40 120 20 60 16 48 32 96

Govt. Bus 3.0 10 30 13 39 16 48 18 54 0 0 2 6 10 30 1.5 103 155 67 101 120 180 123 185 54 81 99 149 LCV / Tempo 94 142 3.0 84 252 75 225 65 195 65 195 29 87 65 195 2-Axle 64 192 3.0 95 285 97 291 90 270 76 228 32 96 33 99 3-Axle 71 212 4.5 70 315 59 266 72 324 67 302 13 59 12 54 MAV (4-6) 49 220 Agriculture 1.5 18 27 13 20 9 14 12 18 4 6 4 6 Tractor 10 15 Agriculture 4.5 150 675 40 180 37 167 75 338 37 167 98 441 Tractor Trailer 73 328

Ex. Car/Jeep 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 2

Ambulance 1 4 4 3 3 6 6 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4

Bi-Cycle 0.5 82 41 53 27 51 26 68 34 14 7 0 0 45 23

Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 6 Page 23 of 23

Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted 91 60 59 38 60 40 74 45 18 16 5 5 Traffic 51 34 Non Tollable 1744 1514 1121 745 1472 905 1496 1071 860 591 2889 1844 1597 1112 Traffic 832 1597 658 1336 898 1632 968 1665 347 583 564 889 Tollable Traffic 711 1284 2576 3111 1779 2081 2370 2537 2464 2736 1207 1174 3453 2733 Total Traffic 2308 2395 4.10 Second Traffic Survey As per agreement , a second traffic survey has been carried out at all three locations of classified volume count. Table 4.14: Second Traffic Surveys Schedule

Page 23 of 23

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Sr. No. Location Chainage (Km) Duration

Classified Volume Count Survey

1 Near Chokhakheda Village 2+350 7 Days 24 hours (24th April to 30th April,2015) 2 Near Rashmi Town 17+200 7 Days 24 hours (24th April to 30th April,2015) 3 Near Karoi Town 41+450 7 Days 24 hours (24th April to 30th April,2015)

Table 4.15: Summary of ADT of all three Locations (Second traffic survey)

Average Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 Daily PCU Categories Fact ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT Traffic or Vehicl PC Vehicl PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehicl PC es Us es Us le Us le Us le Us le Us es Us 133 0.5 1553 777 933 467 1814 907 1027 514 1063 532 2671 2 Wheeler 6 1433 717

3 Wheeler 1.0 23 23 1 1 1 1 15 15 2 2 2 2 8 9

Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 396 396 447 447 577 577 823 823 211 211 411 411 473 474

Mini Bus 1.5 9 14 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 6

Private Bus 3.0 42 126 37 111 50 150 53 159 24 72 22 66 43 129

Govt. Bus 3.0 10 30 13 39 6 18 21 63 0 0 4 12 10 29

LCV / Tempo 1.5 108 162 83 125 145 218 162 243 60 90 124 186 112 168

2-Axle 3.0 83 249 46 138 28 84 79 237 9 27 89 267 52 157

3-Axle 3.0 64 192 141 423 29 87 133 399 17 51 13 39 78 234

MAV (4-6) 4.5 90 405 26 117 22 99 21 95 22 99 25 113 46 207 Agriculture 1.5 29 44 7 11 22 33 9 14 3 5 16 24 Tractor 19 29 Agriculture 102 4.5 157 707 98 441 55 248 162 729 54 243 228 Tractor Trailer 6 103 465

Ex. Car/Jeep 1 7 7 6 6 4 4 8 8 0 0 2 2 6 6

Ambulance 1 3 3 7 7 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 Page 24 of 24 Bi-Cycle 0.5 64 32 46 23 36 18 86 43 27 14 0 0 49 25 Cycle- 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rickshaw 0 0

Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 8

Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted 76 54 60 42 42 29 98 60 30 22 5 5 Traffic 59 42 Non Tollable 126 1838 1605 1099 962 1934 1218 1311 1332 1152 804 2922 2393 1624 Traffic 2 140 802 1574 794 1402 858 1235 1293 2021 344 552 689 1096 Tollable Traffic 818 4 266 2640 3179 1893 2364 2792 2453 2604 3353 1496 1356 3611 3489 Total Traffic 2442 5

Page 24 of 24

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

Since the survey was conducted in the month of April 2015 and the average of seasonal factors was considered for the same month. For diesel vehicles SCF of 0.88 and for petrol vehicles SCF of 1.06 is considered( as per Table No. 4.12. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) observed by normalizing the average daily traffic (ADT) at the survey location given in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (Second Traffic Survey)

PCU Km 1+800 KM- 14+900 Km- 39+000 Km- 60+800 Km- 73+600 Km- 109+000 Average of Categories Fact Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 all locations or Vehicl PC Vehicl PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehicl PC es Us es Us le Us le Us le Us le Us es Us 141 0.5 1647 824 989 495 1923 962 1089 545 1127 564 2832 2 Wheeler 6 1601 801

3 Wheeler 1.0 25 25 2 2 2 2 16 16 3 3 3 3 9 9

Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 349 349 394 394 508 508 725 725 186 186 362 362 421 421

Mini Bus 1.5 8 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4

Private Bus 3.0 37 111 33 99 44 132 47 141 22 66 20 60 34 102

Govt. Bus 3.0 9 27 12 36 6 18 19 57 0 0 4 12 8 25 1.5 96 144 74 111 128 192 143 215 53 80 110 165 LCV / Tempo 101 151 3.0 74 222 41 123 25 75 70 210 8 24 79 237 2-Axle 50 149 3.0 57 171 125 375 26 78 118 354 15 45 12 36 3-Axle 59 177 4.5 80 360 23 104 20 90 19 86 20 90 22 99 MAV (4-6) 31 138

Agriculture Tractor 1.5 26 39 7 11 20 30 8 12 3 5 15 23 13 20 Agriculture Tractor 4.5 139 626 87 392 49 221 143 644 48 216 201 905 Trailer 111 501

Ex. Car/Jeep 1 7 7 6 6 4 4 8 8 0 0 2 2 5 5

Ambulance 1 3 3 7 7 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

Bi-Cycle 0.5 64 32 46 23 36 18 86 43 27 14 0 0 43 22

Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 6

Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 25 of 25

Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted 76 54 60 42 42 29 98 60 30 22 5 5 Traffic 52 35

Non Tollable Traffic 1913 1568 1145 942 2036 1244 1354 1277 1211 810 3056 2352 1786 1366 710 1396 703 1244 758 1095 1142 1790 305 493 610 973 Tollable Traffic 705 1165 2623 2964 1848 2186 2794 2339 2496 3067 1516 1303 3666 3325 Total Traffic 2491 2531

Page 25 of 25

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

For Design of Pavement & Financial Calculations average of AADT of First Traffic survey & AADT of Second Traffic Survey is adopted. Average of Both AADT is shown in Table No. 4.17.

Page 26 of 26

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Table 4.17: Final (Average of Annual Average Daily Traffic)

PCU Km 1+800 KM- 14+900 Km- 39+000 Km- 60+800 Km- 73+600 Km- 109+000 Average of Categories Fact Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 all locations or Vehicl PC Vehicl PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehic PC Vehicl PC es Us es Us le Us le Us le Us le Us es Us 140 0.5 1557 779 997 499 1644 822 1210 605 963 482 2807 2 Wheeler 4 1530 765

3 Wheeler 1.0 22 22 3 3 2 2 10 10 3 3 2 2 7 7

Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 385 385 353 353 501 501 650 650 192 192 349 349 405 405

Mini Bus 1.5 8 12 2 3 2 3 3 5 2 3 2 3 3 5

Private Bus 3.0 40 120 33 99 42 126 44 132 21 63 18 54 33 99

Govt. Bus 3.0 10 30 13 39 11 33 19 57 0 0 3 9 9 28 1.5 100 150 71 107 124 186 133 200 54 81 105 158 LCV / Tempo 98 147 3.0 79 237 58 174 45 135 68 204 19 57 72 216 2-Axle 57 171 3.0 76 228 111 333 58 174 97 291 24 72 23 69 3-Axle 65 195 4.5 75 338 41 185 46 207 43 194 17 77 17 77 MAV (4-6) 40 180

Agriculture Tractor 1.5 22 33 10 15 15 23 10 15 4 6 10 15 12 18 Agriculture Tractor 4.5 145 653 64 288 43 194 109 491 43 194 150 675 Trailer 92 416

Ex. Car/Jeep 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 6 6 0 0 2 2 3 3

Ambulance 1 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4

Bi-Cycle 0.5 73 37 50 25 44 22 77 39 21 11 0 0 44 22

Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 6

Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted 84 58 60 40 52 35 87 54 25 20 5 5 Traffic 52 35

Non Tollable Traffic 1830 1545 1134 845 1756 1076 1426 1175 1038 705 2974 2101 1693 1241 773 1500 682 1293 829 1365 1057 1733 329 545 589 935 Tollable Traffic 710 1229 2603 3045 1816 2138 2585 2441 2483 2908 1367 1250 3563 3036 Total Traffic 2403 2470

4.11 Travel Pattern (Origin Destination Survey)

In order to understand the travel demand pattern in the region, origin & destination (O-D) Page 27 of 27 Surveys were carried out at proposed survey locations i.e., at km 6+800 near Bhainsrogarh village. The Survey were typically started in the morning & continued as per schedule. The O-D Survey elicited characteristics like origin, Destination, Frequency, Purpose & Commodity etc. both for Passenger & Goods Vehicles. The information collected during road side interviews was analyzed to obtain the trip distribution based on a zoning system suitably designed in the study.

4.11.1 Sample Size & Expansion factors

The Vehicles during the O-D surveys were interviewed on a random sample basis. Based on the sample size of different categories of vehicle interviewed during the O-D Survey expansion factors were calculated for generating the expanded form of O-D Matrix. The

Page 27 of 27

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

following Table 4.14 Shows the Survey Location wise AADT, Sample Size & Expansion Factors for the different homogeneous section Adopted.

Table 4.14 Sample Size Collected in origin Destination Survey (Toll able Vehicles)

MODE Car Mini Bus Bus LCV 2 axle 3 axle MAV Total km 58+800 near Bhainsrogarh OD Samples 138 4 27 27 42 29 30 297 AADT 420 7 43 103 84 95 70 822 % age 32.7 45.5 61.2 26 49 30.2 42.8 34.87

Based on the sample size of different categories of vehicles interviewed during the O-D Survey, direction wise expansion factors were calculated for the expansion of O-D matrix generated from the sample data to assess the travel pattern of the vehicle plying on the project road.

4.11.2 Zoning System

To understand the spatial dimensions of the trip characteristics of the vehicles interviewed during the OD survey, a detailed zoning system was developed giving due consideration to the following factors:  The road network catering to the traffic on the project road and its generating points  Important towns, village, factories and industrial centers around the project road.  Administrative boundaries of districts and states.  Configuration of the project road in the regional road network with respect to other road. Two major type of area (IIA): Immediate Influence area includes the cities/towns/villages and districts along the project road. In this study is consists of Katunda, Rawatbhata, Chechat & other villages. Intermediate areas also include major districts contributing traffic share on the project road like Chittorgarh, Udaipur, Bhilwara, Ajmer, Kota, Rajsamand, Nimbahera and Pratapgarh.

Board Influence Area (BIA): Board Influence Area included the states of Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh on the northern part of the project road, while Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and some extent to Maharashtra is taken on south end and the influence of rest of India is also taken into account. Page 28 of 28 The zoning system adopted for data collection was based on 13 traffic analysis zones (TAZ).

4.11.3 Regional Distribution

Based on the zoning system devised for this study, the sample data has been expanded using factors based on the total AADT.

The traffic on stretch is analyzed keeping in view the movement of traffic in surrounding road network mainly focusing the traffic generating points like Chittorgarh, Rajsamand, Nimbakheda, Udaipur, Pratapgarh,Banswada, Bhilwada, Ajmer, Kota and considering various factor such as distance, toll location, terrain etc. So, based on the devised OD matrices, the regional distribution of the toll able vehicles have been worked out of the proposed toll plaza location in Table 2.13, which indicates the traffic generated from the different traffic zones.

Page 28 of 28

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Table 4.15: Regional Distribution of traffic (in %) at Km. 58+800 near Bhainsrogarh Village (O-D)

Tractor/ Mini Region/Modes Cars Bus LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV Tractor Bus Tralli Project Road (Katunda Village, Balwant Nagar, Rayti Village, Rayta Village, Terkadi Village, Borwadi Village, Kesarpura Village, Tamboliya Village, Khemkheda Village, Berva Village, Dhama Nagar, Khumanganj, Rawat Bhata Town, Deeppura 42.5 38.2 40.9 78.3 100.0 82.3 100.0 100.0 Village, Jharjhani Village, Badodiya Village, Laadpur Village, Mohanpur Village, Dhavadakla Village, Devli Village, Fanda Village, Chechat Village)

Chittodgarh 12.2 20.0 13.6 21.7 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 Rajsamand 45.3 32.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 Nimbaheda 0.0 9.8 18.2 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 Udaipur 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

4.11.4 Commodity Distribution

The O-D Survey data has been analyzed to identify the commodity movement characteristics along the project road the data of composition of the different commodities being transported using the project road section is compiled as is given in table 4.16. Table 4.16 Commodity Distribution @ Km 15+200 near Akola Village Tractor Commodity Type LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV with Trailor Food grains / pulses & spices 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 Milk, fruits & vegetables 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Page 29 of 29 Processed / packaged food / edible oil 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cotton / clothing or synthetic yarn / fibers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Handicrafts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Petroleum products / HSD / petrol 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Minerals and ores 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Iron & steel (aluminum or metal)0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 Timberroad/bars/sheets / wood and products 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paper / parcel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Machines & auto spare parts 4.2 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rubber / plastics 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chemicals & Fertilizers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pharmaceutical products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 29 of 29

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Building materials 0.0 50.0 64.7 37.5 77.8 Others 62.5 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 Empty 8.3 43.7 29.4 37.5 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

4.12 Analysis of Turning Movement study

The morning and evening peak hour counts are given in Annexure. As per IRC: 93-1985 (“Guidelines on Design and Installation of Road Traffic Signals) the traffic at intersections will require time separation, i.e., signal control, when the major road flow is more than 800 vehicles per hour (both directions) and the minor road flow is more than 250 vehicles per hour (one direction) for each of any 8 hours of an average day. Similarly, as per IRC: 92-1985, traffic will require space separation, i.e., grade separation, when the total peak hour flow at the intersection is more than 10,000 PCU/hr. Junctions that do not warrant the above two types of control will require priority control. The morning and evening peak hour counts are given in Annexure. As per IRC: 93-1985 (“Guidelines on Design and Installation of Road Traffic Signals) the traffic at intersections will require time separation, i.e., signal control, when the major road flow is more than 800 vehicles per hour (both directions) and the minor road flow is more than 250 vehicles per hour (one direction) for each of any 8 hours of an average day. Similarly, as per IRC: 92-1985, traffic will require space separation, i.e., grade separation, when the total peak hour flow at the intersection is more than 10,000 PCU/hr. Junctions that do not warrant the above two types of control will require priority control.

 Km 0+000 of (SH-9A) Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat Road It is a Three-arm junction, with two arms being SH-9A, the third one is SH to Kota. The peak hour traffic (Morning Peak) at this junction is 499veh/hr. The Total PCU at this Page 30 of 30 junction during peak hour is 393 PCU/hr. The peak hour traffic (Evening Peak) at this junction is 752 veh/hr. The Total PCU at this junction during peak hour is 656 PCU/hr.

Page 30 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Figure 2.10: Turning Movement Count At Junction (Km-0+000)

 Km 66+300 of (SH-9A) Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat Road It is a Three-arm junction, with two arms being SH-9A, the third one is SH to Kota. The peak hour traffic (Morning Peak) at this junction is 797veh/hr. The Total PCU at this junction during peak hour is 661 PCU/hr. The peak hour traffic (Evening Peak) at this junction is 752 veh/hr. The Total PCU at this junction during peak hour is 656 PCU/hr.

Page 31 of 31

Figure 2.10: Turning Movement Count At Junction (Km-66+300)

 Km 71+300 of (SH-9A) Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat Road It is a Three-arm junction, with two arms being SH-9A, the third one is ODR to Gandhi Sagar Plant. The peak hour traffic (Morning Peak) at this junction is 304 veh/hr. The Total

Page 31 of 31

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

PCU at this junction during peak hour is 280 PCU/hr. The peak hour traffic (Evening Peak) at this junction is 474 veh/hr. The Total PCU at this junction during peak hour is 509 PCU/hr.

4.13 Axle Load Survey Axle Load Survey was carried out along with O-D Survey at on the Survey Stations, near the 7-day traffic Volume count survey location. The Survey was conducted to assess the cumulative No. equivalent standard axles based on the survey of goods vehicles follows and axle weight distribution and calculate the vehicle damage factor which causes damage to the pavement. 4.13.1 Vehicle damage Factor The Axle Load Surveys Were conducted at all Prioritized locations , the spectrum of axle loads and the no. of equivalent 8.16T standard axles for the different categories of commercial vehicles have been determined on the basis of the axle load survey . The equation for computing equivalency factor for single, tandem & tridem axles given Page 32 of 32 below is used as directed in the IRC-37:2012 for converting different axle load repetitions into equivalent standard axle load repetitions.  Single axle with single wheel on either side = {axle load in KN / 65}4  Single axle with dual wheel on either side = {axle load in KN / 80}4  Tandem axle with single wheel on either side = {axle load in KN / 148}4  Tridem axle with dual wheel on either side = {axle load in KN / 224}4

Page 32 of 32

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

The analysis of Vehicle Damage Factors (VDF) is presented in Annexure and the calculated VDF’s are summarized below. As the proposed road is a two lane single carriageway with hard shoulders, the higher VDF is considering for design from both directions. The analysis of Vehicle Damage Factors (VDF) is presented in Annexure and the calculated VDF’s are summarized below. The VDF of the different types of vehicles weighed at the above location and in either directions are indicated below. For Homogeneous Section- I & II

Fig. 4.14 Vehicle Damage Factor at Km. 58+800 of Project Road FOR HS-1 & 2

The high value of VDF can be observed for 3 and Multi axle trucks at both the locations in Project road direction. It is due to the Sand Mine of Banaras River which merges in the traffic of Project Road at Rashmi Village, and also the presence of quarries on the project road. The difference in VDF between up & down Direction is mainly Quarries. Page 33 of 33

Page 33 of 33

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig. 4.14 Vehicle Damage Factor at Km. 107+000 of Project Road

The values of VDF to be used in pavement design needs to be carefully selected. The Adopted VDF calculated for both the locations is presented in Fig 2.12

Page 34 of 34

Fig 4.15 Adopted VDF FOR Homogenous Section I & II

Page 34 of 34

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Fig 4.16 Adopted VDF FOR Homogenous Section III

4.13 Traffic Demand Assessment

The traffic assessment of the project road is incomplete without assessment of the generated traffic on the corridor. And for a Toll road project it is very important to ascertain all the factors that will contribute to the traffic on the project road after improvement. . Diverted Traffic . Induced Traffic The Diverted traffic is one which is expected to divert on the project road due to reduction in travel cost. This diversion of traffic is dictated by presence of one or several alternative routes in the vicinity of the corridor. The nature of diversion can be positive or negative with respect to the project corridor and is generally governed by the travel cost. The subsequent section details the complete methodology of identification of such alternative routes where traffic can divert on and off the project road, and assessment of the potential divertible traffic, which is based on the equations developed by Road user Page 35 of 35 Cost Study (CRRI, New Delhi, 2009).

4.14 METHODOLOGY OF TRAFFIC DEMAND ASSESSMENT The basic methodology of assessment of the diversion analysis includes following input details, which can be summarized as follows: Road Network: Identify the Project road with its surrounding alternate routes on a Regional Road Network. Link Characteristic file: Prepare a link Characteristics File for all the sections of the road network, which are assumed to contribute to diversion traffic. The parameters which shall

Page 35 of 35

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

be accounted for all the link sections are: Link length, Road width, Lane Configuration, status on tolling of the section, Road Condition, Roughness, Rise and fall, Gradient and the Speed characteristics on the route. Assessment of Road User Cost: As per IRC: SP-30(2009), Road user cost includes following costs: Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) & Value of Time (VOT): This has been assessed by considering the equations given in IRC: SP-30(2009) – Annexure 6 for different typology of cars viz. New Technology cars, Old Technology cars, Buses, Light Commercial Vehicles, Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Multi-Axle Trucks. Toll Cost: This is assessed for the project road on the basis of Toll Policy obtained from Public Works Department (Rajasthan Road Development) Free Rules Notification (PPP Project with VGF), Jaipur (22nd September,2009). While for the alternative routes, the toll rates data have been collected from site. In case of upcoming toll roads, the same policy has been applied for assessment of toll cost. Assessment of Traffic: The existing traffic is analyzed and AADT observed on the project road and the surrounding roads is calculated from the traffic observed during traffic surveys. For assessment of potential divertible traffic, the origin and destination survey was conducted and the data was analyzed further to give potential divertible traffic from the various streams observed on the project road and the surrounding roads. This is done on an assumption that the common traffic analysis zones (TAZ) considered for diversion have an option to commute either through project road or via alternate road in the vicinity of the project road. Refer Table 3.2 for the traffic zones considered for different route option and stream of flow is established between the two extremes of project road viz. the origin and destination. For Potential divertible traffic as summarized in diversion analysis, which ic merely the summation of total traffic for the various streams considered in the OD matrix. Diversion Analysis: Now, considering the above traffic and cost implication of VOC, VOT and Toll costs, percentage Diversion is calculated from the equation as pr the Wilbur Smith Page 36 of 36 studies for CRRI and RUCS which have been included in IRC: SP-30(2009).

4.15 Identification of Alternative Route

The alternative route have been discovered and identified based on the fact, that the corridor will serve the commuter the common origin and destination points, and the user is expected to travel the corridor based on route choice modeling, which is further governed by cheaper generalized cost.

Page 36 of 36

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

The Figure 4.1 given below shows the surrounding road network and all the common nodes and point attributing diversion have been named accordingly. Based on this diagram, the link characteristics file has been prepared which shows the length, road condition, Rise and fall, Roughness and other VOC parameters have been considered, as shown in Table 4.18 below. Along with origin and Destination surveys and the location of these survey station have been identified based on the target streams to be captured and are expected to be divert on the project road.

Following Table 4.17 percent the Origin and Destination Zones streams, which are expected to cause division on and off the project corridor for 5 identified routes and accordingly route choice, have worked out. Table 4.17: Potential Route Choice Options RC-1: Katunda- Kota- Via Project Road (SH-9A) (ABCD) OD Zones which fall beyond Modak (Negative Chechat in the South West and Diversion) beyond Katunda in North East Via NH-76 (Katunda-Kota) (AE) & Via NH-12 have been considered. (Kota- Modak) (ED)

Based on the traffic survey on the alternate routes and the origin and destination survey, the toll able potential diverted traffic was captures and assessed likewise. Now to assess the total divertible traffic of this is done on the basis of RUCS diversion equations given in Table 4.18. 4.18: Diversion Curve Equations Vehicle Cost Ratio (CR) Interval Equations Car CR<= 0.634 %Div=98.750 – (CR/0.634)*8.125

0.634 <= CR <= 1.465 %Div=90.625 – (CR/0.634)/0.831*8.125

1.465 <= CR <=2.0 %Div=625 – (CR/1.465)/0.535)*5.25 Truck & Bus CR<= 0.750 %Div=100 – (CR/0.75)*5 Page 37 of 37

0.750 <= CR <= 1.250 %Div=95 – (CR/0.75)/0.5)*90

1.250 <= CR <=2.0 %Div= (2CR/0.75)*5

In the above equation, CR is the Cost Ratio, which is the ratio of total generalized transportation cost on project road (PR) to that of the Alternate road (AR) and the % Diversion is based on this Cost ratio only, attributing willingness of traffic diversion behavior on and off the project road. Based on this cost ratio, the route choices for the above mentioned rout choices is worked out separately and then net effect of the following analysis is considered.

Page 37 of 37

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

4.15.1 RC-1: Project road v/s Katunda- Kota- Modak road (NH-76 & NH-12) The first route choice comparison has been established between the project road from Katunda to Modak, which may have following two choices of commuting between the two extremes of the project road as follows:

a. Project road(ABCD)-Katunda- Modak Via Rawatbhata b. Alternate Road (AED)- Katunda- Modak Via Kota

The Katunda- Modak Via Kota link is expected to cater positive diversion traffic from the project road. This is due to the fact that the observed traffic on the project road was negligible, which might have shifted to the project road in the current scenario as the link was not open for the commercial operation due to incomplete construction of the link. So after the road construction is complete and the link would be open for the normal traffic, the observed traffic of the project road would shift to the new link in the vicinity due to free flow condition on the alternate road. The extent of diversion is analyzed on the basis of Diversion model and the Road User Cost study equations. The speed characteristics assumed on the two routes have been estimated based on the total distance and the total travel time on routes as shown in Table 4.19.

Page 38 of 38

Table 4.19: Speed Characteristic Alternate Road Project Road Lane ConfigurationIntermediate Lane (IL) 2 Lane (2L) 4 Lane (4L) 2 Lane

Car 50 55 70 60 Mini Bus 40 45 55 50 Bus 40 40 50 45 LCV 40 45 55 50 2A 30 35 50 40 3A 30 35 50 40

Page 38 of 38

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

MAV 25 30 40 35

The abstract of the route and the corresponding link characteristics comparison is shown in Figure 4.19 and Table 4.20.

Table 4.20: Route Characteristic Comparison for RC-1

ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS PROJECT ROAD ALTERNATE ROAD

Link Road AB BC CD AE ED Katunda- RawatBhata- Road Section Chechat- ModakKatunda - KotaKota - Modak Rawatbhata Chechat Road Name SH-09 A SH-09 A SH-09 NH-76 NH-12 Link Length (Km) 72 41 13 98 73 Tolled (Y-Yes / N - No) Y Y Y Y N Divided (1)/ Undivided(2) 2 2 2 1 2 Lanes (1L/2L/2LP/4LP/6LP) 2L 2L 2L 4L 2L Area (Urban-1 / Rural-2) 2 2 2 2 2 Road Condition Good Good Good Good Good Terrain Condition Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Roughness (mm/Km) 2000 2000 2000 2500 2000 Rise and Fall (m/Km) 10 10 10 5 10

The above link and speed Characteristic were utilized for estimating Vehicle Operating Cost (Including Value of Time) per Km, VOC+VOT per KM, on the basis of RUCS equations, as given in Annexure 6. The total divertible traffic is estimated based on the diversion equations in table 3.3 and by plugging in the following input parameters: Vehicle Operating Cost Including Value of Time)- The link wise VOT+VOC is summarized in Table 3.5 . Adopted Speeds (as given in Table 3.4) .Toll rates – Toll rates have been worked out on the basis of applicable Toll Policy received from PWD office, as shown in Table 3.5.

Table 4.21: VOC+VOT as per RUCS & applicable Toll rates

PROJECT ROAD ALTERNATE ROAD AB BC CD AE ED Car 11.75 11.75 11.75 10.79 11.75 Mini Bus 23.89 23.89 23.89 23.21 23.89 Bus 62.75 62.75 62.75 58.45 62.75 Page 39 of 39 LCV 27.73 27.73 27.73 26.26 27.73 2A 29.87 29.87 29.87 29.42 29.87 3A 29.87 29.87 29.87 29.42 29.87 MAV 60.28 60.28 60.28 62.04 60.28

The per Km cost variables were further worked out to estimate the total generalized cost on the project road and the alternate roads, and cost Ratio (CR) was calculated for all types of vehicles, and using appropriate CR value, the %diversion observed on the basis of Cost Ratio. Table 4.22: Summary of Cost Ratio Diversion for RC-1

Page 39 of 39

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Cost % Diversion to PROJECT ROAD ALTERNATE ROAD Ratio AR

VOC+VOT Toll Rate Total VOC+VOT Toll Rate Total AR/PR Car 1481 129 1610 1915 158 2073 0.777 89.47 Mini Bus 3010 197 3207 4019 240 4259 0.753 94.97 Bus 7907 387 8294 10309 473 10781 0.769 94.80 LCV 3494 646 4140 4598 788 5385 0.769 94.80 2A 3764 646 4409 5064 788 5851 0.754 94.96 3A 3764 646 4409 5064 788 5851 0.754 94.96 MAV 7595 775 8370 10480 945 11425 0.733 95.18

In the summary table, Cost Ratio is taken as travel cost on Alternate Road to Project road (CR= PR/AR). This is to assess the diversion behavior of traffic from the Project road to Alternate Road. In case of cars, as seen above, even if the cost implication shows higher cost of travel on alternate road to project road, there is a significant diversion observed as per the diversion equations, while for the other vehicle classes, the diversion is merely 8%. This can be attributed to the fact that diversion equations foresee some traffic to get diverted on a new link, even if the Vehicle operating cost is high, which is completely due to the new link coming up in the vicinity of the road, and the new link will offer free speeds and Level of Service A for travelling. Now, to assess the traffic diverted from this %Diversion, the potential divertible traffic is estimated from the valid OD pairs, on which this route Choice is applicable. So, in order to assess the potential quantum of traffic flowing between the two extremes, the Traffic analysis zones were categorized into two across the extremes of the common nodes (A node and C node in this case). The areas considered have been summarized. The Total traffic diverted from the potential divertible traffic is shown in Table 4.23. Table 4.23: Route Choice-1

% of Traffic Potential Vehicle Type Net Diversion Page 40 of 40 Diversion Diverted Traffic

Car 89.47 64 57 Mini Bus 94.97 1 1 Bus 94.80 12 11 LCV 94.80 14 13 2A 94.96 7 7 3A 94.96 8 8 MAV 95.18 6 6

Page 40 of 40

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

The diverted traffic assessed through this methodology shows diversion on and off the alternative on the project road, which has increased the existing traffic. However, diverted traffic cannot b neglected due to two major reasons as follows: . Neglecting the generated traffic after the improvement can cause failure of the pavement design adopted on the basis of mere existing traffic. Thus on proper assessment of the diverted traffic, suitable crust thickness is provided. . The existing traffic number forecasted for future would cause congestion due to insufficient capacity of the corridor and thus the improvement of the corridor would not carve the purpose to the road user. Keeping in view the above, the net effect of the above diversion traffic is shown below in Table 4.24. Net Effect of traffic on Diversion Analysis is shown below:

Vehicle Type Net Diversion

Car 57 Mini Bus 1 Bus 11 LCV 13 2A 7 3A 8 MAV 6

Page 41 of 41

Table 4.25: Final AADT INCLUDING DIVERTED TRAFFIC

Page 41 of 41

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Km 1+800 KM- 14+900 Km- 39+000 PCU Categories Location-1 Location-2 Location-3 Factor Vehicles PCUs Vehicles PCUs Vehicle PCUs

2 Wheeler 0.5 1557 779 997 499 1644 822 3 Wheeler 1.0 22 22 3 3 2 2 Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 442 442 410 410 558 558 Mini Bus 1.5 9 14 3 5 3 5 Private Bus 3.0 51 153 44 132 53 159 Govt. Bus 3.0 10 30 13 39 11 33 LCV / Tempo 1.5 113 170 84 126 137 206 2-Axle 3.0 86 258 65 195 52 156 3-Axle 3.0 84 252 119 357 66 198 MAV (4-6) 4.5 81 364 47 211 52 233 Agriculture Tractor 1.5 22 33 10 15 15 23 Agriculture Tractor Trailer 4.5 145 653 64 288 43 194 Ex. Car/Jeep 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 Ambulance 1 4 4 5 5 4 4 Bi-Cycle 0.5 73 37 50 25 44 22 Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bullock Cart 6.0 2 12 1 6 1 6 Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted Traffic 84 58 60 40 52 35 Non Tollable Traffic 1830 1545 1134 845 1756 1076 Tollable Traffic 876 1683 785 1475 932 1548 Total Traffic 2706 3228 1919 2320 2688 2624

Page 42 of 42

PCU Km- 60+800 Km- 73+600 Km- 109+000 Categories Factor Location-4 Location-5 Location-6 Average of AADT

Page 42 of 42

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Vehicles PCUs Vehicles PCUs Vehicle PCUs Vehicles PCUs

2 Wheeler 0.5 1210 605 963 482 2807 1404 1530 765 3 Wheeler 1.0 10 10 3 3 2 2 7 7 Car/Jeep/Van 1.0 707 707 249 249 406 406 462 462 Mini Bus 1.5 4 6 3 5 3 5 4 7 Private Bus 3.0 55 165 32 96 29 87 44 132 Govt. Bus 3.0 19 57 0 0 3 9 9 28 LCV / Tempo 1.5 146 219 67 101 118 177 111 167 2-Axle 3.0 75 225 26 78 79 237 64 192 3-Axle 3.0 105 315 32 96 31 93 73 219 MAV (4-6) 4.5 49 220 23 103 23 103 46 206 Agriculture Tractor 1.5 10 15 4 6 10 15 12 18 Agriculture Tractor Trailer 4.5 109 491 43 194 150 675 92 416 Ex. Car/Jeep 1 6 6 0 0 2 2 3 3 Ambulance 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 Bi-Cycle 0.5 77 39 21 11 0 0 44 22 Cycle-Rickshaw 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bullock Cart 6.0 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 6 Horse Drawn 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hand Cart 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Exempted Traffic 87 54 25 20 5 5 52 35 Non Tollable Traffic 1426 1175 1038 705 2974 2101 1693 1241 Tollable Traffic 1160 1914 432 728 692 1117 813 1411 Total Traffic 2586 3089 1470 1433 3666 3218 2506 2652

4.16 TRAFFIC ESTIMATION AND FORECAST

4.16.1 General

As the project road is executed on an Annuity basis, an estimation of the traffic expected to use the tolled highway and its future growth are important elements assess the project’s

economics as they are generally the main /sole source of revenue for the project. This Page 43 of 43 chapter details various aspects of the project road traffics and its growth potential.

4.16.2 Project Road Traffic

The traffic that is likely to use the project road was estimated on the basis of the traffic and travel characteristics data gathered through primary as well as secondary surveys. The traffic on the project road would normally consist of the following components  Normal Traffic  Diverted Traffic  Induced/New Generated Traffic

Page 43 of 43

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

4.16.2.1 Normal Traffic

Normal traffic is the traffic which is playing on the project road, which has been assessed on the Basis on the traffic surveys carried out and described in previous section, and its project growth.

4.16.2.2 Diverted Traffic

Diverted traffic is generally dictated by the presence of the alternative route at a cheaper generalized coast.

4.16.2.3 Induced Traffic

Induced/new generated traffic is the one which would be generated, over and above normal growth, because of lowering of transport costs or new developments in the immediate influence area of the project road.

4.16.3 Traffic Projection Methodology

As explained above in the previous section, the traffic studies give idea of the base year Traffic on the project stretch; so the next step is to forecast the traffic for future estimation. The Forecast has been done for a period of 30 years i.e. from 2014-15 to 2044-2045. Traffic forecast has been done by employing the “Elasticity of Transport Demand” method, which is the best practice worldwide and thus a preferred technique in India. This method has been recommended by Indian Road Congress in IRC- 108: Guideline for traffic prediction On Rural Highway (1996) this method involves:  Regression of past traffic growth on the project stretch or vehicle registration in the Project state with socio-economic indicators such as population, state income (NSDP) and per capita income.  Analyzing correlation of traffic growth of each mode (car, 2-wheeler, bus & trucks) to various socio-economic indicators. This will help in arriving at the economic variable and the corresponding elasticity of demand for each type of vehicle to be considered for forecast.  The estimated elasticity is moderated base on comparisons with the elasticity Suggested in the Road Development Plan: 2021 (IRC 2001, MORTH) and other Socio- Page 44 of 44 economic factors expected to shape the traffic in future. As the project stretch dose not entertain the traffic of just one state only but it caters traffic of various states, a weighted average of economic variable of the state in the project Influence Area (PIA) is considered, to arrive at final growth rates. Regression analysis has been done using past trends on vehicle registration and socio- economic Indicators for the period 2004-19, to estimate elasticity for each vehicle type. The elasticity values Estimated through regression analysis were then compared with those suggested in the “Road Development plan: 2021”.IRC and best combination of elasticity’s have been recommended for Deriving traffic growth rates and traffic forecasts. The final traffic has been estimated. The subsequent sections explain the traffic forecast on the project stretch in detail.

Page 44 of 44

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

4.16.4 Project Influence Area (PIA)

Delineating the project influence Area is important as socio-economic indicators in the area will Influence the traffic movement on the project stretch. The project influence area has been assessed Based on O-D data. The Table 4.267 presents the regional influence factors for vehicles plying on the Project stretch for all the three homogenous sections.

Table 4.26 Trip Contributions Observed during Traffic surveys along the Project stretch

Region/Modes Cars Mini Bus Bus Mini LCV LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV Rajasthan 99.10 99.33 94.03 98.83 97.73 98.60 94.47 97.27 Madhya Pradesh0.17 0.67 4.73 0.50 1.23 0.47 0.87 0.23 Gujarat 0.50 0.00 1.10 0.50 0.70 0.77 1.73 1.37 Rest of India 0.27 0.00 0.10 0.17 0.33 0.17 2.93 1.13 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

The above table shows that Rajasthan constitutes majority of traffic across all the modes approximately due to regional location of project Road in Rajasthan. The Remaining Surrounding State of M.P. and Gujarat also influence traffic on Project Corridor, will rest of Traffic is contributed by other parts of the Country. All the above Data has been analyzed to forecast the Future traffic.

4.16.5 Socio- Economic Indicators

As seen in the previous section, The Traffic on the Project Road is majorly From Punjab and has an interaction with Other State like Rajasthan, Haryana, H.P., J & K, Delhi which are neighboring states of Punjab in thus have an influence Project of road. Thus Regression analysis of the economic indicators of these states with the vehicle registration in the respective state was carried out to establish the elasticity of growth the past growth of socio-economic indicators from 2004-2011 (Net State domestic product, population and Page 45 of 45 per capita income) and vehicle registrations , by vehicle type, of this states are summarized in the following Table 4.27.

Table 4.27: Socio Economic Indicators and Vehicle Registration Data

Page 45 of 45

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Region/ 2- 3- Car/Jeep Buses Trucks Population PCI NSDP GDP Modes wheelers wheelers Rajasthan 11.67% 9.20% 12.42% 5.19% 10.66% 1.96% 6.51% 8.36% 8.48% Gujarat 8.65% 9.08% 10.83% 3.41% 8.35% 1.77% 8.49% 10.06% 8.48% MP 10.42% 8.42% 12.04% 6.19% 9.48% 1.87% 6.86% 8.67% 8.48% Rest of 9.89% 8.70% 10.93% 9.02% 9.4% 1.57% 6.60% 8.48% India Source: Economic Statistics of India

From above data, it can be seen that the vehicle registration in the state has seen a steady growth across mode and modes and this data has been considered for estimating the travel demand elasticity for the respective states. The entire socio economic indicator has seen a significant growth during 2004-2012.

4.16.6 Elasticity value of Project corridor

Elasticity estimate forms the very base of traffic forecasting. The elasticity of each type of vehicle defining the relationship and degree of correlation with various economic indicators is estimated using regression analysis. Past growth data for the period of 2004- 2012 was used for this analysis. Usually passenger traffic is a function of population and per capita income, while the freight and commercial traffic is governed by state income growth. The elasticity estimated with respect to various socio- economic indicators through regression analysis is given in the Table 4.28 below: Table 4.28: Elasticity’s of various modes derived through regression analysis

Vehicle Category Independent Variable R Square Elasticity Coeff. PCI 0.9826 1.7205 2- Wheelers Population 0.9992 5.6854 PCI 0.9818 1.371 3- Wheelers Population 0.9977 4.5336 PCI 0.9838 1.8254 Car Page 46 of 46 Population 0.9996 6.0923 PCI 0.9842 0.7928 Bus Population 0.9888 2.6041 NSPD 0.9798 1.2496 Trucks GDP 0.9949 1.2451

It is evident from the above table that the best –fit economic variables for car and bus traffic growth are population and PCI. The best fit Economic Indicators for all goods traffic is the state income, which is a function of the economic activity in the concerned state.

Page 46 of 46

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

While the regression analysis gives elasticity figures, there is a need for moderation based on comparison with other studies and developments in Socio- economic condition expected in future that will make moment of commercial vehicle easier state. The elasticity for different vehicles categories have been moderated based on future economic prospects of the project influence area and the likely future sift among the vehicle categories like the provable shift of vehicle ownership from 2-Axle Trucks to MAV and 2/3 wheelers market to car have been taken into account while moderating the elasticity values. This is considered necessary because as the purchasing power increases there will be a shift from low cost vehicle to high speed, more expensive and better comfortable vehicle. Further, with the road improvement and realization of economics of scale, goods operators will tend to transfer from 2- Axle trucks to multi-axle vehicles. These market driven forces have been realistically considered in the elasticity moderations. In order to moderates the transport demand elasticity, as discussed above the consultant have referred the “Road Development Plan: Vision 2021” prepared by IRC in 2001. This document provides the vision for the next 20 years for development and maintenance of all categories of road i.e. National Highways, State Highways, Major District Roads and Rural and Roads. It focuses on research and development, mobilization of resources, capacity building and human resources development, quality system, environment and energy considerations for the highway sector and Highway safety and serves as a valuable guide to the center and the state Governments for planning purpose. The Following Table 4.29 presents the comparison of elasticity value suggested by the “Road Development Plan: Vision 2021” for projecting traffic growth trends at a National Level. Table 4.29: Comparison of elasticity Type Cars Buses Trucks Elasticity as per calculation (weighted elasticity) 1.581 0.931 1.033 Elasticity as per SP-19 2.00 1.60 2.00 Elasticity as per vision 2021(MoRT&H) 1.60 1.30 1.40

4.16.7 Adopted Elasticity for Different Scenarios

As per the best suitable traffic scenario, weighted Average elasticity values are adopted and presented in Table 4.30 below Table 4.30: Adopted elasticity Page 47 of 47

Page 47 of 47

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Duration Mode Up to 2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2- Wheeler 1.376 1.238 1.115 1.003 0.903 0.813 Auto Passengers 1.130 1.017 0.915 0.824 0.742 0.667 Cars 1.459 1.313 1.182 1.063 0.957 0.861 Mini Bus 0.666 0.599 0.539 0.485 0.437 0.393 Bus 0.719 0.647 0.583 0.524 0.472 0.425 Tractor 0.982 0.884 0.796 0.716 0.645 0.580 Mini LCV 0.982 0.884 0.796 0.716 0.645 0.580 LCV 0.980 0.882 0.793 0.714 0.643 0.578 2- Axle 0.979 0.881 0.793 0.714 0.643 0.578 3- Axle 1.000 0.900 0.810 0.729 0.656 0.590 MAV 1.000 0.900 0.810 0.729 0.656 0.590 Average 1.025 0.922 0.830 0.747 0.672 0.605

4.16.8 Final Traffic Growth Rates

Based on the weighted average elasticity values and the projected economic/ demographic indicators, the future average annual compound traffic growth rates by vehicle type have been estimated & presented in the following Table 4.31.

Table 4.31: Final Traffic Growth Rates Mode Duration Up to 2016- 2021- 2026- 2031- 2036- 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2- Wheeler 7.568 8.049 6.687 5.517 4.514 3.656 Auto 6.216 6.612 5.493 4.531 3.708 3.003 Passengers Cars 8.023 8.534 7.090 5.849 4.786 3.876 Mini Bus 3.661 3.894 3.235 2.669 2.184 1.769 Page 48 of 48 Bus 3.956 4.208 3.496 2.884 2.359 1.911 Tractor 5.894 5.305 4.774 4.297 3.867 3.480 Mini LCV 5.894 6.189 5.172 4.297 3.545 2.900 LCV 5.877 6.171 5.157 4.284 3.535 2.892 2- Axle 0.979 0.881 0.793 0.714 0.643 0.578 3- Axle 6.000 6.000 5.265 4.374 3.609 2.952 MAV 6.000 6.000 5.265 4.374 3.609 2.952 Average 5.461 5.677 4.766 3.981 3.305 2.725

Page 48 of 48

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

4.16.9 Traffic Projections

4.16.9.1Projections of Normal Traffic @5% growth rate

The total daily traffic is forecasted for the period up to year 2041 based upon 5% growth rates for assessing financial viability of the project. The total projected tollable traffic at each survey location is shown in Table-4.32 for normal traffic.

4.16.9.2 Projections of Traffic including Diverted traffic @5% growth rate

The Total daily traffic including the diverted traffic on normal traffic census is also done for the period up to year 2041 based upon 5% growth rates. The total projected toll able traffic at each survey Location is shown in Table-4.33 for projections for traffic including diverted traffic on project road.

4.16.9.3 Projections of Normal Traffic (Economic indicators)

The total daily traffic the diverted traffic on normal traffic census is also done for the period up to year 2041 based upon suitable growth rates as considered for normal traffic projections (from Economic indicators). The total projected toll able traffic at each survey location is shown in Table-4.34 for projections for traffic including diverted traffic on project road.

4.16.9.4 Projections of Traffic including Diverted Traffic (Economic indicators)

The total daily traffic the diverted traffic on normal traffic census is also done for the period up to year 2041 based upon suitable growth rates as considered for normal traffic projections (from Economic indicators). The total projected toll able traffic at each survey location is shown in Table-4.35 for projections for traffic including diverted traffic on project road.

Page 49 of 49

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Table 4.32: Projection of AADT @growth rate 5%

Location-1 Km-1+800 Location-2 Km-14+900 Location-3 Km-39+000 Location-4 Km-60+800

Total Total Total Total Year Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Tollable PCU Tollable PCU Tollable PCU Tollable PCU Vehicles PCU Vehicles PCU Vehicles PCU Vehicles PCU vehicle vehicle vehicle vehicle

Base 773 1500 2603 3045 682 1293 1816 2138 829 1365 2585 2441 1057 1733 2483 2908 Year 2015 2016 812 1575 2733 3197 716 1358 1907 2245 870 1433 2714 2563 1110 1820 2607 3053 2017 852 1654 2870 3357 752 1426 2002 2357 914 1505 2850 2691 1165 1911 2738 3206 2018 895 1736 3013 3525 790 1497 2102 2475 960 1580 2992 2826 1224 2006 2874 3366 2019 940 1823 3164 3701 829 1572 2207 2599 1008 1659 3142 2967 1285 2106 3018 3535 2020 987 1914 3322 3886 870 1650 2318 2729 1058 1742 3299 3115 1349 2212 3169 3711

2021 1036 2010 3488 4081 914 1733 2434 2865 1111 1829 3464 3271 1416 2322 3327 3897 2022 1088 2111 3663 4285 960 1819 2555 3008 1166 1921 3637 3435 1487 2439 3494 4092 2023 1142 2216 3846 4499 1008 1910 2683 3159 1225 2017 3819 3606 1562 2560 3669 4296 2024 1199 2327 4038 4724 1058 2006 2817 3317 1286 2118 4010 3787 1640 2688 3852 4511 2025 1259 2443 4240 4960 1111 2106 2958 3483 1350 2223 4211 3976 1722 2823 4045 4737 2026 1322 2566 4452 5208 1166 2211 3106 3657 1418 2335 4421 4175 1808 2964 4247 4974 2027 1388 2694 4675 5468 1225 2322 3261 3840 1489 2451 4642 4384 1898 3112 4459 5222 2028 1458 2828 4908 5742 1286 2438 3424 4032 1563 2574 4874 4603 1993 3268 4682 5483 2029 1530 2970 5154 6029 1350 2560 3596 4233 1641 2703 5118 4833 2093 3431 4916 5758 2030 1607 3118 5411 6330 1418 2688 3775 4445 1723 2838 5374 5075 2197 3603 5162 6046 2035 2051 3980 6907 8079 1810 3431 4818 5673 2200 3622 6859 6477 2805 4598 6588 7716 2040 2618 5080 8815 10311 2309 4379 6150 7240 2807 4622 8754 8266 3579 5869 8408 9848

Page 50 of 50

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2041 2749 5334 9255 10827 2425 4597 6457 7602 2948 4853 9191 8679 3758 6162 8829 10340 2042 2886 5600 9718 11368 2546 4827 6780 7982 3095 5096 9651 9113 3946 6470 9270 10857 Table 4.33: Projection of AADT @ Actual Growth Rate (Economic)

Location-1 Km-1+800 Location-2 Km-14+900 Location-3 Km-39+000 Location-4 Km-60+800

Base Year 773 1500 2603 3045 682 1293 1816 2138 829 1365 2585 2441 1057 1733 2483 2908 2015

2016 817 1585 2751 3218 721 1366 1919 2259 876 1442 2732 2580 1117 1831 2624 3073 2017 863 1675 2907 3401 762 1444 2028 2388 926 1524 2887 2726 1180 1935 2773 3248 2018 912 1770 3072 3594 805 1526 2143 2523 978 1611 3051 2881 1247 2045 2930 3432 2019 964 1871 3246 3798 851 1613 2265 2666 1034 1702 3224 3044 1318 2161 3097 3627 2020 1019 1977 3431 4013 899 1704 2393 2818 1093 1799 3407 3217 1393 2284 3272 3833 2021 1067 2071 3594 4204 942 1785 2507 2952 1145 1885 3569 3370 1459 2393 3428 4015 2022 1118 2170 3765 4405 987 1870 2627 3093 1199 1975 3739 3531 1529 2507 3592 4207 2023 1172 2273 3945 4615 1034 1960 2752 3240 1256 2069 3918 3699 1602 2626 3763 4407 2024 1227 2382 4133 4835 1083 2053 2883 3395 1316 2167 4104 3876 1678 2752 3942 4617 2025 1286 2495 4330 5065 1134 2151 3021 3556 1379 2271 4300 4060 1758 2883 4130 4837 2026 1337 2594 4502 5267 1180 2236 3141 3698 1434 2361 4471 4222 1828 2997 4295 5030 2027 1390 2698 4682 5476 1227 2325 3266 3845 1491 2455 4649 4390 1901 3117 4466 5230 2028 1446 2805 4868 5694 1275 2418 3396 3998 1550 2553 4834 4565 1977 3241 4643 5438 2029 1503 2917 5062 5921 1326 2514 3531 4157 1612 2654 5027 4747 2055 3370 4828 5655 2030 1563 3033 5263 6157 1379 2614 3672 4323 1676 2760 5227 4936 2137 3504 5021 5880

Page 51 of 51

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2035 1839 3568 6192 7244 1622 3076 4320 5086 1972 3247 6150 5807 2515 4123 5907 6918 2040 2103 4082 7083 8286 1856 3519 4942 5818 2256 3714 7034 6642 2876 4716 6757 7913 2041 2161 4193 7276 8512 1906 3614 5076 5976 2317 3816 7226 6823 2955 4844 6941 8129 2042 2220 4307 7475 8744 1958 3713 5215 6139 2381 3920 7423 7009 3035 4976 7130 8350

Table 4.34: Projection of AADT including Diverted Traffic @growth rate 5%

Location-1 Km-1+800 Location-2 Km-14+900 Location-3 Km-39+000 Location-4 Km-60+800

Base Year 876 1683 2706 3228 785 1475 1919 2320 932 1548 2688 2624 1160 1914 2586 3089 2015

2016 919 1767 2841 3389 824 1549 2015 2436 978 1625 2822 2755 1218 2010 2715 3243 2017 965 1856 2983 3559 865 1626 2115 2558 1027 1707 2963 2893 1279 2110 2851 3406 2018 1014 1948 3132 3737 908 1707 2221 2686 1079 1792 3111 3038 1343 2216 2993 3576 2019 1064 2046 3289 3924 954 1793 2332 2820 1133 1882 3267 3189 1410 2326 3143 3755 2020 1118 2148 3453 4120 1002 1883 2449 2961 1189 1976 3430 3349 1480 2443 3300 3942 2021 1174 2255 3626 4326 1052 1977 2571 3109 1249 2074 3602 3516 1554 2565 3465 4140 2022 1232 2368 3807 4542 1104 2075 2700 3264 1311 2178 3782 3692 1632 2693 3638 4347 2023 1294 2487 3998 4769 1159 2179 2835 3428 1377 2287 3971 3877 1713 2828 3820 4564 2024 1359 2611 4197 5008 1217 2288 2977 3599 1445 2401 4170 4071 1799 2969 4011 4792 2025 1426 2741 4407 5258 1278 2403 3125 3779 1518 2522 4378 4274 1889 3118 4212 5032 2026 1498 2879 4628 5521 1342 2523 3282 3968 1594 2648 4597 4488 1983 3274 4422 5283 2027 1573 3022 4859 5797 1409 2649 3446 4166 1673 2780 4827 4712 2083 3437 4644 5547 2028 1651 3174 5102 6087 1480 2781 3618 4375 1757 2919 5068 4948 2187 3609 4876 5825

Page 52 of 52

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2029 1734 3332 5357 6391 1554 2920 3799 4593 1845 3065 5321 5195 2296 3790 5120 6116 2030 1821 3499 5625 6711 1631 3066 3989 4823 1937 3218 5588 5455 2411 3979 5376 6422 2035 2324 4466 7179 8565 2082 3914 5091 6156 2472 4107 7131 6962 3077 5078 6861 8196 2040 2965 5699 9162 10931 2657 4995 6497 7856 3155 5242 9102 8886 3927 6481 8756 10460 2041 3114 5984 9621 11478 2790 5245 6822 8249 3313 5504 9557 9330 4124 6806 9194 10983 2042 3269 6283 10102 12052 2930 5507 7163 8662 3479 5779 10034 9797 4330 7146 9654 11533

Table 4.35: Projection of AADT including Diverted Traffic @ actual growth rate (Economic)

Location-1 Km-1+800 Location-2 Km-14+900 Location-3 Km-39+000 Location-4 Km-60+800

Base Year 876 1683 2706 3228 785 1475 1919 2320 932 1548 2688 2624 1160 1914 2586 3089 2015

2016 925 1779 2859 3411 829 1559 2028 2452 985 1636 2840 2773 1226 2023 2733 3264 2017 978 1880 3022 3605 876 1647 2143 2591 1041 1729 3002 2930 1295 2137 2888 3450 2018 1033 1986 3193 3810 926 1741 2264 2738 1100 1827 3172 3097 1369 2259 3052 3646 2019 1092 2099 3374 4026 979 1840 2393 2893 1162 1931 3352 3273 1446 2387 3225 3852 2020 1154 2218 3566 4254 1034 1944 2529 3058 1228 2040 3542 3458 1528 2523 3408 4071 2021 1209 2324 3736 4457 1084 2037 2649 3203 1286 2137 3711 3623 1601 2643 3570 4265 2022 1267 2435 3914 4670 1135 2134 2776 3356 1348 2239 3888 3796 1678 2769 3740 4468 2023 1327 2551 4101 4892 1189 2235 2908 3516 1412 2346 4073 3977 1758 2901 3919 4681 2024 1390 2672 4296 5125 1246 2342 3046 3684 1479 2458 4267 4166 1841 3039 4105 4905 2025 1457 2800 4501 5370 1305 2454 3192 3859 1550 2575 4471 4365 1929 3184 4301 5138 2026 1515 2911 4680 5583 1357 2551 3319 4013 1612 2677 4649 4539 2006 3311 4472 5343

Page 53 of 53

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

2027 1575 3027 4866 5806 1411 2653 3451 4173 1676 2784 4834 4719 2086 3442 4650 5556 2028 1638 3147 5060 6037 1467 2758 3588 4339 1742 2895 5026 4907 2169 3579 4836 5777 2029 1703 3273 5261 6277 1526 2868 3731 4511 1812 3010 5226 5103 2255 3722 5028 6007 2030 1771 3403 5471 6527 1587 2982 3880 4691 1884 3130 5434 5306 2345 3870 5228 6246 2035 2083 4004 6437 7679 1867 3509 4564 5519 2216 3683 6394 6242 2759 4553 6151 7349 2040 2383 4580 7363 8784 2135 4014 5221 6313 2535 4212 7314 7140 3156 5208 7036 8406 2041 2448 4705 7563 9023 2194 4123 5363 6485 2604 4327 7513 7335 3242 5350 7228 8635 2042 2515 4833 7770 9269 2253 4236 5510 6662 2675 4445 7718 7535 3330 5496 7425 8870

Page 54 of 54

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Page 55 of 55

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Chapter-5: Engineering Survey & Investigation

5.1 ROAD INVENTORY AND ROAD CONDITION:

An inventory of the project road has been carried out by visual observations supplemented with sample measurements using tape etc. Kilometer wise features like terrain, land-use, surfacing type and width, shoulder, sub grade, local soil type, curve details, intersectional details, retaining structures details, location of water bodies, height of embankment or depth of cut, ROW, CD structures, road side arboriculture, existing utility services, general drainage conditions etc., were recorded. The road inventory has been referenced to the existing km posts established along the roadside. The Project Road starts from 2km away from NH-76 (Chittaurgarh- kota section). So, a stretch of 2km is added in our project road to connect the project road (SH-9A) to NH-76.

MP section (km14- km 34, length20km) falls in Madhya Pradesh. so this stretch will not be taken in this project & it will be out of Scope.

Km 109 onwards is toll road maintained by RSRDC till Ramganj Mandi.

for a total length of 90.580 km (as per topographic Survey) & 90.212 (Design Length).

Page 1 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Start Point of the Project Section-I

Start Point of the Project Section-II

5.2 TERRAIN :

The terrain along the road is plain & Hilly terrain. 5.3 LAND USE:

The land use along the project road is predominantly agricultural. The major land use pattern is agriculture and residential. 5.4 CARRIAGEWAY AND ROADWAY WIDTH:

The project road has 3.0/3.75/5.0/5.5/7.0/10.0/14.0 m Carriageway with 1/ 1.5m earthen shoulder. There is one existing bypass at Rashmi Village. Increased lane width is observed at major junctions for canalizations of traffic. Table 5.1 shows width of formation and carriageway. Table: 5.1 Formation and Carriageway width

Start Ch. End Ch. Length (in km) Type Width Condition Remark (in 5.0 Poor 0+000 2+000 2 BT M) 0+000 4+100 4.1 BT 7.0 Poor

Page 2 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

4+100 4+400 0.3 CC 7.0 Poor 4+400 12+600 8.2 BT 7.0 Poor 12+600 13+200 0.6 CC 5.5 Poor Turkari 13+200 13+700 0.5 BT 7.0 Poor 13+700 14+050 0.35 CC 5.5 Poor Borwardi 14+050 14+220 0.17 BT 7.0 Poor 14+220 34+810 20.59 BT 5.5 Poor MP Section (Out of Scope) 34+810 38+900 4.09 BT 7.0 Poor 38+900 39+600 0.7 CC 5.5 Fair Tamboliya 39+600 42+300 2.7 BT 7.0 Fair 42+300 42+400 0.1 CC 5.5 Fair 42+400 46+000 3.6 BT 7.0 Fair 46+000 46+700 0.7 BT 3.0 Fair 46+700 46+800 0.1 CC 5.5 Fair 46+800 59+800 13.0 BT 3.0 Poor 59+800 60+400 0.6 BT 3.75 Poor 60+400 60+950 0.55 BT 3.0 Poor 60+950 61+150 0.2 CC 3.0 Poor 61+150 65+800 4.65 BT 3.75 Poor 65+800 66+000 0.2 CC 3.75 Poor 66+000 66+200 0.2 CC 5.5 Fair 66+200 66+800 0.6 CC 10.0 Fair 66+800 69+200 2.4 CC 10.0 Fair 69+200 71+900 2.7 CC 14.0 Fair 71+900 79+000 7.1 BT 3.0 Poor 79+000 81+100 2.1 Earthen 3.0 Poor 81+100 81+800 0.7 BT 3.0 Poor 81+800 82+300 0.5 CC 3.0 Poor 82+300 82+900 0.6 Earthen 3.0 Poor 82+900 90+000 7.1 BT 3.0 Poor 90+000 93+100 3.1 BT 5.5 Poor 93+100 93+500 0.4 CC 5.5 Poor 93+500 95+300 1.8 BT 5.5 Poor 95+300 96+000 0.7 BT 3.75 Poor 96+000 98+000 2.0 BT 5.5 Poor 98+000 100+000 2.0 BT 3.75 Poor 100+000 104+200 4.2 BT 3.0 Poor 104+200 104+500 0.3 BT 7.0 Poor 104+500 107+100 2.6 BT 3.0 Poor Page 3 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

107+100 107+400 0.3 CC 7.0 Fair 107+400 109+170 1.77 BT 7.0 Fair Total 111.17 Km

Table 2.2 Summary of Cross Section of project Road

Carriageway Total Length Length in (km) Type Width

35.95 BT 3 39.35 0.7 CC 2.7 Earthen 3.75 8.15 7.95 BT 0.2 CC 5 2.0 2.0 BT 5.5 9.35 6.9 BT 2.45 CC 7.0 26.03 25.43 BT 0.6 CC 10.0 3.0 3.0 CC 14.0 2.7 2.7 Total 90.580

5.5 SHOULDER:

The project road has 3.0/3.75/5.0/5.5/7.0/10.0/14 m Carriageway with 1/ 1.5m earthen shoulder throughout the project corridor, which is in Fair conditions except at isolated stretches in village portions. Apparently, the average embankment of the road is 0.6 to 0.9 m and the shoulder drop is noticed in 3m Carriageway Section of the project corridor. 5.6 EMBANKMENT HEIGHT:

The average embankment of the road is is 0.6 to 0.9 m and the shoulder drop is noticed on the project corridor. However, higher embankment exists at approaches to the bridges and at hilly portion. The condition of the embankment is fair.

5.7 VILLAGES AND TOWNS:

The villages and towns through which the project road passes are listed in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 List of Villages along to project road

Page 4 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Sr. Village Start Ch. End Ch. Length (km) Population Block District No. 1 Katunda 0+000 0+650 0.65 2141 Begun Chittaurgarh 2 Balwant Nagar 0+100 0+300 0.2 444 Begun Chittaurgarh 3 Rayti 9+500 9+900 0.4 854 Begun Chittaurgarh 4 Rayta 11+250 11+900 0.65 1190 Begun Chittaurgarh 606 Begun Chittaurgarh 5 Turkari 12+650 13+200 0.55 6 Borwadi 13+750 14+050 0.3 282 Begun Chittaurgarh 7 Kesarpura 36+600 36+900 0.3 354 Begun Chittaurgarh 8 Tamboliya 38+750 39+650 0.9 440 Begun Chittaurgarh 9 Borav 43+000 43+400 0.4 2689 Begun Chittaurgarh 10 Dhamangarh 51+100 51+400 0.3 250 Begun Chittaurgarh 11 Rawatbhata 67+100 71+900 4.8 34690 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 12 Deep pura 79+000 79+400 0.4 457 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 13 Jharjari 82+100 82+800 0.7 1623 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 14 Badodiya 86+050 86+250 0.2 1452 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 15 Ladpur 91+850 92+150 0.3 1237 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 16 Jalkheda 92+400 93+500 1.1 1432 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 17 Mohanpura 95+400 95+950 0.55 774 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 18 Dhavadkala 96+950 97+200 0.25 1192 Rawatbhata Chittaurgarh 19 Devli 104+350 104+950 0.6 1626 Chechat Kota 20 Fanda 107+100 107+400 0.3 569 Chechat Kota 21 Chechat 109+000 109+170 0.17 10259 Chechat Kota Total Length 14.02

5.8 ROAD JUNCTIONS:

There are 3 Major Junctions & 26 nos of minor junctions exist on the project road. Most of the minor junctions lead to the nearby villages.

Table – 5.2A: Junction Details Details of Existing Junctions Destinations of Cross Located Type of Road or railway Type of Relative Road Width of S.No Location Remarks (NH/SH/MDR/PMGSY/ Junction to (CC/BT/ Road(m) ODR/VR) Centreline Earthen) NH-(Chhitaurgarh- Major 1 0+000 T-Type Both Side CC 16.00 Shivpuri) Junction Major 2 0+250 MDR to Begun T-Type RHS BT 3.75 Junction 3 3+350 VR to Begun Y-Type RHS BT 3.75 4 5+450 VR to Thukrai T-Type LHS BT 3.75 5 5+680 VR to Awlaheda T-Type RHS BT 3.75

Page 5 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

6 6+520 VR to Shadi T-Type LHS BT 3.75 1. VR to Upenkala Four 7 9+650 LHS BT 3.75 2.VR to Rayti Legged 8 11+750 VR to Joganiyamata T-Type RHS BT 3.75 9 38+150 VR to Gopalpur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 10 40+000 VR to laxmipur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 VR to Dhamnagar 11 42+900 T-Type RHS BT 3.75 Khurd 12 43+000 VR to Sukhpura T-Type LHS BT 3.75 13 51+100 VR to Bhurjar T-Type LHS CC 3.00 14 58+900 CMGSY to Gawlipura T-Type RHS BT 3.75 15 60+900 VR to Bhaisrogarh Y-Type RHS BT 3.75 16 61+600 VR to Jagpura T-Type LHS BT 3.75 VR to Sakhloka 17 63+850 T-Type RHS BT 3.75 Dhuda 18 65+850 VR to Dam T-Type RHS BT 3.75

To KOTA(SH-33) LHS CC 15.00 Major 19 67+300 X-type City Road RHS BT 3.75 Junction 20 71+900 To Plant T-Type RHS BT 4.00 21 86+900 VR to Rainkheda T-Type RHS BT 3.75 22 88+600 VR to Keetda T-Type LHS BT 3.75 23 92+150 VR to Ladpur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 VR to Khedarda LHS BT 3.75 24 98+500 X-type VR to Alod RHS BT 3.75 25 104+950 VR to Bundi T-Type LHS BT 3.75 26 107+400 VR to Quary T-Type LHS BT 3.75

5.9 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS:

GPS survey is being carried out and GPS control points are established along the alignment, In addition, auto leveling carried out between SOI GTS BMs and GPS control beacons. The topographic survey includes:

 GPS control points at 5 km intervals which will be auto-leveled from Survey of India (SOI) GTS BM‟s to GPS control point BM‟s using auto levels (in accordance with IRC SP19)  Additional intermittent benchmarks established on permanent structures like Culverts, Km stones, or on permanent structures enroute, etc. Page 6 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

 A total station traverse is being carried out with stations between 250m apart. Field checks will be carried out for mutual bearing, mutual distance and heights.  The detailed survey is being carried out using a total station instrument with a strip width of 30 m, widened at horizontal curves and ROB locations. All topographical features will be picked up during the survey. Points will be picked up 50 m apart and cross sections taken at same intervals. Where existing roads / railways cross the alignment the surveys will be extended to 100 m either side of the alignment proposed. Culvert location will be surveyed as part of the detailed survey.  Hard copies of the survey will be made and will be used by senior surveyor and the survey teams to verify the accuracy in the field of the detailed survey.  The survey will be received in digital format in XYZ format compatible with Mx software together with hard copies.

5.10 CONDITION SURVEY:

Detailed field studies carried out to collect pavement/shoulder/drainage conditions are briefly discussed hereunder and the findings are presented in Annexure.

5.11 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEYS:

The survey on general pavement condition was primarily a visual exercise undertaken by means of slow drive-over survey, and supplemented with measurements wherever necessary. Visual assessment was carried out from a vehicle, with speed not exceeding 15 km/hr and stopping at various locations at suitable intervals at 200m and wherever necessary, depending on variations in pavement conditions. At the points of stoppage, simple measurements using measuring tape and straight edge were carried out to quantify pavement deficiency on a representative basis. Aspects of pavement conditions assessed include surface defects, rut depth, cracking, potholes, patched areas, shoulder condition etc. An overall assessment of performance serviceability of the road was also done to qualitatively rate the existing pavement and shoulder condition. The pavement condition was recorded under the following sub-heads:  Shoulder-  Composition / Condition / material Loss  Riding Quality (Good / Fair / Poor / Very Poor)  Pavement Condition (surface distress type & extent)  Cracking (%)  Raveling (%)

Page 7 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

 Potholes (%)  Patching (%)  Rut depth (mm)  Edge break (m)  Pavement edge Drop (mm)  Embankment Condition (Good / Fair / Poor)  Road Side Drain (Non Existing / Partially Functional / Functional)  Drainage condition

For determining the pavement condition for each km. of road, the yardstick as given in Table 5.3 has been used to designate the pavement condition. Details of Pavement Condition Survey are attached as Annexure I.

Table 5.3: Yardstick of Pavement Condition

Sl. Pot holes Patching Raveling Condition Cracking (%) No. (%) (%) (%) 1 Fair >5 > 10  20 > 0.5  2.0 > 2.0 10  5.0 2 Poor >10 >20 >2 >5.0

5.12 SUMMARY OF CONDITION SURVEY RESULTS:

Based on the yardsticks, the overall condition of the pavement has been analysed and it varies between Fair to Poor. Table 5.3A: Surface Condition of the Carriageway Start Ch. End Ch. Length (in km) Type Width Condition Remark 5.0(in Poor 0+000 2+000 2 BT M) 0+000 4+100 4.1 BT 7.0 Poor 4+100 4+400 0.3 CC 7.0 Poor 4+400 12+600 8.2 BT 7.0 Poor 12+600 13+200 0.6 CC 5.5 Poor Turkari 13+200 13+700 0.5 BT 7.0 Poor 13+700 14+050 0.35 CC 5.5 Poor Borwardi 14+050 14+220 0.17 BT 7.0 Poor 14+220 34+810 20.59 BT 5.5 Poor MP Section (Out of Scope) 34+810 38+900 4.09 BT 7.0 Poor

Page 8 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

38+900 39+600 0.7 CC 5.5 Fair Tamboliya 39+600 42+300 2.7 BT 7.0 Fair 42+300 42+400 0.1 CC 5.5 Fair 42+400 46+000 3.6 BT 7.0 Fair 46+000 46+700 0.7 BT 3.0 Fair 46+700 46+800 0.1 CC 5.5 Fair 46+800 59+800 13.0 BT 3.0 Poor 59+800 60+400 0.6 BT 3.75 Poor 60+400 60+950 0.55 BT 3.0 Poor 60+950 61+150 0.2 CC 3.0 Poor 61+150 65+800 4.65 BT 3.75 Poor 65+800 66+000 0.2 CC 3.75 Poor 66+000 66+200 0.2 CC 5.5 Fair 66+200 66+800 0.6 CC 10.0 Fair 66+800 69+200 2.4 CC 10.0 Fair 69+200 71+900 2.7 CC 14.0 Fair 71+900 79+000 7.1 BT 3.0 Poor 79+000 81+100 2.1 Earthen 3.0 Poor 81+100 81+800 0.7 BT 3.0 Poor 81+800 82+300 0.5 CC 3.0 Poor 82+300 82+900 0.6 Earthen 3.0 Poor 82+900 90+000 7.1 BT 3.0 Poor 90+000 93+100 3.1 BT 5.5 Poor 93+100 93+500 0.4 CC 5.5 Poor 93+500 95+300 1.8 BT 5.5 Poor 95+300 96+000 0.7 BT 3.75 Poor 96+000 98+000 2.0 BT 5.5 Poor 98+000 100+000 2.0 BT 3.75 Poor 100+000 104+200 4.2 BT 3.0 Poor 104+200 104+500 0.3 BT 7.0 Poor 104+500 107+100 2.6 BT 3.0 Poor 107+100 107+400 0.3 CC 7.0 Fair 107+400 109+170 1.77 BT 7.0 Fair Total 111.17 Km

Page 9 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Table 2.3 Summary of Condition of project Road

% of total Condition Length(km) length Fair 15.87 18% Poor 74.71 82% Total 90.580km 100%

5.13 Benkelman Beam Deflection Test

As the existing pavement condition is fair to poor BBd test has been conducted at project Road. Hence, BBD test is ruled out. More over entire project road is proposed for reconstruction from the subgrade bottom.The Test Results are shown below:-

Overlay Design Section (km) Char. Requirement in term S. No. Traffic Remarks Deflection of BM as per IRC:81 (MSA) From To (mm) 1 0.000 3.000 1.13 10.00 64 2 3.000 6.000 1.28 10.00 88 This stretch be 3 6.000 9.000 1.33 10.00 95 reconstructed from 4 9.000 12.000 1.46 10.00 105 base due to 5 12.000 15.000 1.13 10.00 60 expansive soil 6 36.000 39.000 1.40 10.00 105 7 39.000 42.000 1.44 10.00 105 8 42.000 45.000 1.35 10.00 103 9 45.000 48.000 1.35 10.00 103 10 48.000 51.000 1.28 10.00 88 11 51.000 54.000 1.33 10.00 95 Max BM requirement 12 54.000 57.000 1.43 10.00 105 is 105mm Avg BM requirement 13 57.000 60.000 1.36 10.00 98 is 96mm 14 60.000 63.000 1.41 10.00 103 15 63.000 66.000 1.40 10.00 103 16 66.000 69.000 17 69.000 72.000 1.42 10.00 105 18 72.000 75.000 1.44 10.00 105 19 75.000 78.000 1.43 5.00 80 20 78.000 81.000 1.40 5.00 78 21 81.000 84.000 22 84.000 87.000 1.40 5.00 78 23 87.000 90.000 1.50 5.00 88 24 90.000 93.000 1.53 5.00 90 This stretch be 25 93.000 96.000 1.51 5.00 88 reconstructed from 26 96.000 99.000 1.56 5.00 92 base due to 27 99.000 102.000 1.37 5.00 78 expansive soil 28 102.000 105.000 1.63 5.00 100 Page 10 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

29 105.000 108.000 1.46 5.00 80 30 108.000 111.000 1.46 5.00 80

Analysis of BBD Results:-

As per IRC 81:1997  1mm BM = 0.7mm of BC/DBM

So for section-II proposed thickness of BC/DBM is –  111 mm BM= 0.7x111 = 78mm BC/DBM

As per above calculations overlay requirement on Existing surface is BC-30mm

5.14 SHOULDER CONDITION:

The project road has 3.0/3.75/5.0/5.5/7.0/10.0/14.0 m Carriageway with 1/ 1.5m of earthen shoulders.

5.15 DRAINAGE CONDITION:

The construction of new bridges and culverts are assessed on proposed length and the earthwork, pavement and shoulders for bridge approaches have been included as appropriate roadwork items. The other items like RCC and PCC work of bridges, culverts are calculated as per GAD‟s and development proposals. There is 01 new proposed Major Bridge on existing VCW. There are 06 minor bridges on the project road. The superstructure of bridges consists of Cast-in- situ RCC solid slab or stone masonry arch supported on CRM substructure resting on open foundation.

The condition of most of structures is generally fair. Some common problems observed are damaged/ poor RCC railing/post, poor condition of stone masonry and reinforcement exposed in RCC slab. From local enquiry, it is confirmed that a few bridges are submersible and water flows over the bridge in rainy season.

Page 11 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

5.16 TRIAL PITS:

The investigations were carried out along the existing road using two types of trial pits made as under:  Large Test Pit-1.0m x 1.0m at every Homogeneous Section  At Large pit locations following tests were conducted:  Pavement Composition  Characterisation (grain size and Atterberg limits)  Laboratory moisture-density characteristics  Laboratory CBR (un-soaked and 4-day soak compacted at three energy levels) and swell

Page 12 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 13 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 14 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 15 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 16 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 17 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 18 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 19 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 20 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 21 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

Page 22 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

5.17 EXISTING PAVEMENT CRUST COMPOSITION

Test pits of approx. 1.5 m x 1.5 m size staggered on both sides of the pavement were excavated initially up to sub grade top at every 1.0 km along the project road. The pits were excavated on shoulders extending about 250mm into the pavement for the following observations: Type of the pavement layers was visually observed and thickness of each layer was measured on all the three exposed face of the pavement layers to determine average value and recorded. The details of the same are in tabular form. Approx. 40 kg of disturbed soil sample was collected from mach test pit for testing index properties of the soil and soaked CBR on re- moulded sample in the laboratory. The crust composition of the existing pavement is summarized as below in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Summary of the Existing Pavement Crust Composition Existing Thickness Base Sub Base Total Type of Chainage of Course Course Thickness Subgrade in km. Surface Thickness Thickness (mm) Course (mm) (mm) 1+000 80 165 155 400 Yellowish Sandy Soil 2+500 70 155 145 370 Yellowish Sandy Soil 3+800 82 165 155 402 Yellowish Sandy Soil 4+000 85 168 158 411 Yellowish Sandy Soil 5+000 83 166 156 405 Yellowish Sandy Soil 6+000 80 163 153 396 Yellowish Sandy Soil 7+000 78 161 151 390 Yellowish Sandy Soil 8+000 75 165 155 395 Yellowish Sandy Soil 9+000 82 172 167 421 Yellowish Sandy Soil 10+200 80 170 165 415 Reddish gravaly Soil 11+000 82 172 132 386 Reddish gravaly Soil 12+000 75 159 119 353 Reddish gravaly Soil 13+000 70 154 114 338 Reddish gravaly Soil 14+000 75 159 119 353 Reddish gravaly Soil 34+000 80 165 125 370 Reddish gravaly Soil 35+000 80 165 125 370 Red Soil 36+000 82 167 127 376 Red Soil 37+000 90 175 135 400 Red Soil 38+000 85 170 130 385 Red Soil 39+000 90 175 135 400 Red Soil 40+000 85 170 130 385 Red Soil 41+000 85 170 130 385 Red Soil 42+000 80 165 125 370 Red Soil 43+000 75 165 125 365 Red Soil Page 23 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

44+000 75 165 125 365 Red Soil 45+000 73 163 123 359 Red Soil 46+000 72 162 122 356 Red Soil 47+000 70 160 150 380 Red Soil 48+000 70 160 150 380 Red Soil 49+000 72 162 152 386 Yellow Soil 50+000 75 165 155 395 Yellow Soil 51+000 75 165 155 395 Yellow Soil 52+000 78 168 158 404 Yellow Soil 53+000 80 165 155 400 Yellow Soil 54+000 80 165 155 400 Red Soil 55+000 80 160 150 390 Red Soil 56+000 81 161 151 393 Red Soil 57+000 82 162 152 396 Red Soil 58+000 83 163 153 399 Red Soil 59+000 84 164 154 402 Red Soil 60+000 85 165 155 405 Red Soil 61+000 86 166 156 408 Red Soil 62+000 87 167 157 411 Red Soil 63+000 88 168 158 414 Red Soil 64+000 89 169 159 417 Red Soil 65+000 90 170 160 420 Red Soil 66+000 200 240 - 440 Red Soil 67+000 200 250 - 450 Red Soil 68+000 210 260 - 470 Red Soil 69+000 200 250 - 450 Red Soil 70+000 190 230 - 420 Red Soil 71+000 190 240 - 430 Red Soil 72+000 80 160 185 425 Red Soil 73+000 75 155 195 425 Red Soil 74+000 75 155 195 425 Red Soil 75+000 73 153 193 419 Red Soil 76+000 70 150 190 410 Red Soil 77+000 70 152 192 414 Red Soil 78+000 72 152 192 416 Red Soil 79+000 70 150 140 360 Red Soil 80+000 75 155 145 375 Red Soil 81+000 73 153 143 369 Red Soil 82+000 75 155 145 375 Red Soil 83+000 76 156 146 378 Red Soil 84+000 80 160 150 390 Red Soil 85+000 80 160 150 390 Yellowish Sandy Soil 86+000 75 155 145 375 Yellowish Sandy Soil Page 24 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

87+000 85 165 155 405 Yellowish Sandy Soil 88+000 82 162 152 396 Yellowish Sandy Soil 89+000 80 160 150 390 Yellowish Sandy Soil 90+000 82 162 152 396 Yellowish Sandy Soil 91+000 78 158 148 384 Yellowish Sandy Soil 92+000 75 155 145 375 Yellowish Sandy Soil 93+000 73 153 143 369 Yellowish Sandy Soil 94+000 70 150 140 360 Yellowish Sandy Soil 95+000 70 150 185 405 Yellowish Sandy Soil 96+000 65 145 180 390 Yellowish Sandy Soil 97+000 70 150 185 405 Yellowish Sandy Soil 98+000 75 155 190 420 Yellowish Sandy Soil 99+000 78 158 198 434 Yellowish Sandy Soil 100+000 80 160 195 435 Yellowish Sandy Soil 101+000 82 162 192 436 Yellowish Sandy Soil 102+000 80 160 190 430 Yellowish Sandy Soil 103+000 75 155 185 415 Yellowish Sandy Soil 104+000 70 150 180 400 Yellowish Sandy Soil 105+000 72 152 192 416 Yellowish Sandy Soil 106+000 75 155 195 425 Yellowish Sandy Soil 107+000 72 152 192 416 Yellowish Sandy Soil 108+000 70 150 190 410 Yellowish Sandy Soil 109+000 73 153 188 414 Yellowish Sandy Soil

5.19 Sub grade Soil Investigations

Investigations of existing sub grade soil were carried out to assess the adequacy of the existing pavement layers apropos to present sub grade strength so that the strengthening and reconstruction requirement can be established for the design traffic loadings. Objectives of investigations also included evaluation of the characteristics of existing sub grade soil by means of laboratory tests.

The requirements of TOR were met through the following steps:

 The characteristics of the existing soil, two samples from every five km of the Project road or closer where change in soil type is encountered;  The determination of sub grade CBR (soaked) every three km of the Project road or closer where change in soil type is encountered;  Benkelman Beam Deflection measurements on the Project road – one set of ten readings in 250m for every three km of the Project road;  Analysis of field and laboratory test results;  Providing specific recommendation for existing Pavement; and  Evaluation of problematic sub soil, if any.

Page 25 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

5.19.1 Sub grade Characteristics and Strength

The Summary of Laboratory Test Results for Borrow Material

Grain size Analysis Atterberg Limits Optimum Maximum Moisture dry CBR Sl.No Chainage,Km Silt Gravel Sand and Liquid Plastic Plasticity Content Density (%) Side % % Clay Limit Limit Index (%) (g/cm3) % 1 35+200 RHS 10.75 50.97 38.28 33.54 19.98 13.56 11.88 1.875 8.45 1 2 60+450 RHS 14.54 44.59 40.87 34.47 18.79 15.68 12.46 1.895 8.68 3 107+150 RHS 9.89 50.57 39.54 32.25 16.38 15.87 10.89 1.92 8.08 Test pits of size about 1.0 m x 1.0 m were excavated manually at pavement shoulder interface, extending through the pavement layers down to the sub grade level. Sub grade soil sample (about 40 kg) was taken from each pit and sealed properly for detailed laboratory test.

Following test were carried out on the sub grade soil sample in the laboratory.

 Atterberg‟s limits As per IS: 2720, Part- V - 1985  Grain size analysis As per IS: 2720, Part- IV- 1985  MDD (heavy compaction) As per IS: 2720, Part- VIII- 1983  Optimum Moisture Content As per IS: 2720, Part- VIIl- 1983  CBR (4 days soaked) As per IS: 2720, Part- XVI- 1987

5.19.2 Laboratory Test on Subgrade Samples

As Per above results the average CBR is <8. So, the value of adopted CBR is 7%.

5.20 Hydrological and Hydraulic Investigations

Hydrological Data

The hydraulic condition of each structure was assessed thoroughly by visual observations and details are collected from the local offices of PWD, MP and irrigation department, wherever available to collect the available hydrological data.

For the existing major and minor bridges the Topographic maps obtained from Survey of India has been utilized for the Hydrological Calculations.

Topographic maps, obtained from Survey of India, on 1:50,000 scales, have been utilized for the hydrological study in the corridor, accordingly for entire project Corridor, are prepared and attached as Annexure 5.5 “Abstract of Hydraulic Calculations”.

Page 26 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

5.18.1 Hydrological Design Methodology

For the calculation of discharge of the stream by the Area-Velocity method, topographical survey including levelling surveys have been carried out across and along the water courses to determine the cross-section and the slope. A number of cross-sections have been taken at regular intervals on both upstream and downstream side of the structure, including one at the proposed location of the structure in accordance with IRC specifications.

The following assumptions have been made during peak discharge calculation:

For locations where water spreads over the banks, the cross-sections were extended up to the HFL, in order to calculate the effective cross-section of flow. The longitudinal section to determine the bed slope have been taken at an approximate regular interval of 100 m following the channel course extending on both the upstream and the downstream sides of the structure. Caution is taken by following the curved flow line for longitudinal gradient, rather than a straight line.

5.18.1.1 Assessment of Peak Discharge

The peak discharge and the HFL have been calculated by the following methods.

Dickens Method to find discharge from catchment, and Area velocity methods at the bridge site, the upstream and the downstream sections.

Dickens Method

Dickens‟s Formula is proposed as Empirical formulae in entire road stretch, which is as below. Q = CM (0.75) Where, Q = the peak run-off in cu.m/sec. M Is the catchment area in sq.km and C = 11-14, where the annual rainfall is 60-120 cm; 14-19, in Madhya Pradesh; and 32, in Western Ghats.

Area – Velocity Method (Manning‟s Formula) Q = A x V = A x [(1/n) x (R)2/3 x (S)1/2] Where, Q = the discharge in cumecs ; A = Area of the cross section in sq. m.; V = Velocity in m/sec; R = Hydraulic mean depth in m. = A / P; P = Wetted perimeter of the stream in m.; S = Bed slope of the stream; and n = Rugosity Co-efficient

Page 27 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

The Design Discharge have been taken as the maximum of peak discharges at different cross sections.

5.18.1.2 Hydraulic Analysis for Design HFL

In hydraulic analysis, the Design HFL has been calculated corresponding to the Design Discharge by Manning‟s Equation at the bridge site, as described above.

5.18.1.3 Afflux Calculation

When the waterway area of the opening of a bridge is less than the unobstructed natural waterway area of the stream, i.e. when bridge contracts the stream, afflux occurs. The afflux will be calculated using Molesworth‟s formula as given below: -

 V 2  h    0.01524(A/ a)2 1 17.88  Where, h = Afflux in meters; V = Average velocity of water in the river prior to construction in m/sec; A = Unobstructed sectional area of the river at proposed site in sq m; and a = Constricted area of the river at the bridge in sq m.

5.18.1.4 Scour Depth Calculation

To provide an adequate margin of safety for design of foundation, a further increase by 30% has been made over the design discharge as per IRC: 78-2000, thus obtaining the final design discharge for the design of foundation.

By IRC: 5-1998 / IRC: 78-2000

As per IRC: 5-1998 or IRC: 78-2000, the mean depth of scour below the highest flood level, Dsm, will be given by the following equation: Dsm = 1.34 x (Db2 / Ksf ) 1/3

Where, Db = the discharge in cumecs per meter width and Ksf = Silt Factor.

The value of „Db‟ shall be the total design discharge divided by the effective linear waterway between abutments.

For most of the bridges, the silt factor, Ksf, has been calculated as per guidelines given in IRC- 78: 2000 (Clause 703.2) otherwise it has been assumed as 1.5 due to absence of soil distribution curve.

5.18.1.5 Maximum Depth of Scour for Design of Foundation

The maximum depth of scour below the Highest Flood Level (HFL) for the design of piers Page 28 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

(dsmp) and abutments (dsma), having individual foundations without any floor protection are as follows:

In the vicinity of pier: dsmp = 2 x Dsm In the vicinity of abutment: dsma = 1.27 x Dsm

For the design of floor protection works for rafts or open foundations, the following values of maximum scour depth may be adopted:

In a straight reach: 1.27 x Dsm In a bend: 1.50 x Dsm

For the RCC Box type structures proper scour protection is given in the form of floor apron and flexible apron both on the up-stream and downstream sides. No scour will be allowed to occur in the RCC Box type structures.

5.18.1.6 Additional Balancing Culvert on Main Carriage Way

Additional balancing culvert on Main Carriage Way has been provided if it is required for planning of adequate drainage system. Also additional culvert of 1.2m diameter HP (NP-4) for field channel (farm) shall be provided at bypasses to allow the water to pass from one side to other side, if the lands on both side of the road belong to the same owner.

5.18.2 Recommendations / Findings

5.18.2.1 Bridge locations

The detailed hydrological & hydraulic calculations of bridges have been presented in Annexures. The Results has been presented in Table below.

Existing bridges to be re-constructed 1. The existing bridges at the following location shall be re-constructed as new Structures:-

(a) Major Bridges – 0 Nos.

Existing Proposed

Existing Design Structure Structural/ Span Width of S.No. Structure Width of Chainage Chainage Type Hydraulic (m) bridge Span Type Bridge (m) Condition (m)

NIL

Page 29 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Government of Rajasthan R0/H3

(b) Minor Bridges – 09 nos.

Existing Proposed

Structure Structur Span Width

S. Existing Design Type al/ (m) of Width N Chainag Chainag Hydraul bridge Structure of Span o. e e ic (m) Type Bridge Conditi (m) on

1 9+000 11+090 Slab Poor 3x6.9m 8.2 3x8 1) RCC 12.00 2 14+035 16+015 Slab Poor 4x3m 6.5 2x6 Solid Slab 12.00 Pipe & 2x3.2m & 2) RCC 12.00 3 37+270 39+250 Poor 7.5 2x6 Slab 2ROW900 wall type 4 37+555 39+550 Slab Poor 3x2.6m 7.6 1x8 pier 12.00 5 43+660 45+640 Slab Poor 4x4.3m 8.5 3x6m 3) RCC 12.00 6 47+370 49+350 Slab Poor 3x5.7 8.3 3x6m Box type 12.00 7 53+270 55+245 Slab Poor 2x3.8m 8.0 1x10 abutmen 12.00 8 58+930 60+880 Slab Poor 8x4.5m 7.0 4x10 t 12.00 Slab & Poor 1x6m & 12.00 9 94+700 96+475 10.0 2x6m HPC 3ROW900

******

Page 30 of 30

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Chapter-06: Design Standards

6.1 Summary

Following is a summary of the recommended design standards proposed to be adopted for the project road other than service road and intersections:

Table 6.1: Draft Design Standards Sr. Element Terrain No. Rural (Non Urban) Urban Area Hilly 1 Width of Intermediate : 5.5 2-Lane : 7 Intermediate Lane : 5.5 Carriageway Lane (m) 2-Lane : 7.0 2-Lane+ : 10 2-Lane : 7.0 Paved Shoulder 2 Shoulders Intermediate : 2.25 ---- Intermediate : Hill Side1.75 (Earthen) Lane Lane Valley Side2.75

2-Lane : 2.50 2-Lane : Hill Side 1.0Valley Side 2.0 3 Formation Intermediate : 10.0 2-Lane+Paved Intermediate Lane: : 10 Width (m) Lane Shoulder : 13.0 2-Lane : 12.0 (inclusive 2X1.5m of 2 Lane: : 10 Drain/Foot path)

4 Camber/ Bituminous : 2.5% Bituminous :2.5% Bituminous: : 2.5% Cross Fall Concrete : 2.5% Concrete :2.5% Concrete Pavement : 2.5% Pavement Pavement Earthen : 3.5% Earthen : 3.5% Shoulder (min) Shoulder : Min 5 Design Speed Plain Rolling (km/h) Ruling 80 65 Ruling : 50 Ruling : 40

Mm: 65 50 Minimum : 40 Minimum : 30

6 Sight Distance

(m)

Safe

Safe Safe

Inter Inter Inter Inter

Speed

Speed Speed Speed

(km/h) (km/h)

Mediate Mediate Mediate

stopping

Stopping Stopping 80 120 240 50 60 120 40 45 90 65 90 180 40 45 90 30 30 60 50 60 120 7 Super elevation e=V2 e=V2 e=V2 225 R 225 R 225 R Limited to 7% Limited to 7% Limited to 7% Limited to 10% in Hair-Pin bend

e = Super elevation in meter per meter V = Design Speed in km/h R = Radius of the curve in metre 8 Minimum radii of Plain Rolling Urban Hilly Hair-Pin Curves Bend Ruling Minimum 230 155 90 50 30 Absolute Minimum 155 90 60 30 14 9 Transition Curve Design Speed Curve Design Curve Radius Design speed Radius Radius speed km/h (m) km/h

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Sr. Element Terrain No. Rural (Non Urban) Urban Area Hilly Curve (m) (m) 80 65 50 (m) 50 40 40 30 90 NA NA 75 60 NA 75 30 NA 30

155 NA 80 55 90 75 50 50 40 20

230 90 60 35 155 55 35 Hair -Peen 14 15 Bend

10 Widenin Radius of curve g at (m) Up to 20 21 to 40 41 to 60 61 to 100 101 to 300 Above 300 curves Two Lane 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.2 - (m) Single Lane 0.9 0.6 0.6 -- 0.6 11 Vertical Ruling 3.3% Ruling 5.0% Alignmen Limiting 5.0% Limiting 6.0% t Exceptional 6.0% Exceptional 7.0% (Gradient )

12 Roadway width at cross drainage structures (i)I Culverts upto 6m 2-Lane+Paved Shoulder : 11.0 m intermediate 11.00 m between 2-Lane between 2- Lane/Intermediate kerbs /cb kerbs /cb

: 11.0 m :12.00 m between between kerbs/cb --- kerbs /cb

(ii)Ii Minor Bridges greater 2-Lane : 12.0 Intermediate/ : 12.0 than 6 m span and upto 2-Lane 30 m. (iii)iii Bridges above 30 m 7.5 m between kerbs 7.5 m between kerbs 13 Minimum Lined drains : 0.5% Lined As per road gradients Gradient for Drainage Unlined drains : 1.0% drains : 0.5%

6.2 Geometric Design

6.2.1 General

Geometric design of a highway is the process whereby the layout of the road in specific terrain is designed to meet the needs of the road users keeping in view the road function, type and volume of traffic, potential traffic hazards and safety as well as convenience of the road users. The principal areas of control for fulfilment of this objective are the horizontal alignment, vertical alignment and the road cross-section.

The Consultants have referred to the latest IRC publications and MoRT&H circulars regarding design standards to be applied for state highways in India. After careful review of all available data and requirements of the project road the proposed Design Standards for adoption on the project road have been recommended. 6.2.2 Design Speed

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

The project road passes through plain terrain. For geometric design of the highway, design speed is used as an index which links road function, traffic flow and terrain. An appropriate design speed should correspond to general topography and adjacent land use. The speed selected for design should also cater to travel needs and behaviour of the road users. Rural highways, except expressways, are normally designed for speed of 80 km/hr, however depending on terrain and whether the design is for new alignment or reconstruction of an existing facility, the design speed is determined to the site requirement.

The ruling design speed corresponding to the type of terrain as per IRC:SP 73-2007, are as follows:

Table 6.2: Design Speed Standards Terrain IRC SP:73:2007 Plain 100 Rolling 80 Mountainous 40-50

Assuming a diverse mix of traffic on the project roads, a ruling design speed of 80 km/h for plain and rolling terrain is proposed to be adopted. Use of speed regulatory sign is proposed at locations such as hairpin bends, urban areas and other sharp curves where design speed cannot be maintained.

6.2.3 Levels of Service (LOS)

The Level of Service (LOS) characterizes the operating conditions on the roadway in terms of traffic performance measures related to speed and travel time, freedom to manoeuvre, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. The levels of service range from level-of-service A (least congested) to level-of-service F (most congested). The Highways Capacity Manual (HCM) provides the following levels of service definitions:

Table 6.3: Standards for Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) General Operating Conditions A Free flow B Reasonably free flow C Stable flow D Approaching unstable flow E Unstable flow F Forced or breakdown flow

Considering the importance of the highway Level of Service (LOS) ‘B’ is proposed.

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6.2.4 Cross Sectional Elements

6.2.4.1 Roadway Width for Multilane Highways

Adequate roadway width will be provided for the requisite number of traffic lanes besides the shoulders and a central median dividing the traffic flow directions. As specified in the IRC 73-2007, in general, for multilane highways, the shoulder width should be 2.5 m and lane width 3.5 m per lane. Based on a comparative review of international standards and safety, the values proposed to be adopted for the roadway elements by the Consultants for the project highway are as follows:

Table 6.4: Road Cross Section Item Two-Lane with Earthen Intermediate Lane with Shoulder Earthen Shoulder Carriageways 2 X 3.5 m 5.5m Paved shoulder N.A. N.A. Unpaved shoulder Plain/ rolling terrain 2 X 2.5 m 2 X 2.25 m Hilly terrain : Hill Side 2 X 1.0 m 2 X 1.75 m Valley Side 2 X 2.0 m 2 X 2.75 m Total Formation width Plain/rolling terrain 12 m 10 m Hilly terrain 10 m 10 m

Total Formation width in 13 m 13 m Urban Area( inclusive (Inclusive of 2X1.5m of (Inclusive of 2X1.5m of Foot path/Drain) Footpath/Drain) Footpath/Drain)

As the proposed road is a state highway , total carriageway width of 7.0 m i.e. two lane with 1.5m Granular shoulders & 1.0m earthen shoulders has been proposed with the formation width of 12m.

6.2.4.2 Lane Width

Lane width has a significant influence on the safety and comfort of the road. The capacity of a roadway is markedly affected by the lane width. In general, safety increases with wider lanes up to a width of about 3.5 m. The lane width as per IRC:SP 73-2007 is 3.5 m. As the proposed road is a state highway , total carriageway width of 7.0 m i.e. two lane has been proposed by the Consultants .

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6.2.4.3 Shoulders

Shoulders are a critical element of the roadway cross section. Shoulders provide recovery area for errant vehicles; a refuge for stopped or disabled vehicles; and access for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Shoulders can also provide an opportunity to improve sight distance through cut sections. IRC:SP 73-2007 recommends a paved outer shoulder of 1.5 m together with an earthen shoulder of 1.0 m for multilane highways. For mountainous terrain, the recommended earthen shoulder width as per IRC: 52-1981 is 0.9 m

The Consultants proposed to adopt an outer shoulder width of minimum 2.5m in plain terrain in which 1.5m width of granular shoulders & 1.0 width of earthen shoulders.

6.2.4.4 Pavement Camber (Cross-fall)

IRC:SP 73-2007 recommends the following camber for various surface types:

Table 6.5: Provision for Cross-fall Surface type Camber High Type Bituminous Surfacing 1.7% - 2.0 % Thin Bituminous Surfacing 2.0 % - 2.5 % Water Bound Macadam, Gravel 2.5 % - 3.0 % Earth 3.0 % - 4.0 %

Considering the bituminous surfacing (bituminous concrete) the Consultants propose to provide a camber of 2.5 % for the main carriageway as well as paved shoulders and 3.5 % for the unpaved shoulder (granular).

6.2.4.5 Embankment Slopes

The side slope shall not be steeper than 2H:1V unless soil is retained by suitable soil retaining by structure.

6.2.5 Typical Cross-sections

The proposed cross-section in rural sections consists of two lane carriageway configuration during the service life of the project. Concentric widening is proposed to minimize land acquisition issues and to ensure maximum utilisation of existing carriageway.

6.2.6 Horizontal Alignment

6.2.6.1 General

For balance in highway design, all geometrical elements should be determined for consistent operation under the design speed in general. A horizontal alignment

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

should be as smooth and consistent as possible with the surrounding topography. To achieve that, an appropriate blending with the natural contours is preferable to the one with long tangents through the terrain.

6.2.6.2 Sight Distances

Sight distance is a direct function of the design speed. Safe stopping distances corresponding to various design speeds are given below:

Table 6.6: Sight Stopping Distance Criteria Design Speed IRC SP:73:2007 Km/h 50 60 80 120 100 180

It is desirable to design the highway for more liberal values for operational convenience. An appropriate allowance would be considered to take care of the effect of adverse incidents. The value recommended by IRC & guidelines are proposed to be adopted in design.

6.2.6.3 Horizontal Curve

The minimum horizontal curve radius is the limiting value of curvature for a given design speeds and is determined from the maximum rate of super elevation and the side friction factor. As per the IRC: 73 - 2007 the minimum ruling radii of Horizontal curve for National Highways corresponding to different terrain conditions are as follows:

Table 6.7: Horizontal Radii Criteria Type of Terrain Minimum Radii of Horizontal Curve Two Lane Ruling Minimum Absolute Minimum Plain 230 155 Rolling 155 90 Mountainous 50 30

Absolute minimum and ruling minimum radii are corresponding to the minimum design speed and the ruling design speeds respectively.

On new roads, horizontal curves are designed with liberal radius provision that blends well the overall geometry and topography. However, for locations with constraints and to make use of available roadway, it is proposed to keep minimum radius in accordance with the IRC recommendations.

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table 6.8: Adopted Horizontal Radii Speed (km/h) Absolute Minimum Radius Two lane (m) 80 230 65 155 50 90

6.2.6.4 Transition (Spiral) Curves

The purpose of a transition (spiral) curve is to provide a smooth and aesthetically pleasing transition from a tangent and a circular curve. In addition the transition curves provide the necessary length for attainment of super-elevation runoff.

It is proposed to adopt transition curve lengths provided above for minimum recommended moves.

6.2.6.5 Super-elevation

The IRC:SP 73-2007 design standards propose a maximum super-elevation rate of 7 % for plain and rolling terrains, and 10% for the mountainous terrain.

The limiting value of the super-elevation on the project road in both plain/rolling and hilly terrain is proposed to be 7%.

6.2.7 Vertical Alignment

6.2.7.1 General

The vertical alignment should produce a smooth longitudinal profile consistent with standard of the road and of the terrain. Horizontal and Vertical curvature should be so combined that the safety and operational efficiency of the road is enhanced.

6.2.7.2 Gradients

The IRC:SP 73-2007 geometric design standards propose ruling vertical grades of 3.3% to 5.0% for plain and rolling terrains; and 5.0% to 6.0% for hilly terrain.

Table 6.9 : Vertical Gradient Terrain Ruling (%) Limiting (%) Plain/Rolling 3.3% 5.0% Hilly 5.0% 6.0%

To ensure adequate drainage, roadways typically have a minimum longitudinal grade of 0.5% to 0.6%, depending on the terrain. The minimum longitudinal grades as per IRC:SP 73-2007 design standards are 0.5% for lined side ditches, and 1.0% for unlined side ditches.

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6.2.7.3 Vertical Curves

As per IRC:SP 73-2007 design standards, the minimum lengths of vertical curves are 60 m and 50 m for design speeds of 100 km/h and 80 km/h respectivelyThe length of a vertical curve is calculated using the following equation:

L = K x A,

Where L = Length of vertical curve in metres; K = Coefficient, a measure of the flatness of a vertical curve; and A = Algebraic difference of grade lines (%)

Summit or Crest Curves

According to AASHTO (2001) design guidelines, the minimum K values for stopping sight distance requirements are 52, 26 and 7 for design speeds of 100 km/hr, 80 km/h and 50 km/hr respectively.

According to TAC (1999) design guidelines, the minimum K valves for stopping sight distance requirements are 45 to 80, 24 to 36 and 6 to 16 for design speeds of 100 km/hr, 80 km/hr and 50 km/hr respectively.

As per IRC-SP-23-1993 design Guidelines the Consultant propose minimum summit curve K values of 75, 45, and 25 for design speeds of 100 km/hr, 80 km/hr, 65 km/hr respectively.

Valley or Sag Curves

The minimum K values for valley or sag curves, in accordance with AASHTO (2001) design guidelines are 45, 30 and 13 for design speeds of 100 km/hr, 80 km/hr and 50 km/hr respectively. The minimum K values for valley or sag curves, in accordance with TAC (1999) design guidelines are 37 to 50, 25 to 32 and 7 to 16 for design speeds of 100 km/hr, 80 km/hr, 50 km/hr and 40 km/hr respectively.

As per IRC-SP-23-1993 design Guidelines the Consultant propose minimum valley curve K values of 42, 26 and 15 for design speeds of 100 km/hr, 80 km/hr, 65 km/hr respectively.

6.3 Bridges and Cross Drainage Structures

6.3.1 General

The bridge having total length more than 60 m is termed as major bridge and bridge length between 6 m to 60 m as minor bridge. The culvert is the structure having length less than 6 m between inner faces of dirt wall or extreme vent way boundaries measured at right angles thereto.

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6.3.2 Design Standards

6.3.2.1 Bridges and Culvert

For major and minor bridges the minimum overall width between the outermost faces of the bridge shall be equal to 12m comprising of 11m carriageway kerb and 0.5m crash barrier on each side. Width of culverts is the same as the full formation width of roadway.

6.3.2.2 Pipe Culvert

The existing pipe culverts that are hydraulically adequate and functional will be widened to full formation width. Pipe culverts having less than 0.90 m dia pipe will be replaced. Based on proposed finish levels if pipe culverts do not have adequate cushion, they shall be encased all round in M15 grade cement concrete with 200 mm thick slab and in M20 grade cement concrete over top of the pipe.

6.3.2.3 Various Codes and Publication to be adopted

The bridges shall be designed as per various IRC codes and special publications wherever required. For conditional cases, if IRC code does not specify anything then relevant BIS code will be followed. The following IRC codes shall be adopted for bridge design.

IRC: 5-1998 General features of design IRC: 6-2000 Loads and Stresses IRC: 18-2000 Design criteria for PSC Road Bridges IRC: 21-2000 Cement concrete plain and reinforced IRC: 22-1986 Composite Construction IRC: 40-2000 Brick, stone and block masonry IRC: 45-1972 Design of well foundation of bridges IRC: 54-1974 Lateral and Vertical clearances at underpasses IRC: 78-2000 Foundation and substructure IRC: 83-1999 (Part I) Metallic Bearings IRC: 83-1987 (Part II) Elastomeric Bearings IRC: 83-2002 (Part III) POT PTFE Bearings IRC: 89-1997 Guidelines for river training and control works IRC: SP: 13:2004 Guidelines for the design of small bridges and culverts IS 2911-1979 code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations

6.3.2.4 Design Live Load

The two-lane carriageway shall be designed for IRC Class A two-lane load or IRC 70 R single lane whichever produces severe effects.

6.3.2.5 Vertical Load

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

The various components of bridge will be designed for self weight of structure as well as live load with buoyancy effect through pore pressure as well as uplift at base of foundation with appropriate factors depending upon the founding strata.

6.3.2.6 Longitudinal Forces

The bridge will be designed for longitudinal forces on account of tractive and braking action, wind force, seismic force as well as forces due to longitudinal movement of superstructure generated due to creep, shrinkage or temperature. All longitudinal forces will be considered as stipulated in various IRC codes.

6.3.2.7 Seismic Zone

The project road is located in a seismic zone II. It is proposed to design the bridges for seismic forces as mentioned in modified clause 222 of IRC: 6-2000.

6.3.2.8 Condition of Exposure

Since the project road is away from marine environment, a moderate condition of exposure will be adopted.

6.3.2.9 Grade of Concrete

The following minimum grade of concrete will be adopted for major and minor bridges as well as ROB, Flyover and Underpass. Sr. Type of Concreting Major Bridge/ Minor Bridge and No. Culverts 1 Plain Cement Concrete (PCC) M-20 M-20 2 Reinforced Cement Concrete M-30 M-30 (RCC)

6.4 Miscellaneous

6.4.1 Road Signs

Road signs are proposed to be placed according to IRC: 67:2012. The signs are to be placed on embankment such that extreme edge of sign would be 2.0m away from the edge of the carriageway. The location of each sign is to be decided in accordance with the guidelines therein.

The sheeting shall be provided of Super High Intensity Micro Prismatic sheets Type IX as per ASTM D 4956 for all types of road sign boards as well as Over Head Signs.

6.4.2 Road Markings

Public Works ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report- Department R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Road markings will be made for centre and edge lines using reflective thermoplastic paints. Appropriate road markings will also be provided at junctions and crossings.

6.4.3 Traffic Barriers

Traffic barriers are protective devices that are placed between traffic and a potential hazard off the roadway, with the intention of reducing the severity of a collision when an errant vehicle leaves the travelled portion of the roadway. Barriers are to be provided at high embankments, sharp curves and bridge approaches. The barrier is to be located in unpaved shoulders. 6.4.4 River Training work

River training works will be provided in accordance with IRC 89-1997 and designed as per forces and loads stipulated for respective components as per the site specific requirements.

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Chapter-7: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS

1. Introduction As evident from the above, the first step towards formulating Improvements Options is to collect information on the project road primarily from engineering surveys and secondarily from various agencies concerned. Towards this end detailed information on the past and present traffic, availability of land, condition of CD structures, potential sources of construction material, environmentally sensitive areas and social hot spots has been collected. Also collected is information pertaining to existing settlements.

2. Improvement Proposals Improvement proposals apropos functional components manifested in appropriate horizontal and vertical alignments, sight distance availability, lateral and vertical clearances, intersection treatment etc. Aim at improved design speed, road safety and also cover facilities such as proper intersection treatments, bus shelters, toll plazas etc. Improvement proposals apropos structural components on the other hand calls for detailed evaluation of widening options, concentric or eccentric widening of the existing road as dictated by the sight situations like available ROW, existing utilities, terrain, etc., and also existing structural conditions, both for pavement and CD structures.

As evident from the above, the first step towards formulating Improvements Options is to collect information on the project road primarily from engineering surveys and secondarily from various agencies concerned. Towards this end detailed information on the past and present traffic, availability of land, condition of CD structures, potential sources of construction material, environmentally sensitive areas and social hot spots has been collected. Also collected are information pertaining to existing settlements, present configuration of intersections, importance of discrete cross roads, utility lines, locations of bus stops, truck parking etc.

Subsequent to a close observation of all these parameters, frequent site-visits have been undertaken to formulate improvement options that suit requirements of the project.

Detailed Traffic Survey has been conducted on the project road for 7 days at 3 locations. As per the traffic analysis, total AADT in PCU as on date ranges from 1433 to 3228 PCU. Since the present day PCU is less than 7500 PCU, the project road is proposed for development to 2 lane with hard shoulder configuration as per Acceptance No. F.7 (65)/PPP/SHA/2014-15 Package 25/D-396 Dt. 08.01.2015.

Accordingly, Development to 2 Lane with Hard shoulder option is planned for the development of project road.

Page 1 of 1

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Typical Cross Sections

Page 2 of 2

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Page 3 of 3

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Page 4 of 4

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Page 5 of 5

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Page 6 of 6

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Page 7 of 7

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3. Status of Environmental Clearance: The project road does not require any environmental clearance as per the amendment of EIA notification dated August 2013.

4. Widening Scheme as per Standard: Table 6.1 Two lane undivided carriageway in plain/rolling area without paved shoulders (Concentric/Eccentric Widening in Open Area) Carriageway = 3.50 m Either side

Hard Shoulder = 2.50 m Either side

Total Carriageway = 7.00 m 3.50m wide on Either Side

Proposed ROW = 30.00 m Proposed for new alignment/Bypass

Table 6.2: Two lane undivided carriageway in plain/rolling area with Paved Shoulders & Drains (Concentric/Eccentric Widening with CC Pavement in Built up Area) Carriageway = 3.50 m Either side

Paved Shoulder = 1.50 m Either side

Total Carriageway = 10.00 m 5.00m wide on Either Side

Proposed ROW = 30.00 m Proposed for new alignment/Bypass

5. Horizontal Alignment Design Design of the horizontal alignment has been carried out using highway design software as per widening scheme finalized. Extensive field checks to verify the feasibility of the proposed alignment have been carried out and suitable modifications to the alignment have been done wherever considered essential to safeguard sensitive elements.

6. Homogeneous Section Based on TOR and existing road condition observed at site, the project road has been classified in 2 homogeneous sections as shown below:

Page 8 of 8

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table 6.3 Adopted Survey Final AADT Existing Road Road Condition Homogenous Location Section (Vehicles/PCU) Width (m) HS-1: 1+800 2679/3292 7.0 Fair to Poor 6.0 Length= 16.204 km 12+900 1882/2263 7.0 Fair to Poor

HS-2: 37+000 2473/2719 7.0/5.5/3.75 Fair to Poor Length= 37.040 km 58+800 2567/2918 Fair to Poor

HS-3: 71+600 1310/1357 7.0/5.5/3.75/3.0 Fair to Poor Length= 110.818 km 107+600 3556/2915 Fair to Poor

7. Widening Scheme Based On Homogenous Section Based on the homogenous section adopted for project road, the overall widening scheme for the project is as given below in table.

Table 6.4 Widening Schedule Design Design Design Total Proposed S.NO. Discription in (Km) in (Km) in (Km) Length TCS Type HS-I HS-II HS-III 1 Reconstruction Due to BC soil 15254 2900 23918 42072 2 Reconstruction Due to Submergence 400 400 TCS-I 3 Bypass / New Construction 6150 6150 4 Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 5550 5550 TCS-II 5 Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 650 650 TCS-III 6 Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 17950 17950 TCS-IV 7 Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 1400 1400 TCS-V 8 OVERLAY 7390 7390 TCS-VI 9 CC Widening 5.5-10m 950 1100 700 2750 TCS-VII 10 CC Widening 3-10m 200 200 TCS-VIII 11 CC Repair 10m 3000 3000 TCS-IX 12 CC Repair 14m 2700 2700 X 16204 37040 36968 90212

Table 6.5 Type TCS Start End Total S.No. TCS Development Proposal Chainage Chainage length HS-1

1 0 14600 14600 TCS-I Reconstruction Due to BC soil

Page 9 of 9

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

2 14600 15200 600 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 3 15200 15700 500 TCS-I Reconstruction Due to BC soil 4 15700 16050 350 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 5 16050 16204 154 TCS-I Reconstruction Due to BC soil 16204 HS-2 6 36810 38000 1190 TCS-VI OVERLAY 7 38000 40900 2900 TCS-I Reconstruction Due to BC soil 8 40900 41600 700 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 9 41600 44200 2600 TCS-VI OVERLAY Reconstruction Due to 10 44200 44400 200 TCS-I Submergence 11 44400 48000 3600 TCS-VI OVERLAY 12 48000 48550 550 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 13 48550 48750 200 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 14 48750 54700 5950 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 15 54700 54800 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 16 54800 55650 850 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 17 55650 55750 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 18 55750 55950 200 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 19 55950 56050 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 20 56050 58400 2350 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 21 58400 58550 150 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair Reconstruction Due to 22 58550 58750 200 TCS-I Submergence 23 58750 62350 3600 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 24 62350 62450 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 25 62450 62600 150 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 26 62600 62700 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 27 62700 62800 100 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 28 62800 62900 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 29 62900 63100 200 TCS-VIII CC Widening 3-10m 30 63100 63350 250 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 31 63350 63650 300 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 32 63650 63750 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 33 63750 64550 800 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 34 64550 64650 100 TCS-V Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 35 64650 67750 3100 TCS-IV Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 36 67750 68150 400 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 37 68150 71150 3000 TCS-IX CC Repair 10m 38 71150 73850 2700 X CC Repair 14m 37040 HS-3 39 73850 74550 700 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7)

Page 10 of 10

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

40 74550 74650 100 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 41 74650 75200 550 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 42 75200 75300 100 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 43 75300 76350 1050 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 44 76350 76500 150 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 45 76500 79750 3250 TCS-II Concentric Widening Poor (3-7) 46 79750 80050 300 TCS-III Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) New Construction , Earthen Roads 47 80050 83500 3450 (3-7) 48 83500 84850 1350 TCS-I Bypass / New Construction 49 84850 94850 10000 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 50 94850 95250 400 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 51 95250 96500 1250 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 52 96500 97850 1350 TCS-I Bypass / New Construction 53 97850 108750 10900 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 54 108750 109050 300 TCS-VII CC Widening 5.5-10m 55 109050 110818 1768 TCS-I Reconstruction due to BC Soil 36968

8. Bypass / Realignment / Geometric Improvement The alignment of existing road is improved to meet the required minimum design speed as given in Manual i.e., 80 Kmph in open / rural areas.

9. Classification of Project Stretches: The project is classified into following stretches as per terrain classification.

Table 6.6 Sr. No. From To Terrain Classification

1 0+000 52+200 Plain

2 52+200 57+000 Hilly

3 57+000 58+000 Plain

4 58+000 64+000 Hilly

5 64+000 74+400 Plain

6 74+400 81+000 Hilly

7 81+000 111+170 Plain 10. Sections requiring raising due to presence of expansive soil & submergence Table 6.7 Sr. Existing Ch. Ex. Length (Km.) No. From To 1 0 4000 4.0 2 9000 9200 0.2

Page 11 of 11

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3 17400 18600 1.2 4. 28000 41000 13.0 Total 18.4

11. Horizontal Curve deficiency List of Horizontal Curves having radius less than desirable minimum radius of 360m Table 6.8 Speed S.No. Curve Start ChainageCurve End Chainage Radius (m) (Kmph) 1 0+900 0+100 180 30 2 1+550 1+750 180 30 3 4+250 4+400 65 15 4 5+300 5+500 80 15 5 6+750 7+050 120 25 6 7+600 7+900 120 25 7 9+850 10+000 120 25 8 10+150 10+350 180 25 9 10+900 11+100 180 25 10 11+450 11+600 180 25 11 12+900 13+150 80 15 12 13+700 13+900 180 25 13 14+650 14+850 20 15 14 15+050 15+200 320 50 15 15+900 16+050 200 25 16 37+450 37+550 400 65 17 39+550 39+650 400 65 18 40+950 41+050 180 30 19 41+800 42+000 175 25 20 43+700 43+800 200 30 21 51+950 52+100 75 15 22 52+200 52+350 180 30 23 52+800 52+900 175 30 24 54+750 54+850 100 20 25 54+900 55+050 75 20 26 55+200 55+350 120 30 27 55+800 55+900 200 25 28 56+950 57+050 150 30 29 57+650 57+750 150 30 30 58+400 58+550 20 10 31 59+050 59+150 80 15 32 62+000 62+100 50 15 33 62+200 62+300 60 15 34 63+200 63+450 25 15 35 63+900 64+000 100 25 36 67+800 67+950 90 25 37 69+250 69+350 20 10 38 70+200 70+350 100 20 39 73+900 74+000 25 15 40 74+400 74+500 50 15 41 74+600 74+750 25 15

Page 12 of 12

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

42 74+850 75+000 50 15 43 75+300 75+400 200 25 44 75+550 75+650 50 15 45 75+850 75+950 25 10 46 75+850 80+000 30 10 47 80+050 80+350 35 15 48 80+700 80+850 75 20 49 84+900 85+100 45 15 50 90+900 91+000 45 15 51 91+350 91+450 50 15 52 91+750 91+950 45 15 53 92+250 92+400 50 15 54 93+550 93+650 40 15 55 94+800 94+900 75 20 56 101+700 101+800 30 10 57 102+600 102+750 90 10 58 103+350 103+450 45 15 59 106+900 107+050 300 20

12. Proposed Horizontal Alignment: The Project road is an existing bitumen road and has a well-defined formation. The improvements include flattening the sharp horizontal curves conforming to the minimum design of 80 kmph for plain/rolling terrain.

The improvement proposal of the project road has been designed in such a manner so as to utilize the existing road and cross drainage structures to its maximum and have minimum acquisition of structures & land to avoid resettlement impacts and shifting of utilities.

13. GPS, TBM & Traverse details: The fixing of GPS, TBM & Traversing detailing on the Project Road is under process. We will furnish the detail information in later stage.

14. Junction Design At-grade intersections, unless properly designed, can be accident-prone and can reduce the overall capacity of the road. The basic requirements for the design of intersections are not only to cater to safe movements for drivers, but also to provide them complete traffic- related information by way of signs, pavement markings and traffic signals. Simplicity and uniformity should be the guiding principles for intersection design. Based upon these principles the at-grade intersections have been categorized as:

1) Minor:

2) Channelized with or without acceleration and deceleration lanes;

3) Staggered;

4) Signalized intersections; and

Page 13 of 13

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

There are a number of intersections along the project corridor with various categories of roads.

15. Major Junctions: List of Major Junctions along the project corridor is presented in the table below: Table 6.9: List of Major Junctions

Sr. Existing Type of Category of Road Remarks No. Chainage Junction

1 0+000 NH-(Chhitorgarh-Shivpuri) T-Type Major Junction 2 0+200 MDR to Begun T-Type Major Junction 3 66+200 To Kota Sh-33 X-Type Major Junction 16. Minor Junctions: There are a number of intersections along the project corridor with various categories of roads. There is approx. 23 Nos. of minor junction in our project road. Details are given below. Table 6.10: List of Minor Junctions Destinations of Cross Located Road or railway Type of Type of Road Width of S.No Location Relative to Remarks (NH/SH/MDR/PMGSY/ Junction (CC/BT/ Earthen)Road(m) Centreline ODR/VR) 1 3+350 VR to Begun Y-Type RHS BT 3.75 2 5+450 VR to Thukrai T-Type LHS BT 3.75 3 5+680 VR to Awlaheda T-Type RHS BT 3.75 4 6+520 VR to Shadi T-Type LHS BT 3.75 1. VR to Upenkala Four 5 9+650 LHS BT 3.75 2.VR to Rayti Legged 6 11+750 VR to Joganiyamata T-Type RHS BT 3.75 7 38+150 VR to Gopalpur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 8 40+000 VR to laxmipur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 9 42+900 VR to Dhamnagar KhurdT- Type RHS BT 3.75 10 43+000 VR to Sukhpura T-Type LHS BT 3.75 11 51+100 VR to Bhurjar T-Type LHS CC 3.00 12 58+900 CMGSY to Gawlipura T-Type RHS BT 3.75 13 60+900 VR to Bhaisrogarh Y-Type RHS BT 3.75 14 61+600 VR to Jagpura T-Type LHS BT 3.75 15 63+850 VR to Sakhloka Dhuda T-Type RHS BT 3.75 16 65+850 VR to Dam T-Type RHS BT 3.75 17 71+900 To Plant T-Type RHS BT 4.00 18 86+900 VR to Rainkheda T-Type RHS BT 3.75 19 88+600 VR to Keetda T-Type LHS BT 3.75

Page 14 of 14

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

20 92+150 VR to Ladpur T-Type LHS BT 3.75 VR to Khedarda LHS BT 3.75 21 98+500 X-type VR to Alod RHS BT 3.75 22 104+950 VR to Bundi T-Type LHS BT 3.75 23 107+400 VR to Quary T-Type LHS BT 3.75

17. Bus Shelter: As per authority 2 bus Shelters in each village having population more than 1000 will be provided. Hence total Nos. 20 bus shelter provided along the Project Corridor.

18. General Condition of Bridges: There is 01 new proposed Major Bridge on existing VCW. There are 26 minor bridges on the project road. The superstructure of bridges consists of Cast-in-situ RCC solid slab or stone masonry arch supported on CRM substructure resting on open foundation.

The condition of Major & Minor Bridges are described below:-

Page 15 of 15

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.17.1 Major Bridge at Existing km 64+250 (Design Km 63+820) The existing bridge has 13 spans (13x27m) with a total length of 351 m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.8m and total deck width is 7.6m. The structural system of superstructure is RCC Slab while the structural system of substructure is RCC pier and stone masonry abutment with open foundation. The condition of bridge is as follows: 1. Condition of slab is good. 2. Sufficient width is available.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73-2007.

Major Bridge at Km 63+200 Bridge is not submersible

Sufficient width is available Slab condition is good Figure 3.9: Major Bridge at km 64+250

Page 16 of 16

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.2 Minor Bridge at Existing km 11+000 (Design Km 10+850) The existing bridge has 3 spans (3x6.9m) with a total length of 20.70m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.2m and total deck width is 8.2m. The structural system of superstructure is RCC Slab while the structural system of substructure is RCC pier and stone masonry abutment with open foundation. The condition of bridge is as follows: 1. Condition of slab is poor. At edges and bottom spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement.

2. There is no parapet. 3. It is reconstructed by RCC slab. 4. Insufficient width of bridge. The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 2x10m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73-2007.

Minor Bridge at Km 11+000 Slab reinforcement exposed

Kerbs instead Parapet Insufficient width available Figure 3.9: Minor Bridge at km 11+000

Page 17 of 17

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.3 Minor Bridge at Existing km 14+945 (Design Ch. 14+650)

The existing bridge has 4 spans (4x2.6m) with a total length of 10.4m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.2m and total deck width is 7.0m. The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over Stone Masonry and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: 1. Condition of slab is good. 2. Insufficient width of bridge. 3. Kerbs in good condition.

The bridge is recommended to be widened at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at Km 14+945 Kerbs in good condition

Insufficient width available Slab condition is good Figure 3.10: Minor Bridge at km 14+945

Page 18 of 18

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.4 Minor Bridge at Existing km 16+035 (Design Ch. 15+745) The existing bridge has 4 spans (4x3m) with a total length of 12.0 m. The carriageway width of bridge is 5.5m and total deck width is 6.5m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: a. Condition of slab is poor. At edges, spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement. b. No parapet walls are provided on either side of bridge. c. Insufficient width available for bridge. d. The slab is to be reconstructed.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 2x6m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 16+035 Insufficient width available

No Parapet & Reinforcement Exposed Figure 3.11: Minor Bridge at km 16+035

Page 19 of 19

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.5 Minor Bridge at Existing km 39+270 (Design km. 38+980)

The existing bridge has 2 spans (2x3.2 & 2ROW900) with a total length of 6.4m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.5m and total deck width is 7.5m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation.

The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is poor. At edges, spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement. ii. Kerbs instead Parapet. iii. Insufficient width available for Bridge.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 2x6m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 39+270 Insufficient width available

Slab condition poor Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 39+270

Page 20 of 20

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.6 Minor Bridge at Existing km 39+555 (Design km. 39+280)

The existing bridge has 3 spans (3x2.6) with a total length of 7.8m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.8m and total deck width is 7.6m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation.

The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is poor. At edges, spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement. ii. Kerbs instead Parapet. iii. Insufficient width available for Bridge. iv. Scouring of Foundation.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 1x8m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73-2007.

Minor Bridge at km 39+555 Reinforcement exposed

Kerbs instead Parapet Scouring of Foundation Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 39+555

Page 21 of 21

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.7 Minor Bridge at Existing km 41+820 (Design km. 41+540)

The existing bridge has 3 spans (3x2.6) with a total length of 7.8m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.6m and total deck width is 7.6m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation.

The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is good. ii. Kerbs in good condition. iii. Insufficient width available for Bridge.

The bridge is recommended to be widened at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at 41+820 Insufficient width available

Slab in good condition Kerb stone in good condition

Page 22 of 22

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 41+820 3.9.8 Minor Bridge at Existing km 41+830 (Design km. 41+935)

The existing bridge has 4 spans (4x3) with a total length of 12m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.0m and total deck width is 7.6m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation.

The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is good. ii. Kerb stones are in good condition. iii. Insufficient width available for Bridge.

The bridge is recommended to be widened at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 41+830 Slab in good condition

Insufficient width available Kerb stone in good condition Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 41+830

Page 23 of 23

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.9 Minor Bridge at Existing km 41+960 (Design km. 41+680)

The existing bridge has 2 spans (2x3) with a total length of 6m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.5m and total deck width is 8.5m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation.

The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is good. ii. Parapet is in good condition. iii. Sufficient width available for Bridge.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at 41+960 Slab in good condition

Sufficient width available Parapet in good condition Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 41+960

Page 24 of 24

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.10 Minor Bridge at Existing km 45+660 (Design km. 45+315)

The existing bridge has 4 spans (4x4.3) with a total length of 17.2m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.5m and total deck width is 8.5m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is poor. At edges, spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement. ii. Parapet damaged. iii. Insufficient width available for Bridge.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 3x6m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 45+660 Reinforcement exposed

Insufficient width available Parapet Damaged Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 45+660

Page 25 of 25

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.11 Minor Bridge at Existing km 49+370 (Design km. 49+065)

The existing bridge has 3 spans (3x5.7) with a total length of 17.1m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.4m and total deck width is 8.3m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is poor. At edges, spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement.

ii. Kerb stones instead Parapet.

iii. Insufficient width available for Bridge.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 2x8m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73-2007.

Minor Bridge at km 49+370 Reinforcement exposed

Insufficient width available Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 49+370

Page 26 of 26

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.12 Minor Bridge at Existing km 49+500 (Design km. 49+190)

The existing bridge has 2 spans (2x3) with a total length of 6m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.5m and total deck width is 8.4m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is good.

ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge.

iii. Slab condition is good.

iv.Parapet in good condition.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 49+500 Slab condition is good

Sufficient width available Parapet in good condition

Page 27 of 27

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 49+500

3.9.13 Minor Bridge at Existing km 50+810 (Design km. 50+500...... )

The existing bridge has 4 spans (4x3.8) with a total length of 15.2m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.2m and total deck width is 8.2m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Condition of slab is good.

ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge.

iii. Kerb stones in good condition.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 50+810 Slab in good condition

Kerb in good condition Sufficient width available

Page 28 of 28

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 50+810

3.9.14 Minor Bridge at Existing km 52+150 (Design km. 51+850)

The existing bridge has 6 spans (6x4) with a total length of 24m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.4m and total deck width is 8.2m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Condition of slab is good. ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge. iii. Kerbs stones in good condition.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 52+150 Slab in good condition

Kerbs in good condition Sufficient width available

Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 52+150

Page 29 of 29

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.15 Minor Bridge at Existing km 54+870 (Design km. 54+555)

The existing bridge has 2 spans (2x5) with a total length of 10m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.5m and total deck width is 8.4m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over RCC piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Condition of slab is good. ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge. iii. No scouring foundation. iv. Parapet is in good condition.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 54+870 Sufficient width available

Parapet is good Foundation is good Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 54+870

Page 30 of 30

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.16 Minor Bridge at Existing km 55+270 (Design km. 55+960)

The existing bridge has 2 spans (2x3.8) with a total length of 7.6m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.2m and total deck width is 8.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Condition of slab is poor. At edges, spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement. ii. Insufficient width available for Bridge. iii. Scouring of foundation. iv. Parapet is damaged.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 1x10.4m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73-2007.

Minor Bridge at km 55+270 Scouring of foundation

Parapet is damaged & Insufficient width available

Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 55+270

Page 31 of 31

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.17 Minor Bridge at Existing km 59+450 (Design km. 59+080)

The existing bridge has 2 spans (2x3) with a total length of 6m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.5m and total deck width is 8.4m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Slab is in good condition. ii. Sufficient width available. iii. Parapet in good condition.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at 59+450 Slab in good condition

Parapet in good condition Sufficient width available Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 59+450

Page 32 of 32

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.18 Minor Bridge at Existing km 60+930 (Design km. 60+560)

The existing bridge has 8 spans (8x4.5) with a total length of 36m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.2m and total deck width is 7.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Condition of slab is poor. At edges, spalling of concrete is observed leading to exposure of reinforcement. ii. Insufficient width available for Bridge. iii. Scouring of foundation. iv. Kerb instead parapet.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 4x10.4m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 60+930 Reinforcement is exposed

Scouring of foundation Kerb instead of foundation

Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 60+930

Page 33 of 33

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.17.2 Minor Bridge at Existing km 68+500 (Design Km 68+085) The existing VCW has 11 spans (11x1.8m) with a total length of 350 m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.2m and total deck width is 7.0m. The structural system of superstructure is RCC Slab while the structural system of substructure is RCC pier and stone masonry abutment with open foundation. The condition of bridge is as follows: i. Condition of slab is good. ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge.

Minor Bridge at km 68+500 Slab in good condition

Sufficient width available Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 68+500

Page 34 of 34

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.19 Minor Bridge at Existing km 69+420 (Design km. 69+020)

The existing bridge has 5 spans (5x1.5) with a total length of 7.5m. The carriageway width of bridge is 8.2m and total deck width is 9.0m.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 69+420 Parapet is in good condition

Foundation is good Sufficient width available Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 69+420

Page 35 of 35

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.20 Minor Bridge at Existing km 73+000 (Design km. 72+580)

The existing bridge has 5 boxes (2x2) with a total length of 10.0m. The carriageway width of bridge is 16m and total deck width is 17.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over RCC piers and stone masonry abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Condition of slab is very good. ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge. iii. New foundation. iv. Parapet is good.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 73+000 Sufficient width available

Slab and parapet are good Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 73+000

Page 36 of 36

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.21 Minor Bridge at Existing km 73+365 (Design km. 72+950)

The existing bridge has 5 boxes (2x1) with a total length of 10.0m. The carriageway width of bridge is 16m and total deck width is 17.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over RCC piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Condition of slab is very good. ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge. iii. New foundation. iv. Parapet is good.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 73+365 Slab and foundation are good

Sufficient width available Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 73+365

Page 37 of 37

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.22 Minor Bridge at Existing km 93+000 (Design km. 92+440)

The existing bridge has 8 spans (8x4) with a total length of 32.0m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.2m and total deck width is 8.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over RCC piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Slab is in very good condition. ii. Sufficient width available for Bridge. iii. Kerb in good condition

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 93+000 Kerb in good condition

Sufficient width available Slab in good condition Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 93+000

Page 38 of 38

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.23 Minor Bridge at Existing km 94+325 (Design km. 93+765)

The existing bridge has 4 spans (4x4) with a total length of 16.0m. The carriageway width of bridge is 6.8m and total deck width is 7.5m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over RCC piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Slab in good condition. ii. Insufficient width available for Bridge. iii. Kerb instead Parapet.

The bridge is recommended to be widened at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 94+325 Insufficient width available

Slab in good condition Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 94+325

Page 39 of 39

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.24 Minor Bridge at Existing km 96+700 (Design km. 96+130)

The existing bridge has 1 span (1x6 &3 Row 900) with a total length of 9.0m. The carriageway width of bridge is 9.2m and total deck width is 10.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: i. Submersible bridge. ii. Insufficient width available for Bridge. iii. No Parapet.

The bridge is recommended to be reconstructed by 2x6m span at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC-SP73-2007.

Minor Bridge at km 96+700 No Parapet

Submersible Bridge Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 96+700

Page 40 of 40

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.25 Minor Bridge at Existing km 98+325 (Design km. 97+650)

The existing bridge has 1 span (1x6 &6 Row 900) with a total length of 13.0m. The carriageway width of bridge is 9.2m and total deck width is 10.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows:

i. Insufficient width available for Bridge. ii. Slab in good condition.

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 98+325 Sufficient width available

Slab in good condition Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 98+325

Page 41 of 41

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

3.9.26 Minor Bridge at Existing km 107+400 (Design km. 106+650)

The existing bridge has 5 spans (5x7.5) with a total length of 35.0m. The carriageway width of bridge is 7.2m and total deck width is 8.0m.

The structural system of superstructure is RCC slab rested over stone masonry piers and abutments over open foundation. The condition of the bridge is as follows: 1. Sufficient width available for Bridge. 2. Parapet is in good condition

The bridge is recommended to be retained at this location as per clause 7.3.2 of IRC- SP73- 2007.

Minor Bridge at km 107+400 Sufficient width available

Slab in good condition Figure 3.12: Minor Bridge at km 107+400

Page 42 of 42

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

19. Improvement proposal for Bridges I. Existing bridges to be re-constructed

1. The existing bridges at the following location shall be re-constructed as new Structures:- (a) Major Bridges – 0 Nos. Existing Proposed Structure Structural/ Span Width of Existing Design Structure Width of S.No. Hydraulic bridge Chainage Chainage Span Type Condition (m) Type Bridge (m) (m) NIL

(b) Minor Bridges – 09 nos. Existing Proposed Structure Structural/ Span Width Existing Design S.No. Type Hydraulic (m) of Structure Width of Chainage Chainage Span Condition bridge Type Bridge (m) (m) 1 9+000 11+090 Slab Poor 3x6.9m 8.2 3x8 1) RCC Solid12.00 2 14+035 16+015 Slab Poor 4x3m 6.5 2x6 Slab 12.00 2x3.2m & 3 37+270 39+250 Pipe & SlabPoor 7.5 2x6 12.00 2ROW900 2) RCC wall 4 37+555 39+550 Slab Poor 3x2.6m 7.6 1x8 12.00 5 43+660 45+640 Slab Poor 4x4.3m 8.5 3x6m type pier 12.00 6 47+370 49+350 Slab Poor 3x5.7 8.3 3x6m 12.00 7 53+270 55+245 Slab Poor 2x3.8m 8.0 1x10 3) RCC Box 12.00 type 8 58+930 60+880 Slab Poor 8x4.5m 7.0 4x10 12.00 abutment Slab & Poor 1x6m & 3ROW 12.00 9 94+700 96+475 10.0 2x6m HPC 900

Existing bridges to be Widening 2. The existing bridges at the following location shall be Widen:- (a) Major Bridges – Nil.

Existing Proposed Existing Design Structure Structural/ Span Width of S.No. Structure Width of Chainage Chainage Type Hydraulic (m) bridge Span Type Bridge (m) Condition (m) NIL

(b) Minor Bridges – 05 nos. Existing Proposed Existing Design Structure Structural/ Span Width of S.No. Structure Width of Chainage Chainage Type Hydraulic (m) bridge (m) Span Type Bridge (m) Condition 1 12+945 14+920 Slab Fair 4x2.6m 7.0 4x2.6m Slab 12.00 2 39+820 41+800 Slab Fair 3x2.6m 7.6 3x2.6m Slab 12.00 3 39+830 41+825 Slab Fair 4x3m 7.6 4x3m Slab 12.00 4 91+000 92+775 Slab Fair 8x4m 8.0 4x8m Slab 12.00

Page 43 of 43

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

5 92+325 94+110 Slab Fair 4x4m 7.5 4x4m Slab 12.00

Existing bridges to be Retain & Repair 3. The existing bridges at the following location shall be Retain & Repair:- (a) Major Bridges –1 Nos.

Existing Proposed Structure Span Width of Existing Design Structural/ Structure Width of S.No. Hydraulic bridge Chainage Chainage Span Type Condition (m) (m) Type Bridge (m) T-Beam T-Beam 1 62+250 64+190 Fair 13x27m 7.5 13x27m 7.5 Gridrer Gridrer

(b) Minor Bridges – 10 nos. Existing Proposed S. Existing Design Structure Structural/ Span Width of Width of Structure No. Chainage Chainage Type Hydraulic (m) bridge (m) Span Bridge Type Condition (m) 1 39+960 41+950 Slab Fair 2x3m 8.5 2x3m Slab 8.5 2 47+500 49+475 Slab Fair 2x3m 8.4 2x3m Slab 8.4 3 48+810 50+785 Slab Fair 4x3.8m 8.4 4x3.8m Slab 8.4 4 50+150 52+130 Slab Fair 6x4m 8.4 6x4m Slab 8.4 5 52+870 54+840 Slab Fair 2x5m 8.4 2x5m Slab 8.4 6 57+450 59+405 Slab Fair 2x3m 8.4 2x3m Slab 8.4 7 66+500 68+430 Slab Fair 11x1.8m 7.0 11x1.8m Slab 7.0 8 67+420 69+355 Slab Fair 5x1.5m 9.0 5x1.5m Slab 9.0 Slab & 1x6m & 6 1x6m & 6 Slab & 9 96+325 98+000 Fair 10.0 10.0 HPC ROW900 ROW 900 HPC 10 105+400 107+050 Slab Fair 5x7.5m 8.4 5x7.5m Slab 8.4

Table 6.14: Proposal summary for Bridges

S.No. Proposal Number of Bridges 1 Re-construction 09 2 Widening 05 2 Retain & Repair 11

20. Improvement Proposal of Culverts I. General Condition of Culverts

As per the observations made at site for the project stretch, there are two types of culverts found. (i) Slab Culverts (RCC slabs and Stone slabs), (ii) Pipe Culverts. The structural condition of most of the RCC slab culverts, Pipe culverts is generally poor such as in spalled concrete, damaged / missing parapet wall, exposed reinforcement in slab, debris & vegetation in waterway etc. A summary of all the types of culverts found at site.

Page 44 of 44

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

II. Reconstruction of existing culverts:

The existing culverts at the following locations shall be re-constructed as new culverts: (a) Hume Pipe Culverts – 57 nos.

Existing Proposed Existing Design Existing Span S.No Structure Width Span/Dia. Of Chainage Chainage Arrangement Structure Type (m) Pipe (m) (m) 1 9+800 11+785 HPC 12.00 1x1200 2 11+250 13+235 1x1.2 Slab HPC 12.00 1x1200 3 36+340 38+320 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 4 42+770 44+750 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 5 43+450 45+420 4ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 6 44+350 46+320 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 7 49+100 51+075 1ROW600 Pipe LayedHPC 12.00 1x1200 8 49+600 51+575 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 9 51+690 53+655 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 10 52+000 54+015 1ROW300 Pipe LayedHPC 12.00 1x1200 11 53+810 55+775 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 12 53+885 55+850 4ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 13 54+100 56+060 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 14 54+550 56+510 2ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 15 54+825 56+795 3ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 16 59+200 61+155 2ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 17 62+240 63+175 3ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 18 61+520 63+460 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 19 61+690 63+635 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 20 67+000 68+935 1X1 Slab HPC 12.00 1x1200 21 71+710 73+625 6ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 3x1200 22 71+900 73+825 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 23 76+310 78+225 1X0.8 Slab HPC 12.00 1x1200 24 78+650 80+560 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 25 81+935 83+900 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 26 85+190 86+990 2ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 2X 1200 27 86+020 87+820 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 28 86+860 88+660 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 29 87+115 88+915 1ROW300 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 30 87+240 89+040 3ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 31 88+270 90+070 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 32 88+800 90+600 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 33 88+970 90+760 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 34 89+550 91+335 1ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 35 90+050 91+830 1ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 36 90+480 92+265 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 37 90+575 92+355 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 38 92+570 94+345 2ROw600 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 39 93+050 94+830 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200

Page 45 of 45

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

40 96+930 98+610 1Row900 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 41 97+250 98+915 2ROW600 VCW HPC 12.00 1x1200 42 97+575 99+245 3ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 3x1200 43 97+900 99+570 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 44 98+270 99+935 2ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 45 98+480 100+150 3ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 3x1200 46 99+300 100+965 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 47 99+470 101+150 1ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 48 99+950 101+620 2ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 49 100+100 101+760 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 50 100+660 102+330 2ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 51 100+715 102+380 2ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 52 100+820 102+500 3ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 3x1200 53 101+875 103+535 1ROW600 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 54 103+050 104+710 1ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 1x1200 55 104+590 106+250 2ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 2x1200 56 105+650 107+300 3ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 3x1200 57 108+725 110+370 3ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 3x1200

(b) Slab Culverts – 25 Nos

S.No. Existing Design Existing Proposed Chainage Chainage Existing Span Structure Structure Width Span/Dia. Of ArrangementType (m) Pipe (m) (m) 1 0+990 0+990 1x1.2 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 2 5+645 7+635 2x2.4 Slab Slab 12.00 1x5 3 8+990 10+980 1x1.2 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 4 9+700 11+700 1x1.4 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 5 10+810 12+800 2x1.5 Slab Slab 12.00 1x3 6 12+520 14+505 1x1.2 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 7 41+700 43+670 1x1.8 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 8 42+260 44+240 1x1.8 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 9 47+240 49+210 1x1.4 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 10 48+950 50+915 1no.1x2.3 Box Slab 12.00 1x3 11 49+330 51+300 1x3 Slab Slab 12.00 1x3 12 63+600 65+535 2x1.1 Slab Slab 12.00 1x3 13 66+250 68+165 1x1.5 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 14 68+050 69+975 1x1.3 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 15 72+910 74+830 1x1.2 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 16 72+975 74+900 1x1.2 Slab Slab 12.00 1x2 17 77+960 79+870 1X1000 VCW Slab 12.00 1x2 18 78+075 79+985 1X1000 VCW Slab 12.00 1x2 19 83+600 85+410 1x2.9 Slab Slab 12.00 1x3 20 84+075 85+880 1x2.8 Slab Slab 12.00 1x3 21 84+410 86+215 4X600 VCW Slab 12.00 1x3 22 84+520 86+320 1X600 VCW Slab 12.00 1x3 23 87+885 89+675 4X900 VCW Slab 12.00 1x5

Page 46 of 46

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

24 93+815 95+595 5X900 HPC Slab 12.00 1x5 25 100+780 102+445 3X600 VCW Slab 12.00 1x3

Widening of existing culverts: The existing culverts at the following locations shall be Widen:

(a) Hume Pipe Culverts – 01 nos.

Existing Proposed Existing Design Existing Span S.No. Existing Structure Width Span/Dia. Of Chainage Chainage Arrangement Structure Width Type (m) Pipe (m) (m) 1 100+860 102+525 8ROW1000 7.3 HPC HPC 12.00 8ROW1000

(b) Slab Culverts – 04 nos.

S.No. Existing Design Existing Proposed ChainageChainage Existing Span Existing Structure Structure Width Span/Dia. Of ArrangementWidth Type (m) Pipe (m) (m) 1 0+090 0+090 1x1.3 7.6 Slab Slab 12.00 1x1.3 2 77+250 79+170 2ROW1000 7.5 HPC Slab 12.00 1x2 3 77+590 79+500 2ROW1000 8.0 HPC Slab 12.00 1x2 4 78+450 80+355 1X3 7.0 Slab Slab 12.00 1x3

Retain & Repair of existing culverts: The existing culverts at the following locations shall be Retain & Repair:

(a) Hume Pipe Culverts – 09 nos.

S.No. Existing Design Existing Proposed Chainage Chainage Existing Span Structure Structure Width Span/Dia. Of Arrangement Type (m) Pipe (m) (m) 1 9+520 11+510 3ROW1000 HPC HPC 12.00 3ROW1000 2 10+655 12+645 2ROW1000 HPC HPC 12.00 2ROW1000 3 35+020 37+005 1ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 1ROW900 4 35+880 37+860 1ROW900 HPC HPC 12.00 1ROW900 5 37+030 39+015 1ROW1200 HPC HPC 12.00 1ROW1200 6 46+300 48+270 2ROW1200 HPC HPC 12.00 2ROW1200 7 46+500 48+465 2ROW1000 HPC HPC 12.00 2ROW1000 8 47+680 49+650 1ROW1200 HPC HPC 12.00 1ROW1200 9 90+900 92+685 1X2.8 Slab HPC 12.00 1X2.8

(b) Slab Culverts – 05 nos.

S.No. Existing Design Existing Proposed Chainage Chainage Existing SpanStructure Structure Width Span/Dia. Of

Page 47 of 47

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

ArrangementType (m) Pipe (m) (m) 1 67+850 69+780 1x1.1 Slab Slab 12.9 1x1.1 2 68+125 71+055 1x1.7 Slab Slab 14 1x1.7 3 70+550 72+470 1x1.7 Slab Slab 13.9 1x1.7 4 86+580 88+400 1X5.8 Slab Slab 7.2 1X5.8 5 107+960 109+610 1X1 HPC Slab 12.6 1X1

Hume Pipe Culvert - 17 nos.

Proposed Existing Design S.No. Width Span/Dia. Of Chainage Chainage Structure (m) Pipe (m) 1 6+100 8+090 HPC 12.00 1x1200 2 6+700 8+695 HPC 12.00 1x1200 3 11+650 13+640 HPC 12.00 1x1200 4 13+400 15+380 HPC 12.00 1x1200 5 48+700 50+670 HPC 12.00 1x1200 6 55+950 57+910 HPC 12.00 1x1200 7 56+450 58+410 HPC 12.00 1x1200 8 61+800 63+740 HPC 12.00 1x1200 9 78+750 80+655 HPC 12.00 1x1200 10 79+060 80+960 HPC 12.00 1x1200 11 79+200 81+110 HPC 12.00 1x1200 12 82+500 84+350 HPC 12.00 1x1200 13 82+600 84+475 HPC 12.00 1x1200 14 93+200 94+980 HPC 12.00 1x1200 15 102+730 104+390 HPC 12.00 1x1200 16 104+950 106+610 HPC 12.00 1x1200 17 106+750 108+400 HPC 12.00 1x1200

Table 6.20: Improvement Summary

Improvement Type Pipe Culvert Slab culvert Minor Bridges Major Bridges

Widening 01 04 05 - Retained /Repair 09 05 10 01 Reconstruction 57 25 09 New Construction 17 - - - Abandoned - - - - Total 84 34 24 01

Page 48 of 48

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Chapter-08: SUMMARY OF EIA & SIA

8.1 SUMMARY OF EIA (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESMENT)

Govt. of Rajasthan has announced development of 20000 kms highways during next 5 years. Projects and schemes are being identified for implementation of the announcement. Planning commission, New Delhi was also approached for selected projects to get 20% VGF from GoI. Several rounds of meetings held at Planning Commission for identification of road stretches, working out packages, finalization of various documents and working out timeline etc.

For time bound implementation of PPP projects Govt. of Rajasthan has shown commitment by introducing a first ever comprehensive „Raj. State Highways Bill- 2014‟. The bill has been passed by Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly on 01-08- 2014. Most of the projects were operated under BOT scheme “Public – Private Partnership” scheme and other being developed under EPC, MEGA and regular contract scheme. Several other projects under PMGSY scheme are looked after by STATE PWD, RAJASTHAN for up gradation of State Highways & Major District Roads. The department is also mainly entrusted with construction and maintenance of Roads, Bridges and Government buildings etc. Keeping in view the growing importance of road network in the state is physical, social and economic and environment fabric, PWD Rajasthan with active support of Government of Rajasthan initiated a comprehensive Feasibility Study for the 3444.0 Kms of road network. The road network is divided into 10 Packages, out of them, the one package has been entrusted to M/s Intratech Civil Solutions & Consultant for providing the Consultancy Services for preparation of Feasibility study for improvement and up- gradation of the SH with a total length of 179 Kms in the State of Rajasthan, India vide

Page 1 of 1 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Letter of Award dated 08/01/2015. The commencement date is 14/01/2015 and the period for completion of assignment is 12 months. The description of the roads presented in the Package No. 25 has been given in Table No. 1: Table 1: Details of Roads of Package-27 in Rajasthan State Sr. Length Name of Road District No. (KM) Chittaurgarh, 1 Kapasan- Rashmi - Karoi Road (SH-96) 42.18 km Bhilwara Chittaurgarh, 2 Keer Ki chowki- Mavli Road (SH-98) 31.7 km Udaipur Chittaurgarh, 3 Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat (SH-9A) 90.212 km Kota

Total Length (in Kms)164.092

Package No. 25: There are total 03 State Highways (SH) falling in the Chittaurgarh, Udaipur & Bhilwara Region with a total length of 164.092 Kms in the state of Rajasthan. This report deals with the Third Road i.e Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat (SH-9A) which needs to be upgraded to Two Lane with granular Shoulders and the details of this road is given in Table No. 2.

Table 2: Details of Project Road Chainage (in Km) Length as per Length as Sr. Topographic Name of Road SH No. From To per Design No. Survey (in Km) (in Km) (in Km) (in Km)

1 Katunda-Rawatbhata SH-9A Km 0+000 Km 110+818 110.818 90+212 Road

1. Environmental Sensitivity and Project Categorization: Project road is not passing through any wildlife sanctuary, national park, tiger reserve, protected area or

Page 2 of 2 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

any other similar eco-sensitive areas. No section of proposed project passes through protected or reserved forests1. No loss of rare/threatened/endangered species of flora is envisaged. All other impacts are site-specific and can be addressed through proven mitigation measures. Hence, the project is classified as Category B warranting an initial environmental examination (IEE) which has been conducted in consistent to Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS), 2009.

2. Existing Environment: Climatically, Rajasthan is the driest part of India. The Aravalli Mountains stretching diagonally across the State from the South-West to North- East separate the desert and semi-desert areas to the West from the sub-humid areas in the East. Population densities are higher in the eastern part of the State and nineteen of the thirty two districts of the State fall in the non-desert area to the east of the Aravallis. The climate of Rajasthan can be divided into four seasons: Pre-Monsoon, Monsoon, Post-Monsoon and winter.

3. Pre-Monsoon, which extends from April to June, is the hottest season, with temperatures ranging from 30C to 40C. In western Rajasthan the temperature may rise to 45C, particularly in May and June. At this time, Rajasthan's only hill station, Mt. Abu registers the lowest temperatures. In the desert regions, the temperature drops in night. Prevailing winds are from the west and sometimes carry dust storms.

4. The second season Monsoon extends from July to September, temperature drops but humidity increases and even there is slight drop in the temperature (300C to 330C). Rajasthan gets about 90% of our rains in this period.

1Reserved Forest: an area notified under the provision of Indian Forest Act having full degree of protection. In Reserved Forests, all activities are prohibited unless permitted. Protected Forest: an area notified under the Indian Forest Act having limited degree protection. In Protected Forests, all activities are permitted unless prohibited.

Page 3 of 3 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

5. The Post-Monsoon period is from October to December. The average maximum temperature is 330C to 380C, and the minimum is between 180C and 200C.

6. The fourth season is the Winter or Cold Season, from January to March. There is a marked variation in maximum and minimum temperatures and regional variations across the state. January is the coolest month of the year. And temperature may drop to 30C to 50C in some regions of Rajasthan, like Shekhawati. There is slight precipitation in the north and north-eastern region of the state, and light winds, predominantly from the north and north-east. At this time, relative humidity ranges from 50% to 60% in the morning, and 25% to 35% in the afternoon.

7. The topography of Rajasthan varies from green plains to the east to the inhospitable Thar Desert in the west. The Aravalli Hill ranges tower over the Thar Desert. They are famed for the hill station of Mount Abu that is home to the famous Dilwara Jain Temples. The presence of the desert makes the summer days very hot and nights very cold. Nighttime temperatures in winters can reach -1°C, as happened recently in Churu district in north Rajasthan. Jaisalmer and Barmer districts also lie in the western Rajasthan, and every winter tourists flock to these districts to take camel rides on the shifting sand dunes. Jaisalmer is known for its peculiar yellow sandstone, which was used to construct the "golden" Jaisalmer Fort. The maximum daytime temperatures in summers can reach 45°C. However, winters in Rajasthan are more or less pleasant, and is the best time to visit this state.

8. The southern districts of Bhilwara and Chittaurgarh are more or less fertile. The Chambal River runs through the rocky northeastern region. The deep gullies and ravines of Chambal were once hideouts of the infamous bandits of Chambal.

Page 4 of 4 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

9. The District Chittaurgarh is located between 23o 32‟ and 250 13‟ latitude and 740 21‟ and 750 49‟ longitude covering an area of 10,856 sq.km. The district is part of Udaipur Division and is divided into five sub-divisions namely Begun, Chittaurgarh, Kapasan, Nimbahera and Pratapgarh. Administratively the district is divided into 13 tehsils and 14 development blocks. Total number of villages in the district is 2415 and it also has 8 urban towns. Rural and Urban population of the district is 15.15 lakh and 2.89 lakh respectively.

10. The District Kota is located between 24° 58' and 24° 46' north latitude and 73° 68' and 73° 57' east longitude with an average elevation of 600 meters (2000 feet above mean sea level). According to the 2011 census, Kota had population of 3,068,420 of which male and female were 1,566,801 and 1,501,619 respectively. In 2001 census, Udaipur had a population of 2,480,657 of which males were 1,259,170 and remaining 1,221,487 were females. Udaipur District population constituted 4.48 percent of total Maharashtra population. In 2001 census, this figure for Udaipur District was at 4.39 percent of Maharashtra population.

11. Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Main pre- construction impacts are: (i) loss of livelihood due to acquisition of land and assets (ii) submergence of roads and CD structures due to inadequate waterways (iii) affect to 300 trees and (iv) accident risk due to poor horizontal and vertical profile. Adequate compensation and rehabilitation assistance will be extended as per national Act2 and ADB involuntary resettlement policy. All CD structures have been designed for 50yr return period with anticipated risk of rarer flood of next higher frequency. Waterway and elevation of most of the bridges are increased. Embankment height has also been increased where overtopping is anticipated. Compensatory afforestation on 1:2 bases and additional plantation on same ration will improve the micro climate of the region

2 The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013

Page 5 of 5 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

in long term. To facilitate animals movement in the project area several meausres have been recommended viz: informatory sign boards on the presence of animals will be placed to inform traffic users; speed limits will be enforced through sign boards, rumble strips, speed breakers in specific areas where animalss usually cross the the road; plantation of animals preferred plants etc.Provision of any civil structure at this stage has notbeen made since in the present landscape, seasonal movement pattern of animals herds are quite erratic. Long-term monitoring has been recommended to finalise such structure.

B) Archaelogical and Historical Monuments and Sensitive Receptors

There are no archeological or historical monuments along the project roads. However, there are a number of religious structures and other community property resources (CPR)3 including sensitive receptors like schools and health centres. Table 24 lists out the sensitive structures (only schools, temples, mosques and health centers) structure lies within 9m from the centerline of the road (ROW). Sample pictures of the sensitive structures are provided in TABLE 8A.

Table 8A: Sensitive Structures along Project Road Ch.Km. Structure Village name Distance from C/L Side L/R Physical Impact Y/N 2+030 TEMPLE Balwant Nagar 13M R.H.S N 7+170 MASJHID Rayti 16M R.H.S N 10+160 TEMPLE Rayti 24M L.H.S N 13+990 TEMPLE Borwadi 7M L.H.S N 14+010 SCHOOL Borwadi 13M L.H.S N 17+970 TEMPLE Borwadi 6M R.H.S N 18+720 TEMPLE Borwadi 16M R.H.S N 19+335 TEMPLE Borwadi 28M R.H.S N 21+625 TEMPLE Borwadi 6M L.H.S N 22+000 TEMPLE Borwadi 8M R.H.S N 22+310 TEMPLE Borwadi 54M L.H.S N

Page 6 of 6 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Ch.Km. Structure Village name Distance from C/L Side L/R Physical Impact Y/N 23+630 TEMPLE Borwadi 14M L.H.S N 26+435 TEMPLE Borwadi 6M L.H.S N 27+350 SCHOOL Borwadi 14M L.H.S N

D) Trees within Right of Way:

The road side plantation is mixed type and natural regeneration is seen. A total of 300 trees has been enumerated within right of way. Majority of trees are of girth size between 0-90 cm. All efforts will be made to restrict the tree cutting to toe line of the formation width considering the safety issue.

E) Water Quality Monitored parameters (Table 8B) largely conforms to the drinking water standards (IS: 10500-1991) prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standard except. This was also ascertained by the study done by Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) in the project districts. Some of the parameters like total dissolved solids (TDS), total hardness and alkalinity exceeds the desirable limit but are well within maximum permissible limt.

Table 8B: Water Quality in the Project Area Requirement as per IS- Location Method 10500-2012 S. No. Parameter Unit no. Desirable Permissible CH - 11+815 CH- CH – Limit limit 53+170 90+605 1 pH - 4500 6.5-8.5 No Relaxation 7.61 8.09 7.92 2 Turbidity NTU 2130 5 10 4.1 1.4 2.9 3 Conductivity Umhos/cm 2510 - - 911 920 899.13 4 Alkanity mg/lit 2320 200 600 140.67 141.99 141.86

Page 7 of 7 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

5 Total Dissolve Solidmg/lit 2540 500 2000 378 239 479 (TDS) 6 Total Hardness mg/lit as 2340 300 600 194 128 120 CaCO3 7 Ca Hardness mg/lit as 3500 - - 128 82 71 CaCO3 8 Mg Hardness mg/lit as 2340 - - 66 46 49 CaCO3 9 Chloride as Cl mg/lit 4500 250 1000 3.92 4.79 4.15

10 Sulphate as SO4 mg/lit 4500 200 400 39.86 40.36 38.47 11 Iron as Fe mg/lit 3500 0.3 1 0.30 0.39 0.32

12 Nitrates as NO3 mg/lit 4500 45 100 11.12 11.67 9.8 13 Fluorides as F mg/lit 4500 1.0 1.5 0.087 0.077 0.068 14 Phosphates as Pmg/lit 3500 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 15 Coliforms No. per IS:15185 Absent 100 Absent Absent Absent 100ml Source: Feasibility Report, Primary Monitoring and Initial Environment Study for SH-9A (Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat Section)

F) Air Quality

Project area is characterized mainly by rural/open areas and intermittently traversed by few semi-urban settlements/built-up areas. Sources of air pollution in the project area are mainly vehicular emission, dust emanation due touse of unpaved shoulders/deteriorated roads by vehicles and domestic fuel burning.

Monitored parameters of ambient air quality largely meet the prescribed limit of National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) except particulate matter (PM10). Increased level can be attributed to proximity to industrial area, poor road conditions and high traffic density. Air quality data is presented in Table 8C.

Page 8 of 8 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table 3: Ambient Air Quality in the Project Area Parameters PM 10 PM 2.5 Sox NOx S. No Locations µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 NAAQS Limit 100 60 80 80 1. katunda 41.23 20.15 18.11 22.35 2. Rawatbhata 48.32 20.75 19.12 23.84 3. Jharjhani 37.16 18.10 16.94 21.34

Source: Feasibility Report, data.gov.in, Primary Monitoring and Initial Environment Study for SH-9A (Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat Section) G) Noise Level

Traffic noise is the principal source of noise in the project area. The area mostly includes rural open areas with a good vegetation cover and therefore the noise levels are relatively low. Rich vegetation in the project area acts as an efficient noise absorbent. Noise level monitoring indicates that the noise level mostly meets the prescribed noise standards for all land use categories viz. commercial, industrial as well as residential zones. Increased noise level may be attributed to high traffic density, low maintenance of vehicles, frequent honking due to congestion, and use of low grade fuel. There is no continuous sound frequency of impulsive nature near industries.It is anticipated that noise level will decrease significantly after road expansion and improvement work enabling decongestion at existing built up areas. Noise level in the project area has been summarized in Table 8D. Table 8D: Noise Level in the Project Area

S. No Locations Leq - Day in dB (A) Leq – Night dB (A) 1. katunda 49.83 41.76 2. Rawatbhata 49.45 41.74 3. Jharjhani 49.12 41.84

Page 9 of 9 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Source: Feasibility Report, Primary Monitoring and Initial Environment Study for SH-9A (Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat Section)

12. Significant impacts anticipated during construction phase are: (i) increase of local air pollution and noise level due to construction and site clearance activities, earthworks, borrowing and quarrying, operation of hot mix plants etc; (ii) deterioration of surface water quality due to silt run-off, spillage from vehicles and discharge from labour camps; (iii) health impacts from labour camps; (iv) disruption to access/traffic; (v) occupational health and community safety. Mitigation measures includes: (i) utilizing least noisy equipment and regulating time of construction near settlements and sensitive receptors; (ii) sprinkling of water on earthworks, active construction sites, material storage locations and haulage roads; (iii) installation of silt and oil traps along waterbodies; (iv) slope stabilization to control erosion and protection work for ponds; (v) camp siting and management as per IRC guidelines and best practices (vi) traffic management to avoid congestion and maintain access of local residents; (vii) implementing 1:2 compensatory plantation to off-set impacts from tree cutting and additional plantation at 1:2 to enhance the micro-climate; (ix) no camp, materials storage, hot mix plant near forest areas; (x) no construction in the stretches of potential animals‟s crossings during months of frequent sightings.

13. Operation stage impacts anticipated are road accidents, accidental spillage, submergence/overtopping of CD structures, water logging due to blockade of side drains, increased air pollution and noise level, survival of compensatory afforestation and avenue plantation and animals-traffic collision etc. All these are mainly associated with maintenance and monitor of effectiveness of mitigation measures taken during design and construction stage. Executing agency is mandated to undertake regular maintenance of the road conditions and its appurtenances.

Page 10 of 10 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

14. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Addressing Risk of Climate Change. Total annual emission is estimated to be less than the 100,000 tons per year threshold set by ADB. The projected variations in temperature and precipitation the project roads indicated vulnerability to, flooding (increased storminess), which can affect road, bridge and embankments. Key engineering measures taken to address these risks in the design are: i) increase in embankment height, ii) construction of new side and lead away drains, iii) construction of new culverts or widening of existing ones iv) increase in waterway including vertical clearance of bridges and v) construction of Pucca Diversion at adjacent side of proposed bridges.

15. Public Consultations: Extensive consultations were made with local communities and government agencies like Forests and Wildlife, State Pollution Control Board, Economics and Statistics and other line departments to incorporate their views and suggestions, however, no wildlife sanctuary exists along the project road. Local community strongly supports the project. They disseminated many important informations and made several suggestions and demands. Main demands include adequate compensation and assistance for loss of land and assets, employement in road construction and petty contract provision of safety measures, side drains in built-up areas, avenue plantation, provision of water harvesting/ponds and road furnitures. Most of their demand has been integrated in design.

16. Environmental Management Plan: Project specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been formulated with an intend to set out action required to avoid or mitigate all impacts and the responsibility for taking each action. Responsibility is made legally binding when actions are subsequently specified in contracts. Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMoP) has been prepared to ensure that the intended environmental mitigations are realized and these results in desired benefits to the target population causing minimal deterioration to the

Page 11 of 11 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

environmental parameters. All costs for implementing the mitigation measures and monitoring plan will be included in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) by the contractor as implementation of the EMP will be the responsibility of the contractor.

a) Environment Management Budget

17. Most of the measures have been addressed as part of good engineering practices, the costs for which have been accounted for in the engineering/cost. All costs towards pre-construction clearances/permission will be borne by executing agency. These costs are indicative. The environmental budget for the various environmental management measures proposed under the project is presented in Table 29. A total budget amount of Rs. 93,59,530/- has been allocated for implementation of environment safeguards under the project.

Page 12 of 12

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table8E: Estimated Environment Management Cost

No. Activity SH-9A Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat To be included in Remarks (Estimated Amount) budget under 1 Wildlife conservation activities

1.1 Warning sign 2,18,335 BOQ of civil work cost boards (small)

1.2 Informatory sign 5,64,595 BOQ of civil work cost boards (big)

1.3 Rumble Strips - Provisional Sum of civil works cost

1.4 Habitat 50,000 Provisional Sum of civil Lumpsump basis for planting Fodder enhancement works cost Trees in forest Areas.

2 Tree Cutting and Compensatory Afforestation activities

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

No. Activity SH-9A Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat To be included in Remarks (Estimated Amount) budget under 2.1 Compensatory 24,42,000 Provisional Sum of civil No. Trees to be planted (1:10 basis/ afforestation (1:10 works costs 10mc/c both sides)@814/tree basis by forestry including maintainance for 5 Years department) 2.3 Additional 5,00,000 Provisional Sum of civil Contractor to assign the Forest afforestation (1:10 works costs Committee for carrying out the basis by additional 1:10 plantation. contractor) L/S amount 2.4 Payment of Net 45,10,600 PWD, RAJASTHAN L/S amount @ 50,000/km Present Value (NPV) to Forestry Department for diversion of forest land 3 Studies and Monitoring activities 3.2 Monitoring (air, water, noise, soil)

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

No. Activity SH-9A Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat To be included in Remarks (Estimated Amount) budget under

3.2. Ambient Air 378000 Provisional Sum of civil works costs 1 Monitoring:

3 times in a Parameter to be monitored

year for 2 -PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOx & CO years (42 Unit Cost- 9000/- samples) or

construction period

at 7 locations

3.2.2 Water 120000 Provisional Sum of civil Parameter to be monitored -pH, Monitoring: works costs BOD, COD, TDS, TSS, DO, Total

3 times in a coliform, Conductivity, Oil & Grease year for 2 years (24 Unit Cost- 5000/-

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

No. Activity SH-9A Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat To be included in Remarks (Estimated Amount) budget under samples) or construction period

At 4 locations

3.2.3 Noise Monitoring:126000 Provisional Sum of civil works costs 3 times in a year for 2 Parameter to be monitored -Noise years (42 levels on dB (A) scale samples) or construction Unit Cost- 3000/- period

at 7 locations

4. Noise Barriers 4.1 Construction of 3,00,000 Provisional Sum of civil Noise barrier to be constructed with noise barriers works cost consent of local community

ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/ Public Works Department H3 Government of Rajasthan

No. Activity SH-9A Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat To be included in Remarks (Estimated Amount) budget under near sensitive structures

5 Training ,Three 1,50,000 PWD, RAJASTHAN 50000 per session training

sessions during construction period.

TOTAL (INR) 93,59,530

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

18. The Katunda- Rawatbhata - Chechat SH-9A Project has been categorized as Category „B‟ based on environmental screening and assessment of likely impacts.Initial environmental examination ascertains that it is unlikely to cause any significant environmental impacts. Few impacts were identified attributable to the project, most of which are localized and temporary in nature and easy to mitigate.

19. Widening and improvement will be mostly accommodated within available landper circular provided by Govt. of Rajasthan Proposed ROW will be 30m.

However 16m ROW will be sufficient to start construction. So, land acquisition for Both 16m & 30m ROW has been calculated .

Land Acquisition Schedule:-

Page 18 of 18

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

20. The Project road passes through Wild life Sanctuary. Chainage wise details of forest is listed below.

Jawaharsagar Km 54+598 - Km 4.3 Sanctuary 58+898 Mukundra Hills Km 75+372- Km 5.0 (Tiger Reserve) 80+372 Total Length 9.3

Forest map Hence, Forest clearance & Wildlife Clearnce is requride.

21. Climate risk assessment indicates that the project is at medium risk and it is mainly flooding (increased storminess), which can affect the roads, bridges and embankments. Key engineering measures taken to address these risks in the design are: i) increase in embankment height, ii) construction of new side

Page 19 of 19

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

and lead away drains, iii) construction of new culverts or widening of existing ones and iv) increase in waterway including vertical clearance of bridges.

22. In general, the subproject received immense support from local people. The local people appreciated that improved connectivity will bear out several socio-economic positive benefits resulting to improved quality of life.

23. The initial environmental examination of the subproject ascertains that the project is unlikely to cause any significant environmental impacts. No additional studies or need of undertaking detailed EIA is envisaged at this stage.

The Executing Agency shall ensure that EMP and EMoP are included in Bill of Quantity (BOQ) and forms part of bid document and civil works contract. The same shall be revised if necessary during project implementation or if there is any change in the project design and with approval of ADB.

Results of air quality , noise level and water quality are under the standard limits. However mitigation measures are required which are proposed in earlier section.

300 nos. of tree are required to be cut and compensatory plantation has been proposed as 1:10, therefore the total environmental management cost 93,59,530.

Page 20 of 20

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

8.2 SUMMARY OF SIA (SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESMENT) A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The ADB funded Rajasthan State Road Sector Project entails the rehabilitation and improvement of the existing state roads of Rajasthan. The PPP cell, Rajasthan Public Works Department (PPP - Raj PWD), Government of Rajasthan will be the Executing Agency (EA) for the project. The Project will rehabilitate and strengthen some selected existing State Highways roads to provide a dependable road transport network throughout the state. 2. This Resettlement Plan (RP) for Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat Road subproject is prepared based on the detailed design report. The RP complies with the applicable State Government, Government of India and ADB policy and legal framework. This subproject is considered as Category - B as far as Involuntary Resettlement (IR) is concerned. The total length of the project section is 90.212 km. 3. The Project area consists of two districts of Rajasthan namely Chittaurgarh & Kota. The proposed subproject can be viewed as boosting economic growth and poverty reduction which will bring substantial social and economic development in the region. The social benefits arising due to the subproject will be triggered off due to improved accessibility to various services such as easy access to markets, health facilities, schools, workplace etc which in turn increases the income of the locals, and ultimately elevating their standard of living. Adequate attention has been given during the feasibility and detailed design phases of the subproject preparation to minimize the adverse impacts on land acquisition and resettlement impacts. With the available options, best engineering solution have been adopted to avoid land acquisition and resettlement impacts. B. SCOPE OF LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT 4. There is land requirement for the subproject thus there will be 4no. displaced households. There are 7 common properties resources (CPR) including religious structures and government structures used for common purpose constructed within the existing ROW will be affected by the proposed road widening. A subproject census survey was carried out to identify the persons who would be affected by the subproject and the summary findings are presented in the following Table E-1.

Page 21 of 21

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Table E-1 Summary Subproject Impacts Sl. No. Impacts Number 1 Total Area of Land required (in Hectares) 41.930 2 Area of private land to be acquired (in Hectares) 9.630 3 Area of Govt. land to be acquired (in Hectares) 4.400 4 Area of forest. land to be acquired (in Hectares) 27.9 5 Total number of land Units/Plots affected 415 6 Total number of structures affected (Private + CPR) 07 7 Total number of private structures affected 00 8 Total number of CPR (structure) affected 07 9 Total number of Street Vendors affected 04 10 Total number of Household affected (Private+Street Vendors) 04 11 Total number of vulnerable households affected 02 12 Total number of Dispalced Persons (DP‟s) 19

C. SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION AND PROFILE 5. The social stratification of the subproject area shows that the dominance OBC caste population with 3 (75.0%) households. There are 19 Displaced persons in total being affected by the subproject which includes 10 (52.6%) males and 09 (47.4%) females. The average household size is 5. According to subproject census survey there are just 02 vulnerable households affected by the subproject. The educational status of DP‟s reveals that overall scenario is not encouraging one as there are still 10.5% DP‟s are illiterate and females are lacking far behind the male members. The occupational pattern of DP‟s excluding the non working sections such as children and students and household workers, reveals that 100% DP‟s is having business as their main occupation. 6. The proposed Subproject is confined to rehabilitation and up gradation of existing road alignments and the social assessments undertaken have not brought forth any adverse impact on the tribal groups within the area of influence of the Subproject road. The subproject construction will not have any adverse consequences on the socioeconomic condition and would also not lead to any disruption in their community life or culture of these communities.

Page 22 of 22

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

D. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION 7. Public consultations were conducted at Eight villages attended by 142 persons (87 female and 55 male) (Details Attached in Annexure) in the subproject to ensure peoples participation during the project census survey. Aiming at promotion of public understanding and fruitful solutions of developmental problems such as local needs and problem and prospects of resettlement, various sections of DP‟s and other stakeholders were consulted through focus group discussions and individual interviews. Several additional rounds of consultations with DP‟s and communities will form part of the further stages of subproject preparation and implementation. The implementing NGO will be entrusted with the task of conducting these consultations during RP implementation, which will involve disclosure on compensation, assistance options, and entitlement package and income restoration measures suggested for the subproject.

8. To keep more transparency in planning and for further active involvement of DP‟s and other stakeholders the subproject information will be disseminated through disclosure of resettlement planning documents. The EA will provide relevant resettlement information, including information from the above mentioned documents in a timely manner, in an accessible place and in a form and language(s) understandable to affected persons and other stakeholders. E. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 9. The legal framework and principles adopted for addressing resettlement issues in the Project have been guided by the existing legislation and policies of the GOI, the Government of Rajasthan, Asian Development Bank and the Resettlement Framework (RF) adopted for the project. Prior to the preparation of the RP, a detailed analysis of the existing national and state policies will be undertaken and a RF will be prepared for the entire program. This RP is prepared based on the review and analysis of all applicable legal and policy frameworks of the country and ADB policy requirements. 10. All compensation and other assistances will be paid to all DP‟s prior to commencement of civil works. After payment of compensation, DP‟s would be allowed to take away the materials salvaged from their dismantled houses and shops and no charges will be levied upon them for the same. The value of salvaged materials will not

Page 23 of 23

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

be deducted from the overall compensation amount due to the DP‟s. A notice to that effect will be issued intimating that DP‟s can take away the materials. F. ENTITLEMENTS, ASSISTANCE AND BENEFITS 11. In case of land acquisition, the date of publication of preliminary notification for acquisition under The Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act‟ 2013, will be treated as the cut-off date. For non- titleholders, the cut-off date will be the beginning of the census survey which was started on 13th October‟ 2015. Land and structures affected under the subproject will be compensated at replacement cost. DP‟s who settle in the affected areas after the cut- off date will not be eligible for compensation. They, however, will be given sufficient advance notice, requested to vacate premises and dismantle affected structures prior to subproject implementation. Their dismantled structures materials will not be confiscated and they will not pay any fine or suffer any sanction. G. RELOCATION OF HOUSING AND SETTLEMENTS 12. The EA will provide adequate and appropriate replacement land and structures or cash compensation at full replacement cost for lost land and structures, adequate compensation for partially damaged structures, and relocation assistance, according to the Entitlement Matrix. The EA will compensate to the non-title holders for the loss of assets other than land, such as dwellings, and also for other improvements to the land, at full replacement cost. The entitlements to the non-titleholders will be given only if they occupied the land or structures in the subproject area prior to the cut-off date. H. INCOME RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION 13. The subproject impact reveals that due to loss of land and commercial structures no households are losing their livelihood, but 4 Street Vendors will be displaced due to the subproject. The entitlement proposed for the subproject has adequate provisions for restoration of livelihood of the affected communities. The focus of restoration of livelihoods is to ensure that the DP‟s are able to at least regain their previous living standards. To restore and enhance the economic conditions of the DP‟s, certain income generation and income restoration programs are incorporated in the RP. To begin with providing employment to the local people during the construction phase will enable them to benefit from the subproject, reduce the size of intrusive work forces and keep

Page 24 of 24

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

more of the resources spent on the subproject in the local economy. It will also give the local communities a greater stake and sense of ownership in the subproject. I. RESETTLEMENT BUDGET AND FINANCING PLAN 14. The resettlement cost estimate for this subproject includes eligible compensation, resettlement assistance and support cost for RP implementation. The support cost, which includes staffing requirement, monitoring and reporting, involvement of NGO in subproject implementation and other administrative expenses are part of the overall subproject cost. Contingency provisions have also been made to take into account variations from this estimate. J. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM 15. A Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) will be established at the HQ and district level with the primary objective of providing a mechanism to mediate conflict and cut down on lengthy litigation. It will also provide people, who might have objections or concerns about their assistance, a public forum to raise their objections and through conflict resolution, address these issues adequately. The GRC will be headed by the Chief Engineer or his designated representative. The GRC will have representative from the ADB-PIU field office, representatives of DP‟s, particularly of vulnerable DP‟s, local government representatives, representative of local NGOs and other interest groups as felt necessary. All Grievances will be routed through the NGO to the GRC. The NGO will act as an in-built grievance redress body. The NGO will first of all register the grievances and take up with VLC for redress and any grievances not redressed at VLC level will be dealt in by the GRC. Grievances will be redressed within two to four weeks from the date of lodging the complaints, depending on severity of problem. The DP‟s, who would not be satisfied with the decision of the GRC, will have the right to take the grievance to the ADB-PIU Head Office for its redress. However an aggrieved person will have access to the country's judiciary at any stage of the subproject level grievance redress process. Taking grievances to Judiciary will be avoided as far possible and the NGO will make utmost efforts at reconciliation at the level of GRC. K. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT 16. The Executing Agency (EA) for the Project is PWD, Government of Rajasthan. The existing PPP cell of PWD has already established an ADB-Project Implementation Unit (ADB-PIU) headed by a Dy. Chief Engineer and coordinated by a pool of Superintending

Page 25 of 25

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

/ Executive Engineers, at HQ level. The EA, headed by Dy. C E will have overall responsibility for implementation of loan and will also be responsible for the overall coordination among ADB, Government of Rajasthan and ADB-PIU Field Offices. For resettlement activities, ADB-PIU will do the overall coordination, planning, implementation, and financing. The ADB-PIU will create a Social and Resettlement Unit (SRU) within itself with appointment of a Resettlement Officer (RO) at the rank of Executive Engineer (EE) and required support staff for the duration of the Subproject to ensure timely and effective planning and implementation of resettlement activities. The RO will be assisted by the respective ADB-PIU Field Offices and NGO for planning and implementation of resettlement activities in the subproject. ADB-PIU Field Office will be established at district/subproject level for the implementation of sub-project resettlement activities. An experienced and well-qualified NGO in this field will be engaged to assist the ADB-PIU Field Office in the implementation of the RP. L. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 17. Implementation of RP mainly consists of compensation to be paid for affected structures and rehabilitation and resettlement activities. The time for implementation of resettlement plan will be scheduled as per the overall subproject implementation. The civil works contract for each subproject will only be awarded after all compensation and relocation has been completed for subproject and rehabilitation measures are in place. The proposed subproject R&R activities are divided in to three broad categories based on the stages of work and process of implementation Such as Subproject Preparation phase, RP Implementation phase and Monitoring and Reporting phase. M. MONITORING AND REPORTING 18. RP implementation for the subproject by the NGO will be closely monitored by the EA. Keeping in view the significance of resettlement impacts of the overall project, the monitoring mechanism for this project will have both monitoring by PIU and monitoring by an external expert. ADB-PIU Field Office responsible for supervision and implementation of the RP will prepare monthly progress reports on resettlement activities and submit to ADB-PIU. ADB-PIU will submit semi-annual reports to ADB. The external monitoring expert responsible for monitoring of the RP implementation will submit a semi- annual review report to ADB-PIU to determine whether resettlement goals have been

Page 26 of 26

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

achieved, more importantly whether livelihoods and living standards have been restored/ enhanced and suggest suitable recommendations for improvement. R&R Budget

The total R&R budget for the proposed subproject RP works out to Rs. 23.50 million. A detailed indicative R&R cost is given in Table 22. Table 22. R&R Budget

Total land to S. NO. Impact Category be Entitlements Amount Remark acquired (In hec.) A LOSS OF LAND (TH) Detail of as per S.No. 1 calculation Loss of Private Land 1 9.630 of Entitlement 10910396 of amount is due to Proposed ROW Matrix given in Table no. 9X Total (A) 10910396 Affected area S. NO. Impact Category No. of structure (In Amount Remark sq.m.)/length

B LOSS OF STRUCTURE (TH+NTH) as per S.No. Loss of Permanent 2 of 2 structure 5 97.37 788697 Entitlement @ Rs.8100/ sq.m.(#) Matrix as per S.No. Loss of Semi- Permanent 2 of 3 structure 1 16.19 90340.2 Entitlement @ Rs.5580/ sq.m. (#) Matrix as per S.No. Loss of Temporary 2 of 4 structure 0 0 0 Entitlement @ Rs.4280/ sq.m. (#) Matrix as per S.No. Loss of Boundary Wall 2 of 5 1 68 102680 @ Rs.1510/ R.m. (#) Entitlement Matrix Total (B) 981717.2 No. of S. NO. Entitlements AH's Reference Amount Remark F ASSISTANCE DUE TO LOSS OF SQUATTERS (Kiosk/street vendors) as per S.No. Monthly subsistence 6.3.2 of 6 Allowance of Rs.3000/- 4 Entitlement for 3 months Matrix 36000

Page 27 of 27

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

as per S.No. One time Rehabilitation 6.3.3 of 4 grant of Rs. 18,000/- Entitlement 7 Matrix 72000 Total (F) 108000 G ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS (TH+NTH) Training Assistance of 1 as per S.No. person of affected 8.1 of 8 2 household Entitlement (L/s- Rs. 25000/- each) Matrix 50000 as per S.No. One time Assistance of 8.2 of 2 Rs. 25,000/- Entitlement 9 Matrix 50000 Total (G) 100000 H RP Implementation Support Cost Hiring of NGO for RP 1 5000000 10 Implementation Consultation/Grievance lump 1000000 11 Redressal Cost sum Hiring External Monitoring 1 1000000 12 Agency/Expert Total (H) 7000000 Total (A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H) 19100113 Add Contigency 15% 2865017 Total 21965130 Add Inflation 7% 1537559

Grand Total 23502689

CONCLUSION

The Government of Rajasthan has taken up the initiative to develop, maintain the highways and other district roads of the state of rajasthan under the big push of industrial growth where the intensity of traffic has increased considerably and there is necessity for augmentation of capacity for safe and efficient movement of traffic. One Such Project is the development of two laning of the Katunda- Rawatbhata- Chechat section of SH-9A (length-90.212km). As discussed the scope of land acquisition is the quite significant in the project because of availability of limited ROW and the construction of road.

Page 28 of 28

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

According to Land Acquisition Plan (LAP) prepared total area of land required is 41.930 Ha, out of which total private area is 9.630 ha & govt. land is 4.400 ha. Total 415 no. of land plots/units will be affected. According to SIA census Survey, 0 Private Structures & 7no.CPR will be affected; & Only 4 Street Vendors will be affected. So, there are 4no. DHs on the project road out of which 2 no. are Vulnerable Households. Public consultations were conducted at 8 villages attended by 142 persons (87 female and 55 male) (Details Attached in Annexure) in the subproject to ensure peoples participation during the project census survey. Aiming at promotion of public understanding and fruitful solutions of developmental problems such as local needs and problem and prospects of resettlement, various sections of DP‟s and other stakeholders were consulted through focus group discussions and individual interviews. Several additional rounds of consultations with DP‟s and communities will form part of the further stages of subproject preparation and implementation. The implementing NGO will be entrusted with the task of conducting these consultations during RP implementation, which will involve disclosure on compensation, assistance options, and entitlement package and income restoration measures suggested for the subproject. Decision regarding province of the resettlement and rehabilitation entitlement would be done as per guidelines of EIA and government of India. The DP‟s may go to the Grievance Redressed Cell and the Arbitrator as per the provision laid in the guidelines. It may be noted that the redress to the grievance of the DPs may be done with the consideration.

In the total SIA, there is very little impact of resettlement and rehabilitation programmers as there is no major impact in their livelihood and their socio economic as well as cultural way of life of the people of these areas. Out of 19 DPs, 4 no. Street Vendors household.

According to the proposed alignment of the project road the estimated cost for the various categories of the affected persons for different purpose and objective of resettlement and rehabilitation based on rates vide Entitlement matrix (June- July 2015) followed by EA road development works with an escalation of 12% on the said matrix is would be Rs. 2.35 Cr. The Estimated cost of Resettlement and rehabilitation is not the

Page 29 of 29

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R2/H3 Government of Rajasthan

total Socio Economic cost of the project. The PIU should look into the income restoration of the affected families with the objective that the families are „as well off as before‟.

Page 30 of 30

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Chapter-09: COST ESTIMATE

9.1 General This chapter provides a cost estimate for Katunda – Rawatbhata - Chechat Road (SH- 9A) in the state of Rajasthan. The cost estimate is prepared based on the detailed assessment of project roads.

9.2 Methodology The rate for various items has been adopted from July’2013 BSR, Kota. The analysis is being carried out on the basis of following lead as per availability of material: Table No. 9.1: Lead Sr. No. Description SH-96 1 Lead from Mixing Plant to working site 10Km. 2 Lead for E/W borrow area to site 7Km.

9.3 Construction Quantities The quantities of earthwork and pavement for road and bridge have been worked out manually. The details of quantities work out for road work on the basis of following proposed typical cross sections:

Proposed typical cross section for project highway is given in table 9.3 & table 9.4 below:

Table No. 9.3: Type of Typical Cross Section

Sr. No. TCS-No Description of Typical Cross Section

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in 1 TCS-1 Open Country (With Subgrade) Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in 2 TCS-2 Open Country in concentric widening Poor (3-7) Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in 3 TCS-3 Open Country in eccentric widening (3-7) Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 4 TCS-4 Country in concentric widening Fair (3-7) Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 5 TCS-5 Country in eccentric widening Fair (3-7)

Page 1 of 1

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

6 TCS-6 Overlay of Two-Lane Carriageway

Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 7 TCS-7 Country in cc widening Fair (5.5-10) Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 8 TCS-8 Country in cc widening Fair (3-10) Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 9 TCS-9 Country in cc repair -10 m Reconstruction in Two-Lane Carriageway with Granular Shoulder in Open 10 TCS-10 Country in cc repair -14 m

Table No. 9.4 Design Design Design in in in Total Proposed S.NO. Discription (Km) (Km) (Km) Length TCS Type HS-I HS-II HS-III 1 Reconstruction Due to BC soil 15254 2900 23918 42072 Reconstruction Due to 2 400 400 TCS-I Submergence 3 Bypass / New Construction 6150 6150 Concentric Widening Poor (3- 4 5550 5550 TCS-II 7) 5 Eccentric Widening Poor (3-7) 650 650 TCS-III 6 Concentric Widening (3-7) fair 17950 17950 TCS-IV 7 Eccentric Widening (3-7) fair 1400 1400 TCS-V 8 OVERLAY 7390 7390 TCS-VI 9 CC Widening 5.5-10m 950 1100 700 2750 TCS-VII 10 CC Widening 3-10m 200 200 TCS-VIII 11 CC Repair 10m 3000 3000 TCS-IX 12 CC Repair 14m 2700 2700 X 16204 37040 36968 90212

9.4 Pavement Design Options Flexible pavement Two lane (7.0m) carriageway with 2.5m granular shoulder configuration is adopted for the project road.

Page 2 of 2

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

Rigid pavement Concentric Widening of Existing CC pavement to Two lane with paved shoulder (10.0m) carriageway configuration with both side RCC covered drain is adopted for the project road. No new CC pavement is proposed.

9.5 Cost Components The estimated cost has been worked out under the following sub heads:

9.5.1 Site clearance The subhead provides for the items listed below:- Clearing and grubbing- Cost of Both side 6m clearing has been calculated as existing formation Width varies from 6.25- 6.75m . The Contribution of this subhead in TPC is 0.36Cr (0.27%) Only.

9.5.2 Earth work This sub head provides for the items of earth work in excavation (in case of Concentric & Eccentric Widening) , embankment and sub grade (in case of Reconstruction due to expansive soil & New Construction). Subgrade of 500mm is provided in length proposed for reconstruction & stretches proposed for Concentric & Eceentric Widening the quantity of Subgrade will vary as per site condition(adopted -250mm). The land for borrow area shall be arranged from the cultivators/land owners and due provision of compensation royalty for earth taken from private land shall be paid to the owners. The Contribution of Earthwork in TPC is 6.89Cr (5.17%) Only. The Cost is within acceptable limit, as the total length of 18.4 km is proposed for reconstruction from subgrade.

9.5.3 Sub base and base courses This sub head provides for the items of Granular Sub-base and wet mix macadam base course for flexible pavement.  Provision of Crusher Broken Granular sub base is provided.

Page 3 of 3

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

 Design thickness of GSB is provided in centre portion & Drainage layer of 100mm is provided in remaining width both side.  For eccentric widening, drainage layer of GSB is provided in One side only.  Provision of 150mm thick drainage layer of GSB in CC pavement is provided.  Provision of Wet mix Macadam of 250mm is provided.  Provision of Granular shoulder of 150mm thickness & for 2.5 m width is provided. The Contribution of this subhead in TPC is 38.38Cr (28.80%) Only. The Cost is within acceptable limit, as the items of this subhead are very costly.

9.5.4 Bituminous Courses This sub head provides for bituminous courses where flexible pavement has been proposed.  Provision of One layer Primer Coat & One Layer Tack coat in full carriageway width in case reconstruction & only in widened portion for Concentric & Eccentric Widening is adopted.  Provision of 50mm Dense Bituminous Macadam in full carriageway width in case reconstruction & only in widened portion for Concentric & Eccentric Widening is adopted.  Provision of 30mm Bituminous Concrete in full carriageway width in is adopted in all cases.  Extra 20% quantity is taken as profile correction course on existing carriageway. The Contribution of this subhead in TPC is 42.96Cr (32.24%) Only. The Cost is within acceptable limit, as the items of this subhead are very costly.

9.5.5 Bridges/Culverts This sub head provides improvement of bridges & Culverts . Details are provided below:- Table No. 85

Improvement Type Pipe Culvert Slab culvert Minor Bridges Major Bridges

Widening 01 04 05 - Retained /Repair 09 05 10 01 Reconstruction 57 25 09 New Construction 17 - - - Abandoned - - - - Total 84 34 24 01

Page 4 of 4

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

The Contribution of this sub head in TPC is 13.95Cr (10.47%) . The cost in this subhead is slightly higher as it includes reconstruction of a major bridge of 200m length on Banas river.

9.5.6 Miscellaneous Items a. Junction Improvement There is total 03 nos. major & 26 nos. minor road junctions which are priority junction that needed to be improved. Provision of these junctions has been made under this sub head. The Contribution of this sub head in TPC is 0.76Cr (0.57%) Only. b. Traffic Signs, Markings and Other Appurtenances Provision for road signs, markings and other appurtenances has been made under this sub head. The Contribution of this subhead in TPC is 0.98Cr (0.74%) Only. c. RCC Drains & Protection Works Provision for RCC covered Drain in builup areas (both side) & Protection Works near submerged areas like pond etc. is provided. The Contribution of this subhead in TPC is 1.77Cr (1.32%). The percentage in this subhead is slightly higher as no proper drainage system present in builtup areas. Also presence of proper drainage will not harm the pavement of proposed road. d. CC Pavement Provision for widening of existing CC Pavement to 10m width is provided. No new CC pavement is proposed. (as per authority) The Contribution of this subhead in TPC is 10.03Cr (7.53%) only. 9.5.7 NON BSR ITEMS a. Toll Plaza Cost for 1.2Cr per toll plaza is proposed. This cost has been fixed by the authority. The Contribution of this sub head in TPC is 3.60Cr (2.70%) Only. b. Bus Shelter Considering the overall safety of traffic and minimum hindrance to through traffic, bus shelters have been proposed both side along the project road. Cost for 1.0 lakh per Bus shelter is proposed. This cost has been fixed by the authority. The Contribution of this sub head in TPC is 0.20Cr (0.15%) Only.

Page 5 of 5

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

c. Horticulture Due to unavailability of this item , rate analysis is done to calculate the cost of tree plantation on the project road. Provision of plantation of trees @10m c/c both side is provided. The Contribution of this sub head in TPC is 1.47Cr (1.10%) Only. 9.5.8 Escallation As adopted BSR of kota is last revised in July ,2013, escalation of 5% per year is assumed. i.e. total escalation of 10.25% as on date 01.08.2015 is adopted on BSR Items. Non BSR items are not being escalated.

9.5.9 Contigency FOR VGF MODE Provision of 25 % of civil cost is adopted (as per MCA), which include Relocation of Utilities, Environmental improvement Works, land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Costs, etc. FOR ANNUITY MODE Provision of 15 % of civil cost is adopted (as per MCA), which include Relocation of Utilities, Environmental improvement Works, land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Costs, etc. 9.6 Project Cost

The summary of cost estimate is presented as below: Table: -9.6 – project Cost (for VGF Mode) % of Total S. No. Item Total (Rs.) Civil in Crores Cost A CIVIL WORK For Road Work 1 SITE CLEARANCE 3,646,003 0.36 0.27 2 EARTHWORK 68,860,355 6.89 5.17 3 GRANULAR SUB-BASE, BASE-COURSE 383,781,922 38.38 28.80 4 BITUMINOUS COURSES 429,644,909 42.96 32.24 SUB TOTAL (A) 885933188.76 88.59 66.49

B CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES Reconstruction & New Construction of HPC 5 24025781.94 2.40 (68no.) 6 Widening of HPC (1no.) 395339.65 0.04 7 Widening of Slab Culvert (4no.) 2957216.47 0.30 8 Reconstruction of Slab Culvert (25no.) 43209834.37 4.32 9 Reconstruction of Minor Bridge (9no.) 53466318.39 5.35 10 Widening of Minor Bridge (5no.) 12834824.17 1.28 11 Repair of Major & Minor Bridge (13no.) 2200000.00 0.22 12 Repair of Slab Culvert (14no.) 400000.00 0.04 SUB TOTAL OF CROSS DRAINAGE 139489314.98 13.95 STRUCTURES (B) 10.47

Page 6 of 6

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

C MISCELLENEOUS ITEMS TRAFFIC SIGNS MARKING AND ROAD 13 9,812,499 0.98 APPURTENANCES 0.74 14 RCC DRAINS & PROTECTION WORKS 17,650,935 1.77 1.32 15 CC PAVEMENT 100,343,987 10.03 7.53 16 JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT 7,565,401 0.76 0.57 SUB TOTAL OF MISC ITEMS (C) 135,372,823 13.54 10.16 Sub Total of BSR Items (D= A+B+C) 1,160,795,326 116.08 87.12 Add 10.25% Escallation as on date 1.08.2015 118,981,521 11.90 (E) 8.93 Total of BSR Items (F= D+E) 1,279,776,847 127.98 96.05 D NON BSR ITEMS 17 TOLL PLAZA(3 NO.) 36,000,000 3.60 2.70 18 BUS SHELTER (20 No.) 2,000,000 0.20 0.15 19 HORTICULTURE 14,686,514 1.47 1.10 SUB TOTAL OF NON BSR ITEMS (G) 52,686,514 5.27 3.95 Total CIVIL COST (H= F+G) 1,332,463,361 133.25 100.00 Cost per Km 14,770,356 1.48 ADD 25% AS PER MCA (I) 333,115,840.24 33.31 Total Project Cost (J=H+I) 1,665,579,201 166.56 Cost per Km. 18,462,945 1.85 Add Environmental Monitoring Budget(K) 9,359,530 0.94 Add Resettlement & Rehabilitation Budget(L) 23,502,689 2.35 Add Utility Shifting Cost (M) 4,530,000 0.45 Grand Project Cost (N=J+K+L+M) 1,702,971,420 170.30 Cost per Km. 18,877,438 1.89

Table: - 9.7 – project Cost (for Annuity Mode) % of Total S. No. Item Total (Rs.) Civil in Crores Cost A CIVIL WORK For Road Work 1 SITE CLEARANCE 3,646,003 0.36 0.27 2 EARTHWORK 68,860,355 6.89 5.17 3 GRANULAR SUB-BASE, BASE-COURSE 383,781,922 38.38 28.80 4 BITUMINOUS COURSES 429,644,909 42.96 32.24 SUB TOTAL (A) 885933188.76 88.59 66.49

Page 7 of 7

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Report-R0/H3 Government of Rajasthan

11 Repair of Major & Minor Bridge (13no.) 2200000.00 0.22 12 Repair of Slab Culvert (14no.) 400000.00 0.04 SUB TOTAL OF CROSS DRAINAGE 139489314.98 13.95 STRUCTURES (B) 10.47

Total CIVIL COST (H= F+G) 1,332,463,361 133.25 100.00 Cost per Km 14,770,356 1.48 ADD 15% AS PER MCA (I) 199,869,504.14 19.99 Total Project Cost (J=H+I) 1,532,332,865 153.23 Cost per Km. 16,985,909 1.70 Add Environmental Monitoring Budget(K) 9,359,530 0.94 Add Resettlement & Rehabilitation Budget(L) 23,502,689 2.35 Add Utility Shifting Cost (M) 4,530,000 0.45 Grand Project Cost (N=J+K+L+M) 1,569,725,084 156.97 Cost per Km. 17,400,402 1.74 ********

Page 8 of 8

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

CHAPTER – 10 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

10.1 Basic Assumptions

The following basic assumption is as under for financial analysis under PPP mode as per MCA:

Table 10.1: Salient Feature of Project 1 Existing Length of Project (km) 90.565 2 Design Length of Project (km) 90.212 3 Base Year for O & M Cost 2015 4 Base Year for Civil Construction cost 2015 5 Interest assumed on Debt portion 0.125 6 Debt Equity Ratio 2.9375 7 Escalation during Construction 0.05 8 Expected Start of Concession Period Jan,17 9 Expected Start of Revenue July,18 10 Concession Period 25 Years 11 Expected date of End of Concession Period Dec, 2041 12 PCU (2015) 3292 13 PCU (2041) 12262 14 Proposed Configuration 2-Lane with Granular Shoulder 15 Toll Plaza Operating Cost (per annum) 0.75 Cr/Year/Toll Plaza 16 Periodic Maintenance Cost (every 6th year) 30 Lacs/Km 17 Annual Maintenance Cost (per annum) 1.75 Lacs/km 18 Insurance (on TPC) 0.0015 19 Rate of Inflation 0.05 20 Growth rate in Traffic 0.05 21 Growth rate in toll rates As per toll rules 2016= 20% 22 Phasing of Construction 2017= 60% 2018= 20% 23 Income Tax rate 0.339 24 MAT rate 0.2001 25 Tax Holiday (in years) 10 years 26 Moratorium Period (in years) 2 years 27 Loan repayment period 20 years

Page 1 of 1 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

10.2 Homogeneous Section

Length of project highway is 90.212 km. The project road is a single homogeneous section. Therefore, one number toll plaza is proposed at km 5+000, 44+000 & 88+000. Table 10.2 : Summary of Toll Plaza Location Total Length Length of 2-lane Sr. No. of Toll Section (km) carriageway Plaza TP-1 1 (Km. Km. 0+000 - Km. 16+204 16.204 90.212 5+000) TP-2 Km. 36+810 - Km. 2 (Km. 37.040 37.040 73+850 44+000) TP-3 Km. 73+850 - Km. 3 (Km. 36.968 36.968 110+818 88+000)

Page 2 of 2 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

10.3 Cost Estimate

The rate for various items has been adopted from rate analysis on the basis of standard data book published by MORT&H. Summary of cost estimate of project highway is presented in table 8.3 below:

Table 10.3 Summary of Cost Estimate (VGF) % of Total S. No. Item Total (Rs.) Civil in Crores Cost A CIVIL WORK For Road Work 1 SITE CLEARANCE 3,646,003 0.36 0.27 2 EARTHWORK 68,860,355 6.89 5.17 3 GRANULAR SUB-BASE, BASE-COURSE 383,781,922 38.38 28.80 4 BITUMINOUS COURSES 429,644,909 42.96 32.24 SUB TOTAL (A) 885933188.76 88.59 66.49

B CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES Reconstruction & New Construction of 5 24025781.94 2.40 HPC (68no.) 6 Widening of HPC (1no.) 395339.65 0.04 7 Widening of Slab Culvert (4no.) 2957216.47 0.30 8 Reconstruction of Slab Culvert (25no.) 43209834.37 4.32 9 Reconstruction of Minor Bridge (9no.) 53466318.39 5.35 10 Widening of Minor Bridge (5no.) 12834824.17 1.28 11 Repair of Major & Minor Bridge (13no.) 2200000.00 0.22 12 Repair of Slab Culvert (14no.) 400000.00 0.04 SUB TOTAL OF CROSS DRAINAGE 139489314.98 13.95 STRUCTURES (B) 10.47

Total CIVIL COST (H= F+G) 1,332,463,361 133.25 100.00

Page 3 of 3 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Cost per Km 14,770,356 1.48 ADD 25% AS PER MCA (I) 333,115,840.24 33.31 G. Total (J=H+I) 1,665,579,201.18 166.56 Cost per Km. 18,462,945.08 1.85 10.4 Proposed Alternative for Financial Analysis

The Financial analysis is carried out for the following only one alternative as detailed below: -

Table 10.4: Details of Different options for Financial Analysis Sr. Option No. Description No. 1 Option-I VGF 40% (30% during Construction and 10% during O&M)

Page 4 of 4 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

10.5 Traffic Summary Locataion: Km. – 1+800 Motorised Traffic Non-Motorised Traffic Toll Exempted Grand Total

Passenger Vehicles Goods Vehicles Agricultural Passenger Goods Vehicles Vehicles

Ord. Trucks Animal Drawn

DATE

Trailor

Cycle

Tractor

MiniBus

Govt.Bus TotalPCU

Car/Jeep

Private BusPrivate

2 Axle 2 Axle 3

MAxle

Ambulance

TollablePCU

TwoWheeler

Tempo/LCV

ThreeWheeler

Govt.Vehicles

CycleRickshaw

Bullock Cart Bullock

NonTollable PCU

Horse Drawn Horse Tractorwith

PCU Factor 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 1.5 4.5 0.5 2.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 2015 896 24 281 7 7 21 132 66 154 12 7 157 24 0 3 0 2 2 1283 1224 2507 2016 941 25 295 7 7 22 139 69 162 13 7 165 25 0 3 0 2 2 1353 1283 2636 2017 988 26 310 7 7 23 146 72 170 14 7 173 26 0 3 0 2 2 1419 1344 2763 2018 1037 27 326 7 7 24 153 76 179 15 7 182 27 0 3 0 2 2 1492 1411 2902 2019 1089 28 342 7 7 25 161 80 188 16 7 191 28 0 3 0 2 2 1566 1479 3045 2020 1143 29 359 7 7 26 169 84 197 17 7 201 29 0 3 0 2 2 1642 1552 3194 2021 1200 30 377 7 7 27 177 88 207 18 7 211 30 0 3 0 2 2 1721 1627 3348 2022 1260 32 396 7 7 28 186 92 217 19 7 222 32 0 3 0 2 2 1803 1710 3513 2023 1323 34 416 7 7 29 195 97 228 20 7 233 34 0 3 0 2 2 1892 1794 3686 2024 1389 36 437 7 7 30 205 102 239 21 7 245 36 0 3 0 2 2 1984 1884 3867 2025 1458 38 459 7 7 32 215 107 251 22 7 257 38 0 3 0 2 2 2082 1975 4057 2026 1531 40 482 7 7 34 226 112 264 23 7 270 40 0 3 0 2 2 2186 2073 4259 2027 1608 42 506 7 7 36 237 118 277 24 7 284 42 0 3 0 2 2 2294 2178 4472 2028 1688 44 531 7 7 38 249 124 291 25 7 298 44 0 3 0 2 2 2408 2284 4691

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

2029 1772 46 558 7 7 40 261 130 306 26 7 313 46 0 3 0 2 2 2526 2396 4922 2030 1861 48 586 7 7 42 274 137 321 27 7 329 48 0 3 0 2 2 2650 2516 5166 2031 1954 50 615 7 7 44 288 144 337 28 7 345 50 0 3 0 2 2 2780 2637 5417 2032 2052 53 646 7 7 46 302 151 354 29 7 362 53 0 3 0 2 2 2914 2767 5681 2033 2155 56 678 7 7 48 317 159 372 30 7 380 56 0 3 0 2 2 3057 2904 5961 2034 2263 59 712 7 7 50 333 167 391 32 7 399 59 0 3 0 2 2 3211 3048 6259 2035 2376 62 748 7 7 53 350 175 411 34 7 419 62 0 3 0 2 2 3375 3199 6574 2036 2495 65 785 7 7 56 368 184 432 36 7 440 65 0 3 0 2 2 3547 3358 6904 2037 2620 68 824 7 7 59 386 193 454 38 7 462 68 0 3 0 2 2 3724 3524 7247 2038 2751 71 865 7 7 62 405 203 477 40 7 485 71 0 3 0 2 2 3910 3697 7607 2039 2889 75 908 7 7 65 425 213 501 42 7 509 75 0 3 0 2 2 4103 3880 7983 2040 3033 79 953 7 7 68 446 224 526 44 7 534 79 0 3 0 2 2 4306 4071 8376 2041 3185 83 1001 7 7 71 468 235 552 46 7 561 83 0 3 0 2 2 4516 4274 8790

Locataion: Km. – 58+800

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

Motorised Traffic Non-Motorised Traffic Toll Exempted Grand Total

Passenger Vehicles Goods Vehicles Agricultural Passenger Goods Vehicles Vehicles

Ord. Trucks Animal Drawn

DATE

Vehicles

PCU

Trailor

Cycle

Cycle Cycle

Tractor

Mini Bus Mini

Cart

Govt. Bus Govt. PCU Total

Rickshaw

Horse Horse

Car/Jeep

2Axle 3Axle

Drawn

Private Bus Private

M M Axle

Bullock Bullock

Tractor with Tractor

Ambulance

Tollable PCU Tollable

Non Tollable Tollable Non

Two Wheeler Two

Tempo / LCV / Tempo

Three Wheeler Three Govt. Govt. PCU Factor 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 1.5 4.5 0.5 2.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 2015 1210 10 707 4 19 55 146 75 105 49 10 109 77 0 1 0 9 6 1175 1914 3089 2016 1271 11 742 4 20 58 153 79 110 51 11 114 81 0 1 0 9 6 2008 1238 3246 2017 1335 12 779 4 21 61 161 83 116 54 12 120 85 0 1 0 9 6 2113 1301 3414 2018 1402 13 818 4 22 64 169 87 122 57 13 126 89 0 1 0 9 6 2219 1366 3585 2019 1472 14 859 4 23 67 177 91 128 60 14 132 93 0 1 0 9 6 2328 1433 3760 2020 1546 15 902 4 24 70 186 96 134 63 15 139 98 0 1 0 9 6 2443 1506 3949 2021 1623 16 947 4 25 74 195 101 141 66 16 146 103 0 1 0 9 6 2566 1581 4147 2022 1704 17 994 4 26 78 205 106 148 69 17 153 108 0 1 0 9 6 2692 1658 4350 2023 1789 18 1044 4 27 82 215 111 155 72 18 161 113 0 1 0 9 6 2822 1742 4563 2024 1878 19 1096 4 28 86 226 117 163 76 19 169 119 0 1 0 9 6 2965 1828 4793 2025 1972 20 1151 4 29 90 237 123 171 80 20 177 125 0 1 0 9 6 3112 1916 5028 2026 2071 21 1209 4 30 95 249 129 180 84 21 186 131 0 1 0 9 6 3269 2012 5280 2027 2175 22 1269 4 32 100 261 135 189 88 22 195 138 0 1 0 9 6 3431 2110 5541 2028 2284 23 1332 4 34 105 274 142 198 92 23 205 145 0 1 0 9 6 3600 2216 5816 2029 2398 24 1399 4 36 110 288 149 208 97 24 215 152 0 1 0 9 6 3783 2324 6106 2030 2518 25 1469 4 38 116 302 156 218 102 25 226 160 0 1 0 9 6 3971 2440 6411

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

2031 2644 26 1542 4 40 122 317 164 229 107 26 237 168 0 1 0 9 6 4170 2559 6729 2032 2776 27 1619 4 42 128 333 172 240 112 27 249 176 0 1 0 9 6 4375 2685 7060 2033 2915 28 1700 4 44 134 350 181 252 118 28 261 185 0 1 0 9 6 4595 2816 7411 2034 3061 29 1785 4 46 141 368 190 265 124 29 274 194 0 1 0 9 6 4827 2954 7781 2035 3214 30 1874 4 48 148 386 200 278 130 30 288 204 0 1 0 9 6 5066 3101 8167 2036 3375 32 1968 4 50 155 405 210 292 137 32 302 214 0 1 0 9 6 5319 3255 8574 2037 3544 34 2066 4 53 163 425 221 307 144 34 317 225 0 1 0 9 6 5590 3417 9007 2038 3721 36 2169 4 56 171 446 232 322 151 36 333 236 0 1 0 9 6 5867 3588 9455 2039 3907 38 2277 4 59 180 468 244 338 159 38 350 248 0 1 0 9 6 6164 3769 9932 2040 4102 40 2391 4 62 189 491 256 355 167 40 368 260 0 1 0 9 6 6471 3958 10429 2041 4307 42 2511 4 65 198 516 269 373 175 42 386 273 0 1 0 9 6 6794 4153 10947 2042 4522 44 2637 4 68 208 542 282 392 184 44 405 287 0 1 0 9 6 7134 4358 11492

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

Locataion: Km. – 107+000 Motorised Traffic Non-Motorised Traffic Toll Exempted Grand Total

Passenger Vehicles Goods Vehicles Agricultural Passenger Goods Vehicles Vehicles

Ord. Trucks Animal Drawn

DATE

PCU

Trailor

Cycle

Cycle Cycle

Tractor

Mini Bus Mini

Cart

Govt. Bus Govt. PCU Total

Rickshaw

Horse Horse

Car/Jeep

2Axle 3Axle

Drawn

Private Bus Private

M M Axle

Bullock Bullock

Tractor with Tractor

Ambulance

Tollable

Non Tollable Tollable Non

Two Wheeler Two

Tempo / LCV / Tempo

Three Wheeler Three Govt. Vehicles Govt. PCU Factor 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 1.5 4.5 0.5 2.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 2015 2807 2 406 3 3 29 118 79 31 23 10 150 0 0 0 0 3 2 2101 1117 3218 2016 2947 2 426 3 3 30 124 83 33 24 11 158 0 0 0 0 3 2 1172 2208 3380 2017 3094 2 447 3 3 32 130 87 35 25 12 166 0 0 0 0 3 2 1230 2319 3549 2018 3249 2 469 3 3 34 137 91 37 26 13 174 0 0 0 0 3 2 1291 2434 3725 2019 3411 2 492 3 3 36 144 96 39 27 14 183 0 0 0 0 3 2 1356 2557 3913 2020 3582 2 517 3 3 38 151 101 41 28 15 192 0 0 0 0 3 2 1423 2685 4108 2021 3761 2 543 3 3 40 159 106 43 29 16 202 0 0 0 0 3 2 1493 2821 4313 2022 3949 2 570 3 3 42 167 111 45 30 17 212 0 0 0 0 3 2 1563 2961 4524 2023 4146 2 599 3 3 44 175 117 47 32 18 223 0 0 0 0 3 2 1643 3111 4754 2024 4353 2 629 3 3 46 184 123 49 34 19 234 0 0 0 0 3 2 1726 3265 4991 2025 4571 2 660 3 3 48 193 129 51 36 20 246 0 0 0 0 3 2 1809 3430 5239 2026 4800 2 693 3 3 50 203 135 54 38 21 258 0 0 0 0 3 2 1899 3600 5499 2027 5040 2 728 3 3 53 213 142 57 40 22 271 0 0 0 0 3 2 1997 3780 5777 2028 5292 2 764 3 3 56 224 149 60 42 23 285 0 0 0 0 3 2 2098 3970 6068 2029 5557 2 802 3 3 59 235 156 63 44 24 299 0 0 0 0 3 2 2200 4167 6367

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

2030 5835 2 842 3 3 62 247 164 66 46 25 314 0 0 0 0 3 2 2309 4375 6684 2031 6127 2 884 3 3 65 259 172 69 48 26 330 0 0 0 0 3 2 2420 4595 7015 2032 6433 2 928 3 3 68 272 181 72 50 27 347 0 0 0 0 3 2 2538 4826 7363 2033 6755 2 974 3 3 71 286 190 76 53 28 364 0 0 0 0 3 2 2666 5065 7731 2034 7093 2 1023 3 3 75 300 200 80 56 29 382 0 0 0 0 3 2 2804 5316 8120 2035 7448 2 1074 3 3 79 315 210 84 59 30 401 0 0 0 0 3 2 2945 5581 8525 2036 7820 2 1128 3 3 83 331 221 88 62 32 421 0 0 0 0 3 2 3093 5860 8953 2037 8211 2 1184 3 3 87 348 232 92 65 34 442 0 0 0 0 3 2 3245 6153 9398 2038 8622 2 1243 3 3 91 365 244 97 68 36 464 0 0 0 0 3 2 3406 6460 9866 2039 9053 2 1305 3 3 96 383 256 102 71 38 487 0 0 0 0 3 2 3575 6782 10357 2040 9506 2 1370 3 3 101 402 269 107 75 40 511 0 0 0 0 3 2 3755 7120 10875 2041 9981 2 1439 3 3 106 422 282 112 79 42 537 0 0 0 0 3 2 3941 7477 11418 2042 10480 2 1511 3 3 111 443 296 118 83 44 564 0 0 0 0 3 2 4138 7851 11989

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

10.6 Proposed Toll rates

Table 10.7: - Toll rates as on April 1, 2015

Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle 1.050 INR / Veh. km

Light Commercial Vehicle, Light Goods Vehicle or Mini Bus 1.600 INR / Veh. km

Bus or Truck 3.150 INR / Veh. km

Heavy Construction Machinery(HCM) or Earth Moving Equipment 5.250 INR / Veh. km (EME) or Multi Axle Vehicle (MAV) (three to six axles)

Oversized Vehicles (seven or more axles) 6.300 INR / Veh. km

10.7 Toll Revenue of Project Highway

Reduction in Toll Net Total from Toll Year Revenue due to Revenue in (in Rs) concession (Rs.) Million

2019 97062625 4853131 9.22

2020 105348125 5267406 10.01

2021 117325600 5866280 11.15

2022 127667875 6383394 12.13

2023 141760525 7088026 13.47

2024 155798425 7789921 14.80

2025 172239850 8611993 16.36

2026 190491675 9524584 18.10

2027 206980185 10349009 19.66

2028 230154400 11507720 21.86

2029 254556475 12727824 24.18

2030 276549550 13827478 26.27

2031 305432000 15271600 29.02

Page 11 of 11 Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility

Government of Rajasthan Report-R1/H1

2032 336002575 16800129 31.92

2033 371077250 18553863 35.25

2034 409838425 20491921 38.93

2035 450702000 22535100 42.82

2036 498902075 24945104 47.40 2037 547865000 27393250 52.05 2038 606436550 30321828 57.61 2039 663475100 33173755 63.03 2040 737555500 36877775 70.07 2041 809250625 40462531 76.88 2042 826246850 41312343 78.49

10.8 Summary of Financial Analysis

The summary of financial results from detailed financial analysis is given in table-10.9 given below:

S.N Alternative Alternative Particular o. -1 -2 Option-1 (With VGF 40%) Government Contribution (in %) during 1 30% 78% construction period Government Contribution (in %) during operation 2 10% 10% period 3 FIRR on Equity #DIV/0! 15.76%

4 FIRR on project 1.19% 1.01%

5 NPV with 12% IRR (in Cr.) -102.30 8.71

6 Average DSCR 0.89 2.81

********

Page 12 of 12

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

CHAPTER – 11 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

11.1 General

Public Works Department , Govt of Rajasthan. (PWD, Rajasthan), has decided to take up up-gradation, rehabilitation and widening of various Major District Roads , State Highways etc. in the Rajasthan where the intensity of traffic has increased and there is requirement of augmentation of capacity for safe and efficient movement of traffic.

Given the needs of the project to adequately address the concerns of the local population, the project has been conceived with suitable improvements.

11.2 Audit of Proposed Design

The Audit Team reviewed the proposed design from a road safety perspective and recommended in the following provisions.

Table 10.1 : Road Safety Audit Report Contents Items Provisions Aspects to be Safety and operational In general main carriageway has checked implications of proposed been designed for minimum alignment and junction design speed of 80 kmph in plain strategy with particular terrain for providing reasonable references to expected speed to heavy commercial road users and vehicle vehicle. Turning radius at types likely to use the road. junctions and sharp curves will be improved to facilitate high-speed turns. All major junctions will have acceleration and deceleration lanes. Width options considered Two lane + Granular Shoulder for various sections. Safety implications of the Initial environment impact scheme beyond its assessment has been carried out physical limits; i.e. how the and report shall be prepared and scheme fits into its environs submitted separately. and road hierarchy General Departures from standards Project road is designed at minimum speed of 80 kmph. Cross-sectional variation Except in built-up, at no place cross section is expected to be varied from standard formation width defined. Drainage Adequate provisions in terms of unlined drain on both side of

Page 1 of 1

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Contents Items Provisions main carriageway in plain / rolling terrain, open lined drain with kerbs in Hilly section and covered lined drain in built-up areas under separator are proposed. Besides above, drain network connectivity is also considered by keeping the provision of pipe culverts on cross roads merging/diverging from the project road. Climatic conditions Hot in Summer and Cold in Winter Pedestrian Crossings Provision for at grade crossing is made at locations based on pedestrian crossing survey. Landscaping Vegetation/ Agriculture/ Forest Public Transport State government (Madhya Pradesh) and private operators regularly ply buses. Besides for local transport, people travel by privately run buses/jeeps. Visibility All horizontal and vertical curves have been designed for appropriate stopping sight distance. Staging of contracts The entire length of the project road is proposed to be develop under single package only. Local New / Existing road Concentric widening is followed Alignment interface to restrict land acquisition issues to bare minimum. As far as possible, existing geometry has been followed in urban area. Aspects of ease in construction and traffic movement during the construction phase have been considered while preparing the widening scheme. Realignment is proposed in some urban areas to maintain the design speed. Safety Aids on steep slopes In high embankment section, metal beam crash barrier provision has been made. Vertical grades has been kept within 3.33% to 5% depending up

Page 2 of 2

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Contents Items Provisions on terrain. Junctions Minimize potential conflicts As cross traffic movement on most of the junctions are found to be varying from low to high, there is need to minimise conflict points. Conflict points will be addressed by providing adequate wearing lengths. Layout As far as possible, Y-junction will be eliminated and layout will be so designed so as to have minimum acquisition of land. Visibility All junctions will be designed to have adequate least stopping sight distance.

Signs and Signs / Markings Standard road signage having Lighting retro-reflective sheeting of Super High Intensity grade type IX and pavement marking of highest grade have been considered for the project road. Road studs and Arrow Sign Boards are considered at Junction and curve portions. Construction Buildability All aspects of available latest and construction technology have Operation been considered while proposing the highway and bridge design. Operational Pavement design has been proposed in such a manner as would require minimum maintenance. Network management New junctions have been introduced where the road is proposed to be re-alignment is proposed.

11.3 Recommendations

The following general recommendations are made:

 Based on the lane capacity analysis/Circular By PWD-Rajasthan, the consultant suggests going for two lane with granular shoulder for the project Road.

Page 3 of 3

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

 The scheme of construction / improvement proposals for Project Road, cross drainage structures and other facilities discussed in various chapters will be adopted for development of highway project.

 Highway expansions can be developed without causing significant adverse environmental impacts to the natural, social, economic or cultural environments of the study area, assuming the mitigation measures identified in this report are incorporated into detailed design.

 The project road has been designed for 100 km/h to 80 km/h speed in plain terrain.

 The vertical profile of the project road has been designed as at-grade sections with gentle gradient to achieve cost savings and minimize construction of elevated structures.

 Flexible pavement is recommended for entire stretch with toll plaza location. However widening of existing CC pavement is proposed to match the two lane with granular shoulder configuration . No new CC Pavement is proposed.

 The project can be constructed within 18 months period with strategic planning and through one construction package. The construction work may begin from Jan,2018.

 The baseline data was collected as per guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of highway project and as per provision in EIA notification of 27th January 1994 and amended on 14th September 2006.

 As the Project Road is Passes Through JawaharSagar Wildlife Sanctuary & Mukundra Hills (Tiger Reserve), Forest clearance as well as Wildlife Clearance is required.

 The estimated TPC is Rs. 153.23 Crores

 Budget Provision of Environmental Monitoring is 0.94Cr. & Budget Provision of Resettlement & Rehabilitation is 2.35 Cr. Also Approximate Cost of Utility Shifting is 0.45Cr.

Adding all these Cost in TPC gives the Grand Project Cost of Rs. 156.97Cr.

 The Project is financially non viable as per the above financial calculations. The detailed financial analysis is presented in Annexure Volume. So this project is proposed in Annuity Mode.

Page 4 of 4

Public Works Department ICSC/PWDRJ/25/Final Feasibility Government of Rajasthan Report-R0/H3

Page 5 of 5