Final Feasibility Report of Package-12

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report of Two-laning of (i) Km. 0 to Km. Government of Rajasthan 64 of SH-19 comprising the section from Kuchaman to Renwal-Kishangarh (the “Highway-V”) Final Feasibility Report of Package-12. Chapter – 0: Executive Summary

Contents

CONTENTS ...... 1 LIST OF TABLES ...... 1 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3 3. TRAFFIC SURVEY AND ANALYSIS ...... 5 4. ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS ...... 8 5. MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS ...... 16 6. STONE AGGREGATES ...... 16 7. ALIGNMENT ...... 16 8. PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ...... 19 9. BYPASSES ...... 21 10. PAVEMENT DESIGN ...... 21 11. PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURES ...... 24 11.1 CULVERTS ...... 24 11.2 BRIDGES ...... 26 11.3 RAILWAY CROSSINGS ...... 27 11.4 TREES IN ROW ...... 27 11.5 UTILITIES ...... 27 12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 27 13. COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ...... 28

LIST OF TABLES Table: 0.1 Homogeneous Sections 5 Table: 0.2 Traffic Survey Location 5 Table: 0.3 Project Section in PCU’s 7 Table: 0.4 Pavement Condition 11 Table: 0.5 Homogeneous Sections with Respective Design 11 Table: 0.6 Field Soil Investigation 13 Table: 0.7 Result of sample of fine aggregates 13 Table: 0.8 Settlement Locations along the Project Corridor 17 Table: 0.9 Table showing road way 18 Table: 0.10 List of Intersections 18 Table: 0.11 Cross Sectional Elements 20 Table: 0.12 Sight Distances 20 Table: 0.13 Geometric Design Standards for Horizontal Alignment 20 Table: 0.14 Min. Radius (for 2.5% camber) not requiring super elevation 20 Table: 0.15 Radius of circular curves not requiring transition curve 20 Table: 0.16 List of Bypasses 21 Table: 0.17 Input Parameters for Flexible Pavement Design Flexible Pavement Composition 21 Table: 0.18 Overlaying on Existing Pavement 22 Table : 0.19 New Construction due to Widening 23 Table: 0.20 Detail of exiting culverts 24 Table: 0.21 Bridges 26 Table: 0.22 Railway Crossing 27

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 1 of 30

Table: 0.23 Preliminary Construction Cost 28 Table: 0.24 Traffic Data Inputs 29 Table: 0.25 Structuring of Project Finance 29 Table: 0.26 Maintenance cost 30

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 0.1 Location Map of Project Road 4 Figure 0.2 Traffic Survey Locations 6

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 2 of 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION

The Governor of Rajasthan acting through the Chief Engineer (Roads), Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan (the “Authority”) is engaged in the development of state highways and as part of this endeavour, the Authority has decided to undertake two-laning of Kuchaman – Renwal - Kishangarh (the “Project”) through Public Private Partnership (the “PPP”) on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (the "DBFOT") basis.

Authority has decided to conduct feasibility studies for determining the technical feasibility and financial viability of all Highways comprising the Project. It found technically feasible and financially viable, the Highways under the Project may be awarded on DBFOT basis to a private entity (the “Concessionaire”) selected through a competitive bidding process. The Project would be implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the concession agreement to be entered into between the Authority and the Concessionaire (the “Concession Agreement”).

In pursuance of the above, the Authority has decided to carry out the process for selection of a Technical Consultant, a Financial Consultant and a Legal Adviser for preparing the Feasibility Report and bid documents. The Financial Consultant will develop the revenue model and assist the Authority in the bidding process. The Legal Adviser will review the draft concession agreement based on the Model Concession Agreement for State Highways through Public Private Partnership (the “MCA”) read with the Manual of Standards and Specifications. The Technical Consultant shall prepare the Feasibility Report in accordance with the Terms of Reference specified (“TOR”).

In developing the Work Plan for completing the assignment, the activities have been categorized under nine stages as follows: 1. Stage I - Inception Report 2. Stage II - Supplementary Inception Report 3. Stage III - Report on Alignment and First Traffic Survey 4. Stage IV - Report on Land Plan Schedules and Utility Relocation 5. Stage V - Report on Indicative GAD of Structures 6. Stage VI - Report on Environment and Social Impact Assessment 7. Stage VII - Draft Feasibility Report 8. Stage VIII - Final Feasibility Report 9. Stage IX - Completion of Services including assistance during Bid Process 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIO 1. The Site of the Two-Lane Project Highway comprises the sections of SH- 19 commencing from Kuchaman to Renwal Kishangarh. The total length of the project stretch is 66.750 km. 2. RENWAL KISHANGARH:- Renwal Kishangarh is a town and a municipality in Jaipur district in the Indian state of Rajasthan. As of 2011 India census, Renwal Kishangarh had a population of 29,201.14,993 Males 14,208 Females. Renwal Kishangarh has a literacy rate of 75.82%, higher than the national average of 72.99% and lower than the national urban average of 84.11%: Male literacy is 87.96%, and female literacy is 63.14%. In Renwal Kishangarh, 13.9%

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 3 of 30

of the population is under 6 years of age. The town is a commercial habitat and is Tehsil Headquarter. Railway station: RENWAL (RNW) Police station: RENWAL situated outside from town. 3. KUCHAMAN CITY:- Kuchaman City is a city and a municipality in Nagaur district in the Indian State of Rajasthan. The city includes a few Havelis in the Shekhawati style and a fort overlooking the city. The fort is about 1100 years old and was built in the 9th century, by the Rathore ruler, Zalim Singh. One can also find fresco painting here on variable subjects such as flowers, motifs, and Hindu Mythology. Kuchaman is a semi developed town. It is situated on the Jaipur Nagaur route. It is 145 kilometres (90 mi) from Jaipur and 101 km (63 mi) from Ajmer. But city is not directly link with Railways. The main businesses in the town are salt- processing and local trade. There are many social societies active in the town, such as Kuchaman Vikas Samiti, the Lions Club, the Rotary Club, Narayan Sewa Sansthan, Maulana Azad Educational Society, Madarsa Islamiya Society, and Mahaveer International. Kuchaman City's educational system is fairly developed, and during the last few years, students from other parts of the state have been coming to the city for education. 4. The existing road passing through Kuchaman – Renwal - Kishangarh. The existing alignment of Road traverses through Nagaur, Sikar and Jaipur Districts in the State of Rajasthan. Project road end at km. 62+170 (Design chainage Km. 66+750). 5. The entire corridor has single lane configuration except on structuring on it existing alignment with granular/earthen shoulder. While traversing it passes through 22 villages.

Figure 0.1 Location Map of Project Road

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 4 of 30

The entire project corridor has a single lane carriageway. In general the terrain is plain. In some built-up sections, higher road widths were observed. The land use pattern is mainly agricultural, commercial and built-up area. Existing road has 0.0m to 2.36m earthen shoulders.

3. TRAFFIC SURVEY AND ANALYSIS Estimation of traffic over the project corridor is an essential step in project preparation. This includes conducting field traffic surveys, data analysis estimation of traffic (ADT & AADT) and estimating commercial vehicles loading (CSA) for pavement design. The present traffic surveys have been planned in a way to obtain all the necessary information and data deemed necessary for the detailed project preparation. In order to identify traffic survey locations, the project road is divided into homogeneous sections based traffic flow pattern as given Table 0.1 . Table 0-1: Homogeneous Sections

Sections From En-route To Length (Km) Hirani, Sindhupura, Bhavnta, Indokha, Kankriya, 1 Kuchaman Surera 36.00 Bhuni, Dalelpura, Muwana, Rajliya Beniyon Ka Bas, Dansroli,Kankra, Dulhepura, Nosal, Renwal 2 Surera 30.750 Rajpura, Karad, ,Balyawas,Renwal-Kishangarh Kishangarh

total = 66.750

To establish the traffic flow characteristics and travel pattern on the corridor and to evaluate the viability of the project road on PPP mode, the following surveys were conducted on the identified locations along the project road sections. 7-days Classified Traffic Volume Count (CTVC) Surveys(Twice) 1-day 24 hr. Axle Load Surveys Location for carrying out traffic surveys were selected so as to coincide with the proposed toll plaza locations based on site reconnaissance and was finalized in-consultation with the client. The traffic survey locations on project road along with survey schedule are presented in Table 0.2 and shown in Figure 0.2 . The surveys were undertaken during the period 29 th October to 04 th November 2014 and second time during 3rd September 2015 to 9 th September 2015. Table 0-2: Traffic Survey Location Location S.N. Traffic Survey Details Section Start date End date Survey Details 1 Kuchaman To Surera Section -1 Bhanvta 29/10/14 4/11/14 First 2 Surera To Renwal - Kishangarh Section-2 Karad 29/10/14 4/11/14 Traffic 3 Kuchaman To Surera Section -1 Bhanvta 3/9/15 9/ 9/2015 Second 4 Surera To Renwal - Kishangarh Section-2 Karad 3/9/15 9/9/2015 Traffic

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 5 of 30

Figure 0.2: Traffic Survey Locations

Traffic demand plays the most important factor in deciding the type of facility (infrastructure) to be provided. This in turn determines likely benefits and costs to develop the same. A highway project of this nature calls for significant investment. Prediction of traffic demand becomes an important task and has to be nearly accurate. For the design of pavement and to plan for the future maintenance programmer as well as capacity augmentation and for economic evaluation, it is necessary to have realistic estimate of the size of traffic in the year 2014 to year 2040.

Traffic forecasting is made by determining the past trend of traffic flow along the corridor and by use of economic models developed to co-relate past vehicle registration data and economic indices such as per capita income (PCI), gross state domestic product (GSDP) and gross domestic product (GDP). By using the elasticity values obtained from the econometric models and the likely rate of growth of indices, population and zonal influences, the mode wise growth rates are established. Applying this growth rates, future traffic volume is estimated. The traffic estimated for future years are given in the Table 0.3 below.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 6 of 30

Table: 0.3 Projected sectional traffic in PCUs

First Traffic Survey Second Traffic Survey Average Year KM_12.500 KM_55+000(TVC- KM_12.500 KM_55+000(TVC- TVC-I TVC-II (TVC-1) 2) (TVC-1) 2) Base Year 2014 3681 1967 987 1364 2334 1666 1 2015 3865 2066 1036 1432 2451 1749 2 2016 4058 2169 1088 1504 2573 1837 3 2017 4261 2277 1142 1579 2702 1928 4 2018 4474 2391 1199 1658 2837 2025 5 2019 4697 2511 1259 1741 2978 2126 6 2020 4932 2636 1322 1828 3127 2232 7 2021 5179 2768 1388 1919 3284 2344 8 2022 5438 2907 1458 2015 3448 2461 9 2023 5710 3052 1530 2116 3620 2584 10 2024 5995 3205 1607 2222 3801 2714 11 2025 6295 3365 1687 2333 3991 2849 12 2026 6610 3533 1772 2450 4191 2992 13 2027 6940 3710 1860 2572 4400 3141 14 2028 7287 3895 1953 2701 4620 3298 15 2029 7651 4090 2051 2836 4851 3463 16 2030 8034 4294 2153 2978 5094 3636 17 2031 8436 4509 2261 3126 5349 3818 18 2032 8858 4735 2374 3283 5616 4009 19 2033 9300 4971 2493 3447 5897 4209 20 2034 9765 5220 2617 3619 6191 4420 21 2035 10254 5481 2748 3800 6501 4641 22 2036 10766 5755 2886 3990 6826 4873 23 2037 11305 6043 3030 4190 7168 5117 24 2038 11870 6345 3182 4399 7526 5372 25 2039 12463 6662 3341 4619 7902 5641

Colour ID DSV (PCU/day) Lane Configuration LOS 6000 DSV of Intermediate Lane LOS - B 8400 DSV of Intermediate Lane LOS - C 15000 DSV of Two Lane LOS - B 21000 DSV of Two Lane LOS - C 17250 DSV of 2 Lane + P Shld LOS - B 24150 DSV of 2 Lane + P Shld LOS - C

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 7 of 30

4. ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS

This activity includes the following tasks: Topographic, alignment and land use survey Road inventory survey Road condition survey Bridge condition survey Soil, geo-technical, material, hydrology and drainage surveys

Topographic, alignment and land use survey The activities and Deliverables forming part of the topographic, alignment and land use survey are described below: a) Divide the Project into various stretches as per terrain classification b) Identify sections of Project which fall within urban limits and need four laning in accordance with the Manual. c) Identify sections of Project which require rising. Such sections will be identified with attention being paid to the previous history of submergence and the extent to which the subgrade is likely to be affected by the capillary action if the section is not raised. d) As far as possible, the existing alignment would be retained subject to the following requirements: i. Identify stretches which do not meet the criterion of ruling design speed, i.e. where radii of horizontal curves are less than desirable minimum. Prepare realignment plans for improving geometrics in such stretches. ii. Identify stretches out of (i) above, which meet the criterion of minimum design speed, i.e. where the radii of horizontal curves are more than the absolute minimum (This will enable the Authority to take a view on whether to include such stretches for improving geometrics in the initial stage or these can be postponed by a few years and in the meantime steps can be taken to acquire the necessary land for the ROW). iii. Identify stretches where stopping sight distance is not available. Work out possible improvement plan to increase the sight distance to provide overtaking sight distance. Also work out option to increase the sight distance to provide at least the intermediate sight distance. iv. Identify stretches, other than those in (iii) above, where intermediate sight distance is not available. Work out possible improvement plan to increase the sight distance to provide overtaking sight distance. Also work out possible improvement plan to increase the sight distance to provide at least the intermediate sight distance. v. Identify stretches where the gradients are steeper than the ruling gradient for the relevant terrain condition. Work out and prepare an improvement plan for the vertical alignment in such stretches. Divide improvement plans of such stretches into the following two parts:-

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 8 of 30

a. Stretches where gradient is more than the ruling gradient but less than the limiting gradient. (The Authority can take a view on whether improvements of stretches in this category shall be taken up or not.) vi. Identify stretches where extra width of roadway and carriageway at curves is required. e) Identify stretches involving construction of new bridges and other grade separated structures including those requiring reconstruction and their approaches. Work out proposal for location of such structures and alignment of approaches. f) Based on the improvement plans of horizontal and vertical alignment worked out as a result of tasks in (d), (e) and (f), prepare alignment plans, L-Sections and cross-sections of the entire Project. Scale of drawings shall be as per IRC: SP: 19. Proposed improvements shall be marked on the plans. Such improvements will include raising of road, widening of roadway, widening of existing carriageway, provision of shoulders – both paved and granular, new structures, underpasses, grade separators, service roads, additional road signs, road furniture, safety devices, relocation of utilities, removal of trees, etc. g) Also prepare a separate Land Plan of the Project showing the existing ROW (along with all the existing assets within the ROW e.g. structures, drains, service roads, trees, utilities and safety devices) and proposed additional land required in various stretches for improvement of geometrics, construction of new structures, provision of intersections, interchanges, service roads, toll plazas, project facilities, etc. The Land Plan should also show encroachments, if any. A list of such encroachments along with their brief description shall also be prepared and included in the Feasibility Report. h) For additional land proposed to be acquired as per final alignment plan of the Project, the Land Plans shall be marked on duly certified village maps showing khasara numbers and shall be furnished along with a report which will include detailed schedules in respect of the proposed acquisition of land holdings as per revenue records in a format that would enable the Authority to initiate land acquisition proceedings. i) A set of cross-sections of the existing road including urban sections at one interval for each homogeneous section in plain/rolling terrain and at 100 m intervals in mountainous/steep terrain shall be provided by the Consultant. In plain/ rolling terrain, additional cross-sections shall be provided for curves at the start, at the middle and at the end. These cross-sections along with proposed improvement plan and preliminary design shall form the basis of preparation of indicative BOQ for the Project. Road inventory survey Deliverables under this component shall include: a) An inventory of road, culverts, bridges and other structures like railway over/under bridges, flyovers (grade separated structures), underpasses and overpasses. b) Identification of stretches of the Project which - i. are affected by frequent flooding; ii. are subjected to water logging; iii. pass through black cotton soil area; iv. pass through marshy area; or v. pass through weak soil stratum

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 9 of 30

c) Typical cross-sections of the existing road showing the crust composition of pavement shoulders and drains (one cross-section for every five of the road). d) Identification of sections in cutting. e) Identification of culverts requiring: i. Reconstruction (all culverts which are structurally distressed shall be reconstructed as new structures). ii. Widening (all existing culverts which are not to be reconstructed shall be widened equal to the roadway width). iii. Repairs and/or rehabilitation along with preliminary proposals. iv. New construction. Road condition survey The Consultant has undertaken a survey of the visual condition of the pavement and shoulders of the Project and provides its report as per Proforma-4 and also report if distresses are observed in the pavement and shoulders. Identify sections requiring reconstruction.

Bridge condition survey The activities and Deliverables forming part of bridge condition survey are specified below:

a. The Consultant has carried out a detailed inspection of every bridge and other structures such as railway over/under bridges, overpasses, underpasses and grade separators including flyovers. (For guidance, see IRC: SP: 35 and IRC: SP: 52). b. For each structure, the Consultant will indicate the distresses observed, if any, in respect of various components of the structures e.g. bearings, expansion joints, wearing coat, railings/crash-barriers, foundations, substructures (abutments, piers, and pier caps), superstructure (Proforma-5). On the basis of the distresses observed, the Consultant shall divide the structures into the following categories: c. Structures requiring reconstruction immediately as part of first stage development (all such structures shall be provided as new structures); d. Structures where distresses are not so severe and reconstruction can be postponed to a subsequent stage say for a period of 7 to 8 years; if any major repairs are required in the meantime, these shall be so indicated for each such location; e. Structures requiring repairs and/or rehabilitation (for such structures indicate preliminary proposals for repairs and/or rehabilitation); f. Structures requiring widening (for such structures indicate widening methodology); and g. Structures that shall be retained.

Soil, geotechnical, material, hydrology and drainage surveys The activities and Deliverables forming part of the soil, geotechnical, material, hydrology and drainage surveys are described below:

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 10 of 30

(a) The characteristics of the existing soil, one samples from every three km of the Project or closer where change in soil type is encountered. (b) The determination of subgrade CBR (soaked) every three km of the Project or closer where change in soil type is encountered. (c) Benkelman Beam Deflection measurements on the Project – one set of ten readings in for every three km. of the Project. (d) Investigations of the subsoil strata (one trial bore and/or test pit at embankment and one in river bed at locations where new bridges or other structures are proposed. The depth of trial bore/ test pit shall be as per IRC standards). (e) Preliminary hydraulic data for bridges, design discharge, HFL, LWL, etc. with a view to checking adequacy of existing waterway. (f) A broad assessment of the drainage condition and requirement of the Project.

4.1 Pavement Condition Survey The existing pavement for the most of the stretch is of bituminous or flexible surface, except at few stretches in built-up/settlement/villages sections from 0+000 to 1+000, 1+900 to 2+000, 11+550 to 11+650, 32+300 to 33+500, 40+400to 41+400, 43+700 to 44+100, 45+250 to 45+650, 47+400 to 47+600, 52+000 to 52+700, 53+250 to 53+300 where it is rigid pavement. The details of condition of Pavement by visual observation are given in Table 0.4 below: Table: 0.4 Pavement Condition Description Length (km) % of total length Details of Chainage Poor 62+170 100% 0+000 to 62+170 Total 62+170 100%

4.2 Pavement Structural Strength

Benkelman Beam deflection studies are carried out for evaluating the requirements of strengthening of Flexible pavements, because the existing road Performance of flexible pavement is closely related to elastic deflection under the wheel loads. The deformation under a given load depends upon sub-grade soil type, its moisture content and dry density, pavement surface temperature, drainage condition etc. The project road is divided into homogeneous sections based on the BBD survey. The homogeneous sections are mentioned in the following Table 0.5. Among the Homogeneous sections the characteristic deflection varies from 0.547 mm to 0.973 mm. Table: 0.5 Homogeneous Sections with Respective Design

S. No. Chainage (Km.) Deflection Homogenous Sections

1 0 - 5 2.13 2 5 - 10 1.98 2.166 3 10 - 15 2.17 4 15 - 20 2.20 5 20 - 25 2.40 2.401 6 25 - 30 2.06 7 30 - 35 2.16 2.166

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 11 of 30

S. No. Chainage (Km.) Deflection Homogenous Sections

8 35 - 40 2.23 9 40 - 45 2.44 10 45 - 50 2.36 2.467 11 50 - 55 2.47 12 55 - 60 2.44 2.44

4.3 Sub grade Investigations Investigations have been carried out by digging test pits to assess the adequacy of existing pavement layers including sub-grade soil properties to establish the strengthening / reconstruction requirements to cater for design traffic during service life. The laboratory investigations of sub-grade indicate that the existing sub-grade varies from location to location along the road. The summary of the sub-grade soil properties is given in Table 0.6.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 12 of 30

Table: 0.6 Field Soil Investigation S. No. Soil Parameters Km 4 Km 8 Km 12 Km 16 Km 20 Km 24 Km 28 Km 32 Grain Size Analysis

a) Gravels (%) 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 1 b) Sand (%) 5 8 5 7 6 8 2 3

c) Silt + Clay (%) 95 92 87 88 94 92 98 97 Consistency Limits

a) Liquid Limit, W L (%) 25 24 20 22 25 20 23 21 2 b) Plastic Limit, W P (%) NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP

c) Plasticity Index, I P (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard Proctor Test

3 a) MDD (t/m 3) 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.79 1.80 1.82 1.85 1.82

b) OMC (%) 11.0 11.2 13.5 12.5 12.0 11.8 13.5 11.7

4 CBR (Soaked) (%) 6.2 5.8 7.2 5.9 6.3 7.5 8.0 6.2

S. No. Soil Parameters Km 36 Km 40 Km 44 Km 48 Km 52 Km 56 Km 60 Km 64 1 Grain Size Analysis a) Gravels (%) 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 b) Sand (%) 8 7 7 6 8 6 4 6 c) Silt + Clay (%) 91 92 93 98 90 92 96 94 2 Consistency Limits

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 13 of 30

S. No. Soil Parameters Km 36 Km 40 Km 44 Km 48 Km 52 Km 56 Km 60 Km 64

a) Liquid Limit, W L (%) 26 22 24 21 25 20 26 22

b) Plastic Limit, W P (%) NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP

c) Plasticity Index, I P (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Standard Proctor Test

a) MDD (t/m 3) 1.86 1.82 1.80 1.83 1.85 1.86 1.80 1.84

b) OMC (%) 13.1 12.8 12.6 11.1 12.5 13.4 11.3 12.2 4 CBR (Soaked) (%) 7.3 5.9 7.7 8.7 8.2 7.5 6.8 6.3

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 14 of 30

Table: 0.7 Tests Results of Samples of Fine Aggregates for Kuchaman-Renwal Road Sample from Banas River

S.No. Sieve Size Sample-1 Sample 2 Cumulative Cumulative % Passing % Passing % Retained % Retained 1 80.0 mm 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 2 40.0 mm 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 3 20.0 mm 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 4 10.0 mm 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 5 4.75 mm 9.10 90.9 0.00 100.00 6 2.36 mm 12.20 87.8 5.00 95.00 7 1.18 mm 18.60 81.4 18.50 81.50 8 0.60 mm 25.70 74.3 40.50 59.50 9 0.30 mm 58.80 41.2 75.00 25.00 10 0.15 mm 99.20 0.80 97.50 2.50 Sum 223.6 236.50 F.M. 2.24 2.36

S. Tests Sample from Banas River No. Sample-1 Sample 2 1 Specific Gravity 2.60 2.62 2 Water Absorption 0.58 0.60 3 Bulk Density (t/m 3) 1.87 1.90 4 Deleterious Mat. 0.00 0.00 5 Silt + Clay (%) 0.80 2.50 6 Fineness Modulus 2.24 2.36

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 15 of 30

5. MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS

The material investigation for road construction has been carried out to identify the potential sources of construction materials and to assess their general availability, mechanical properties and quantities. This is one of the most important factors for stable, economic and successful implementation of the road program within the stipulated time. For improvement work as well as for new carriageway / bypass the list of materials includes the following: Granular material for lower sub-base works Crushed stone aggregates for upper sub-base, base, surfacing and cement works Sand for filter material and cement, concrete works, sub-base and filling material Borrow material for embankment, sub grade and filling Manufactured material like cement, steel, bitumen, geo-textiles etc. for other related works. Potential sources of soil for the construction of embankment and sub grade (for Reconstruction / New Carriageway) were identified on either side of the project road. The summary of test results of all the borrow areas investigated with their respective locations; corresponding chainage and description / properties of material are tabulated in Table: 0.6 & 7.

6. STONE AGGREGATES The availability and quality of material as coarse and fine aggregate was explored and it was found that lot of crushers are available near Kuchaman & Renwal. This material is suitable for construction of road. Bitumen (IS 73- 1961) is available at Mathura (UP) which is around 325 km from Start of the Project road. The steel to be used as reinforcement for cross drainage structures shall be Deformed Steel Bars conforming to IS 1786. The cement of various types like Ordinary Portland Cement - 43 Grade, 53 Grade and Pozzolana Cement is required for the construction. The steel and Cement are available in Kuchaman, Renwal & Chomu.

7. ALIGNMENT

The existing alignment of Road traverses through Nagaur, Sikar & Jaipur Districts in the State of Rajasthan as shown under: Project road completely passes through plain terrain. The road lies mostly in rural area, passing through few rural and quasi-urban settlements causing mild hindrance to the uninterrupted flow of traffic. The settlement locations are listed below.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 16 of 30

Table 0.8: Settlement Locations along the Project Corridor Design Chainage S. No. District Villages / Town From To 1 Nagaur 0.000 1.600 Kuchman Twon 2 Nagaur 11.140 12.300 Hirani (Bypass Proposed) 3 Nagaur 12.900 13.200 Sindhipura 4 Nagaur 14.400 15.430 Bhanwata (Bypass Proposed) 5 Nagaur 17.800 18.450 Indhokha 6 Nagaur 20.880 21.120 Kankariya 7 Nagaur 24.550 25.550 Bhooni 8 Nagaur 27.700 28.020 Dalelpura (Bypass Proposed) 9 Nagaur 31.780 32.960 Muwana (Bypass Proposed) 10 Nagaur 35.800 37.000 Rajaliya Village 11 Nagaur 38.260 40.430 Surera (Bypass Proposed) 12 Nagaur 41.800 41.940 Kodiyaon ka Bass 13 Sikar 42.800 43.000 Beniyon ka Bass 14 Sikar 47.100 48.300 Dansaroli 15 Sikar 49.780 50.665 Kankra (Bypass Proposed) 16 Sikar 51.300 52.000 Dulhepura 17 Sikar 53.700 54.100 Nausal 18 Sikar 55.300 55.500 Rajpura 19 Sikar 55.950 56.100 Laxmipura 20 Jaipur 58.050 59.050 Karad 21 Jaipur 59.650 60.550 Balyawas 22 Jaipur 65.100 66.750 Renwal Town

7.1 Climate These districts have dry climate. The cold season lasts for about three and half months from November to the end of February. The period from April to the end of June constitutes the hot season. The Monsoon starts in the end of June. The temperature rises to 51°C in summers and falls to a minimum of 3° to 4° in winters. 7.2 Land Use Land use along the project road is mostly forest and agricultural. Scattered quasi-urban and rural settlements exist on both sides of the road with intervals. 7.3 Right of Way The existing right of way is partly marked along the corridor. From the reconnaissance it is suggested to carry out concentric widening. However, the alignment would be so designed as to keep the resulting carriage in the centre of the final right of way for the sake of ease of future widening. Additional Land Acquisition may be a necessary and will essentially be to accommodate geometric improvements and widening the road to Intermediate-lane.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 17 of 30

7.4 Roadway The existing carriageway width for the entire project road is varying from 3.75 m with a varying earthen shoulder width 0.0 – 2.36. Table 0.9: Table showing road way S. No. Road Section Chainage C/W Formation Width Km. 0+00 to Km. 35+500 3.75 m 6.00m to 8.00m 1 Kuchaman – Surera Nagaur District Surera to After Karad 35+500 to 54+300 6.00m to 8.00m 2 3.75 Village Sikar District After Karad Village to Km.54+300 to 66+750 6.00m to 8.00m 3 3.75 End of Road Jaipur District

7.4.1 Intersections A total of 30 roads meet the project road, 3 Major Junctions and 27 Minor Junction. The details of junctions are given below: Table 0.10: List of Intersections S. Design Type of Type Cross Direction Remarks Majot/Minor No. Chainage Junction Road To R - Parbatsar, L - Kuchaman

1 0.000 + Both Paved Major City

2 5.900 + Both Paved To L- Kuchaman, R-Padampura Minor

3 6.900 + Both Paved To R- Kuchaman Minor

4 8.360 T Left Paved To Khariya Village Minor

5 8.600 T Left Paved To Kuchaman town Minor

6 11.140 T Left Paved To Hirani Village Minor

7 12.260 T Left Paved To Hirani Village Minor

8 14.360 T Left Paved To Bhanwta Village Minor

9 15.420 T Left Paved To Bhanwta Village Minor

10 14.925 T Right Paved To Kherpura Minor

11 18.560 T Left Paved To Haripura Village Minor

12 24.840 T Right Paved To Bhuni Minor

13 27.020 T Left Paved To Dalelpura Village Minor

14 28.060 T Left Paved To Dalelpura Village Minor

15 31.925 T Left Paved To Durga Pura Mata Mandir Minor

16 31.780 T Left Paved To Muwana Village Minor

17 33.000 T Left Paved To Muwana Village Minor

18 35.980 T Left Paved To Khardapura Minor

19 38.260 T Right Paved To Surera Village Minor

20 40.430 + Both Paved To L- Danta Ramgarh/ R- Nawa Major

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 18 of 30

S. Design Type of Type Cross Direction Remarks Majot/Minor No. Chainage Junction Road

21 47.740 T Left Paved To Kheshaw ka Basaiyan Minor

22 49.760 T Right Paved To Kankra Village Minor

23 51.780 T Right Paved To Vijaypura Village Minor

24 52.700 + Both Paved To L- Nosal/ R-Devla Minor

25 53.600 T Left Paved To Nosal Village Minor

26 58.850 T Right Paved To Kuli Village Minor

27 58.340 T Left Paved To Karad Village Minor

28 58.860 T Left Paved To Balalji ka Temple Minor

29 60.760 T Left Paved To Renwal Town Minor

30 65.500 T Right Paved To Maroth Major

7.4.2 Submergence The However some locations Flush Causeway exits at Crossing roads and habitations. All such Locations will be converted to Rigid Pavement with drains on both sides.

8. PROPOSED ALIGNMENT The present scope of work is to develop the existing Single Lane carriageway configuration to Intermediate-lane standard carriageway configuration in order to ensure better speed of travel with comfort and safety. Minimum cutting of road side trees, relocation of temples and relocation of existing utility lines situated with-in ROW has been taken in to consideration while finalising widening proposals. Existing road has single lane carriageway. Based upon (2014) AADT along the project road, it is observed in the order of about 850 PCU. This Road forms a link road between two roads of EWC(S) corridor & hence is to be developed to same specifications. Based on traffic analysis and forecasting, capacities augmentation to Intermediate-lane configurations is required immediately. Thus the proposed cross-sections for improvement of existing road is worked out in accordance with the design standards and the Major features are given here:

Carriageway 5.50 m Granular Shoulder 2.25 m (on either side)

Widening in the form of concentric widening has been proposed to minimise the interruption to the traffic movement during the construction. However, in case of geometric improvement the small realignment stretches have been planned to ease the alignment over the existing scenario. The widening has been proposed concentric wherever it is passing through the settlements. Design of widening scheme is governed by the roadside constraints and availabilities of right of way. The proposed alignment has been designed for 100 kmph but in some cases this has not been possible to avoid major improvement. All such locations had been discussed with working group who decided to reduce the design speed. The proposed geometric standards are given in the following table.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 19 of 30

Table 0.11: Cross Sectional Elements Particulars Design Values Width (m) Lane 3.5 Hard shoulder 2.25

Camber (%)

Carriageway 2.5

Shoulders 3 Embankment Side Slope 1(V) : 2(H) Gradient (%) Maximum 4 Right of Way (m) 24

Overall width (m) between Building lines 24

Overall width (m) between Control lines 24

Table 0.12: Sight Distances Design Speed (kmph) Sight distance (m) Stopping Sight Overtaking Sight Intermediate Sight

distance Distance Distance 100 180 640 360 80 120 470 240

Table 0.13: Geometric Design Standards for Horizontal Alignment Design Speed (Kmph) Particular 100 80 Minimum Radius (m) of horizontal curves 360 230 Maximum Super Elevation (%) 7 7 Rate of change of Super elevation 1 in 200 1 in 200

Table 0.14 Min. Radius (for 2.5% camber) not requiring super elevation Design Speed (kmph) Radius (m) 100 1800 80 1100

Table 0.15 : Radius of circular curves not requiring transition curves Design Speed (kmph) Radius (m) 100 2000 80 1200

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 20 of 30

9. BYPASSES The exiting ROW generally ranges from 12 to 15 m. The ROW less does the 7 locations linked roads. Bypasses have been proposed at 7 Locations. Table 0-16:- List of bypasses Design Chainage Length in S.No. Remarks From To (m) 1 0+000 8+600 8.6 Proposed Bypass for Kuchaman Town 2 11+140 12+300 1.16 Proposed Bypass for Hirani Village 3 14+400 15+430 1.03 Proposed Bypass for Bhanwata Village 4 27+070 28+020 0.95 Proposed Bypass for Rewasa Dalelpura 5 31+780 32+960 1.18 Proposed Bypass for Muwana Village 6 38+260 40+430 2.17 Proposed Bypass for Surera Village 7 49+780 50+665 0.885 Proposed Bypass for Kankra Village

10. PAVEMENT DESIGN Flexible pavement has been adopted for new carriageways, widening of existing flexible pavement carriageway portion in plain and rolling terrains.

Flexible/Rigid Pavement Design

The pavement design basically aims at determining the total thickness of the pavement structure as well as thickness of individual structural components. The following assumptions are considered for the preliminary pavement design. The input parameters and pavement design compositions are presented in Table 0.17 below . Section –

Kuchaman – Renwal - Kishangarh Design Life : 15 Years for Sub Base / Base Course and 10 years for Bituminous Course CBR : 7% MSA : 5

The project road has been considered as two traffic homogeneous sections based on traffic intensity in terms of commercial vehicles.

Table: 0.17 Input Parameters for Flexible Pavement Design Flexible Pavement Composition (IRC: 37-2012) for section I to II Strengthening of Existing Road (Partial Construction) 15 year of 10 year of Design Chainage CW Width S.No. Length Design life Design life Start End Existing Proposed GSB WMM DBM BC 1 8.600 11 .140 2.540 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 2 12 .500 12 .900 0. 400 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 3 15 .430 15 .780 0.350 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 4 15 .900 15 .930 0.30 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 5 16 .000 16 .580 0.580 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 6 16 .735 16 .775 0.40 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 7 16 .830 17 .800 0.970 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 21 of 30

15 year of 10 year of Design Chainage CW Width S.No. Length Design life Design life Start End Existing Proposed GSB WMM DBM BC 8 18 .450 19 .080 0.630 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 9 19 .700 20 .500 0.800 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 10 20 .700 20 .880 0.180 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 11 21 .120 22 .580 1.460 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 12 23 .060 23 .200 0.140 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 13 23 .540 23 .740 0.200 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 14 23 .780 23 .900 0.120 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 15 23 .980 24 .550 0.570 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 16 25 .550 27 .070 1.520 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 17 28 .020 28 .480 0.460 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 18 28 .600 28 .630 0.30 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 19 28 .760 29 .660 0.900 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 20 30 .030 30 .190 0.160 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 21 30 .400 31 .780 1.380 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 22 32 .960 34 .970 2.010 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 23 35 .090 35 .800 0.710 3.75 5.5 260 25 0 50 40 24 37 .000 37 .260 0.260 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 25 37 .530 38 .050 0.520 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 26 38 .160 38 .260 0.100 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 27 40 .430 41 .800 1.370 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 28 41 .940 42 .740 0.800 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 29 42 .940 47 .100 4.160 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 30 48 .300 49 .780 1.480 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 31 50 .660 53 .700 3.040 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 32 54 .100 55 .300 1.200 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 33 55 .500 55 .950 0.450 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 34 56 .100 58 .050 1.950 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 35 59 .050 59 .650 0.600 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 36 60 .550 62 .380 1.830 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 37 62 .600 65 .100 2.500 3.75 5.5 260 250 50 40 Total Length 36.440

Table: 0.18 Strengthing of Rigid Pavement Chainage Width of CC S. No. From to Length Proposed 1 12.900 13.200 0.300 7 2 16.775 16.830 0.55 7 3 17.800 18.450 0.650 7 4 20.880 21.120 0.240 7 5 24.550 25.550 1.000 7 6 35.800 37.000 1.200 7 7 41.800 41.940 0.140 7 8 42.740 42.940 0.200 7 9 47.100 48.300 1.200 7 10 53.700 54.100 0.400 7

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 22 of 30

Chainage Width of CC S. No. From to Length Proposed 11 55.300 55.500 0.200 7 12 55.950 56.100 0.150 7 13 58.050 59.050 1.000 7 14 59.650 60.550 0.900 7 15 65.100 66.750 1.650 10 Total Length 9.285

Table 0.19: New Construction due to Realignment/Curve improvement 15 Years Design 10 Years Design Chainage MSA MSA S. Total Life Life Design Proposed for 15 for 10 No Start End Length CBR Width GSB WMM DBM BC Years Years Chainage Chainage 1 0 8.6 8.60 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 2 11.14 12.3 1.16 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 3 12.3 12.5 0.20 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 4 13.2 14.4 1.20 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 5 14.4 15.43 1.03 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 6 15.78 15.9 0.12 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 7 15.93 16 0.07 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 8 16.58 16.735 0.16 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 9 19.08 19.7 0.62 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 10 20.5 20.7 0.20 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 11 22.58 23.06 0.48 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 12 23.2 23.54 0.34 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 13 23.74 23.78 0.04 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 14 23.9 23.98 0.08 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 15 27.07 28.02 0.95 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 16 28.48 28.6 0.12 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 17 28.63 28.76 0.13 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 18 29.66 30.03 0.37 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 19 30.19 30.4 0.21 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 20 31.78 32.96 1.18 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 21 34.97 35.09 0.12 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 22 37.26 37.53 0.27 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 23 38.05 38.16 0.11 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 24 38.26 40.43 2.17 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 25 49.78 50.66 0.88 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 26 62.38 62.6 0.22 260 250 50 40 7 5.5 7 5 Totall Length 21.030

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 23 of 30

11. PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURES 11.1 Culverts Table: 0.20 Detail of existing culverts

Span Width of Height above Condition Assessment Arrangement culvert Bed level SI No. SI No. Proposal (Yes/ NO)(Yes/ Length (m) Length (m) n etc. Total (m) Total (m) Head wall Head Wingwall Return wall Returnwall Location (Chainage) Location (Chainage) side d/s (m) u/s Side (m) u/s Side (m) Slab, Pipe, Arch Slab, Arch Pipe, Carriageway (m)Carriageway Number of Spans Number Spans of Parapet/Handrail Parapet/Handrail Width of span (m) Width (m) span of Slab / Pipe / Masonry Arch) Slab / / Masonry Pipe Type of structure(RCC box Type / box structure(RCC of (D (D Recon.-Distressed Reconstruction) Box, Recommendation on Recommendation on Whether waterway adequate Whether waterway widening/Reconstructio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 To Be Replaced By 1 16.9 VCW 20 2 0.6 7.5 3.6 1.5 1.6 Good - Good Good N.A. Reconstruction No 1-6m Slab To Be Replaced By 2 19.28 FCW 20 - - 7.5 7 0.4 0.5 Good - - - - Reconstruction No 1X1.5X1.5 Box To Be Replaced By 3 19.79 FCW 20 - - 7.5 7 0.4 0.5 Good - - - - Reconstruction No 1X1.5X1.5 Box To Be Replaced By 4 20.05 FCW 20 - - 7.5 7 0.4 0.5 Good - - - - Reconstruction No 1X1.5X1.5 Box To Be Replaced By 5 22.75 FCW 20 - - 7.5 7 0.4 0.5 Good - - - - Reconstruction No 1X1.5X1.5 Box To Be Replaced By 6 23.9 HPC 10 2 1.2 7.5 3.69 1.1 1.5 Good - - Good Good Reconstruction No 2 X1.50X1.50 Box 7 26.83 FCW 20 - - 7.5 7 0.4 0.5 Good - - - - Reconstruction No To Be Replaced By

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 24 of 30

Span Width of Height above Condition Assessment Arrangement culvert Bed level SI No. SI No. Proposal (Yes/ NO)(Yes/ Length (m) Length (m) n etc. Total (m) Total (m) Head wall Head Wingwall Return wall Returnwall Location (Chainage) Location (Chainage) side d/s (m) u/s Side (m) u/s Side (m) Slab, Pipe, Arch Slab, Arch Pipe, Carriageway (m)Carriageway Number of Spans Number Spans of Parapet/Handrail Parapet/Handrail Width of span (m) Width (m) span of Slab / Pipe / Masonry Arch) Slab / / Masonry Pipe Type of structure(RCC box Type / box structure(RCC of (D (D Recon.-Distressed Reconstruction) Box, Recommendation on Recommendation on Whether waterway adequate Whether waterway widening/Reconstructio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1X1.5X1.5 Box To Be Replaced By 8 40.8 FCW 20 - - 7.5 7 0.4 0.5 Good - - - - Reconstruction No 1X1.5X1.5 Box To Be Replaced By 9 62.64 FCW 20 - - 7.5 7 0.4 0.5 Good - - - - Reconstruction No 1X1.5X1.5 Box To Be Replaced By 10 64.74 HPC 8.3 2 1.2 7.5 3.6 1.8 1.9 Good Good - - - Reconstruction No 2 X1.50X1.50 Box

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 25 of 30

11.2 Bridges There is no major or minor bridge in the alignment. Table: 0.21 Inventory of Minor Bridge

Height Span Width of bridge above Bed Condition Assessment arrangement Level S.No. S.No. Remarks Remarks Chainage Chainage Length (m) (m) Length (m) (m) (m) (m) Masonry arch) arch) Masonry Box/ Type of Structure Structure Type of D/s side side D/s adequate(Yes/No) Total (m) Total (m) Whether waterway waterway Whether widening/ widening/ Head Wall Head Wing Wall No. of Span Span No. of wall Return u/s side (m) side (m) u/s (R.C.C.,Box/Slab/ Pipe, Pipe, (R.C.C.,Box/Slab/ Carriage way way Carriage Width of span span of Width reconstruction reconstruction slab/pipe/Arch slab/pipe/Arch Recommendation Recommendation Parapet/Hand rail rail Parapet/Hand

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

Condition of Bridge

Location Location Piers Piers Piller Piller works works /crash /crash (specify) (specify) Bearings Bearings Remarks Remarks Flooding history history Flooding Abutments Abutments Other items items Other Type of Structure Structure Type of Foundations Foundations Guide bunds bunds Guide Wearing coat coat Wearing barriers/Gaurd barriers/Gaurd Approach slabs slabs Approach Super Structure Structure Super Expansion Joints Joints Expansion Other Protective Protective Other Parapets/Railings Parapets/Railings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 26 of 30

11.3 Railway Crossings There is one Railway Crossings in the Existing Alignment with following details: Table: 0.22 Railway Crossings S. No. Design Chainage LC No. TVU Remarks

There is One Railway Crossings (LC-131) having TVU 2,93,475 at km.66.750. ROB cannot be constructed at 1. 66+750 LC-131 2,93,475 this LC as there are 2 right angled junction/turns in the alignment and also Row is insufficient for ROB.

11.4 Trees in ROW Since the corridor is mainly passing through existing alignment, not many numbers of trees have been observed adjacent to the existing shoulder. Widening scheme has been so evolved as to cause minimum damage to existing trees, wherever this damage becomes unavoidable, loss will be compensated by planting new tress in consultations with Social Forestry Department of the Government of Rajasthan. Many trees along the new proposed bye-passes will have to be cut but the same shall be compensated. The details of this have been covered at the KD-6 stage.

11.5 Utilities There are electric lines, water pipe lines, water taps and OFC lines observed within the proposed ROW which may require re-location. Utilities, re-location plan has been evolved and submitted. The plans for shifting any water pipe lines, if found in the urban and quasi-urban areas will be made, after consultations with the concerned municipalities or agencies, as per design requirements. A separate plan for proposed different utility shifting has been prepared to submit with this report.

12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

An institutional mechanism needs to be incorporated in the proposed project management and execution system. The PWD will be responsible for the implementation of all the mitigation and management measures suggested in EMP for project road. The PWD is also responsible for implementation of the complete resettlement and rehabilitation for all those affected by the project and is committed to ensure the income restoration of the project affected and project displaced families. The detailed Initial Environment Examination (IEE) report has been submitted at KD-6 Stage. The PWD has certain organizational and institutional capacity, for satisfactory implementation of the EMP.

Environmental Monitoring Plan To ensure the effective implementation of the mitigation measures and environmental management plan during construction and operation phase of project road, monitoring plan has been designed for Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Monitoring, Water Quality Monitoring, Noise Levels measurements, Soil Erosion and Plantation.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 27 of 30

13. COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

The cost estimates for the construction were developed from the basic unit rates for cost of labour, material and equipment. These basic costs have been derived from various sources. These sources include the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H) standard data book for Rate Analysis published in 2003 and SOR.

The source data was reviewed and analyzed to provide realistic unit rates for the basic work items at current market prices. The item rates were derived based on the MoRT&H data book for rate analysis of 2003. These unit rates were considered to calculate the unit costs. However in the month of July 2015, PWD Rajasthan issued fresh guidelines wherein it was desired to prepare all the estimates on PWD NH BSR of the Jaipur circle. For the suggested pavement design and also on the basis of maintenance regime suggested for cross drainage structures, bill of quantities are worked out. The preliminary construction cost is given in Table 0.23.

13.1 ABSTRACT OF COST Table 0.23: Preliminary Construction Cost

Abstract of Cost (BSR NH Jaipur 2013) S. Length / Amount Name of Item Unit No. Nos (in lacs) Upgradation & Strengthening of 1 36.44 Kms 3421.35 Existing Road 2 Construction of Ne w Road 21.025 KMs 2243.60 3 Rigid Pavement and Drains 9.285 Kms 1853.17 4 Toll Plaza 2 Nos 240.00 5 New CD Works (Balancing Culvert) 12 Nos 46.85 6 Road Furniture for entire length 259.93 7 New Box Culverts Proposed 3 Nos 52.50 8 Truck Layby 0 Nos 0.00 9 Bus Shelters 44 Nos 44.00 10 Development of Junction 26 Nos 280.95 Total (Base cost) 8442.34 Escalation @10% 844.234 Civil Cost 9286.57 TPC (@15%) 10679.56

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 28 of 30

13.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Table 0.24: Traffic Data Inputs

First Traffic Survey Second Traffic Survey Average Section KUCHAMAN SURERA TO KUCHAMAN SURERA TO TVC-I TVC-II TO SURERA RENWAL TO SURERA RENWAL

TP-1 TP-2 TP-1 TP-2 KM_12.500 KM_55 +000

Length km 36 30.75 36 30.75 Cumulative Length 36 66.75 36 66.75

Section Toll Road 36 30.75 36 30.75 Length km

Cumulative Toll 36 66.75 36 66.75 Road Length km

TVC Location Used KM_12.500 KM_55 KM_12.500 KM_55 KM_12.500 KM_55 +000 TVC NO. 1 2 1 2 1 2 Car / Jeep /Van 1144 489 117 130 631 310 Buses 55 37 21 23 38 30 LCV 332 195 7 5 170 100 2AT 44 7 1 1 23 4 3AT 13 0 3 0 8 0 MAV 2 1 2 1 2 1

Project Cost - Rs. 92.86 Crores Project Cost with Financial overheads (15%) – TPC - Rs. 106.79 Crores Construction starts at - Jan 2016 Construction period - 18 Months Road opens to traffic - June 2017 Phasing of Project Cost - 1st Year – 40% - 2nd Year – 60%

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 29 of 30

Table 0.25 Structuring of Project Finance First Traffic Survey Second Traffic Survey Detail Average TVC -I TVC -II TVC -I TVC -II TVC -I TVC -II Tollable PCUs - Average 1991 733 228 221 477 1110 of PCUs

Non-Tollable PCUs - 1441 927 507 882 905 974 Average of TPs

Total PCUs - Average of 3681 1965 987 1365 1665 2334 TPs

Table 0.26: Maintenance Costs

Annual Maintenance Costs - 0.0175 Crores Per Km Periodic Maintenance Cost (Every 5th Year) - 0.30 Crores Per Km Annual Toll Plaza O&M Cost - 0.75 Crores Per toll Plaza Electrical & Petroleum Cost - 0.003 Crores Km Per Annum

Insurance Cost - Rs. 0.15%

10.7 Conclusion • The Project is not viable upto 40% VGF wherein collection from Shadow Toll has been included. (EIRR < 15%), hence the project may be taken up at other options of funding.

CEMOSA AVANZA PCPL CONSORTIUM Page 30 of 30