Chapter – 0: Executive Summary

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report of Two-laning of Km. Government of Rajasthan 0+000 to. Km. 81+000 of MDR-94 comprising the section from UNIARA –DOONI- Final Feasibility Report ANWA (the “Highway-I”)Chapter – 0: Executive Summary

CONTENTS

Contents...... 1 list of tables ...... 1 list of figures...... 2 executive summary ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Project description ...... 4 3. Traffic survey and analysis ...... 5 4. Engineering surveys and investigations ...... 8 5. Material investigations...... 12 6. Stone aggregates ...... 13 7. Alignment ...... 13 8. Proposed alignment ...... 16 9. Bypasses ...... 18 10. Pavement design ...... 18 11. Proposal for structures...... 20 11.1 culverts - existing culverts and major / minor bridge is given in table 0.22 & 0.23...... 20 11.2 bridges ...... 23 11.3 railway crossings ...... 24 11.4 trees in row ...... 24 11.5 utilities...... 24 12. Environmental impact assessment ...... 25 13. Cost estimate and financial analysis ...... 25

LIST OF TABLES

Table: 0.1 Homogeneous Sections 5 Table: 0.2 Traffic Survey Location 6 Table: 0.3 Project Section in PCU’s 7 Table: 0.4 Lane Configuration 7 Table: 0.5 Rigid Pavement Condition 8 Table: 0.6 Pavement Condition 8 Table: 0.7 Homogeneous Sections with Respective Design 9 Table: 0.8 Field Soil Investigation 10 Table: 0.9 Materials Investigation 11 Table: 0.10 List of Intersections Existing Pavement Investigation 12 Table: 0.11 Cross Sectional Elements Settlement Location the Project corridor 13 Table: 0.12 Table showing Road Way 14 Table: 0.13 List of Intersection 14 Table: 0.14 Cross sectional Elements 16 Table: 0.15 Sight Distances 16 Table: 0.16 Geometric Design Standards for Horizontal Alignment 16 Table: 0.17 Min. Radius (for 2.5% camber) not requiring super elevation 17 Table: 0.18 Radius of circular curves not requiring transition curve 17 Table: 0.19 Parameters for Flexible Pavement for section I & II (Partial/Full Construction) 18 Table : 0.20 New Construction due to Realignment and Curve Improvement 18 Table: 0.21 Proposal for Structures 19

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 1 of 29

Table: 0.22 Inventory of Minor Bridges 21 Table: 0.23 Railway Crossing 22 Table: 0.24 Preliminary Construction Cost 25 Table: 0.25 Traffic Data Inputs 24

LIST OF FIGURES

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

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 2 of 29

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 Uniara – Dooni- Anwa – Roneeja(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. If 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 ninestages 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

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 3 of 29

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. The Corridor Start at Palai village, Tehsil-Uniara of Tonk district in Rajasthan, Chainage 9.590 of MDR-94 (off take from NH-116A, at Palai village). This Road Passing through Nagar, Ghar, Dooni, Anwa and Khawaspura villages. Uniara is located at 25.92°N 76.02°E. It has an average elevation of 266 metres (872 feet). Uniara had a population around of 15,827. Uniara is located on National Highway No.116. Nearest Railway station is Sawai Madhopur, 39 km and district headquarters Tonk, 36 km. Nearest Airport is Jaipur, 136 km. Uniara is well connected from Jaipur, Kota, Bundi, and Ajmer by road. Uniara is located at 54 km on the way to Ranthambhore National Park from State Capital of Rajasthan Jaipur. Near Uniara there is a place of tourist attraction at village 'Kheda' 15 km on the way from Uniara to tonk near village Kakod. At village 'Kheda' there is a real size elephant carved out of stone. There is a Heritage Palace at Uniara, city has some large Hindu & Jain temples (historical), and fort worth visiting for their architecture. Best season to visit Uniara is October to February. 2. This Project road end at Km. 75+764 of MDR-94 (terminates at NH-116A at Roneeja village) and additional link of 3.145 kmsfrom Dooni to NH-12 (link terminates at KM 137+600 of NH-12).60.48 kms falls in Tonk district and 6.79 kms falls in Bundi District 3. The corridor has single lane/intermediate lane configuration except in urban areas, where it varies from 3.00 Mtr. to10.00 mtr.

additional link

Figure 0.1 Location Map of Project Road 4. 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 0.5m to 2.50m earthen shoulders.

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 4 of 29

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 Table0.1. Table 0-1: Homogeneous Sections

Section From En-route To Length Lachhmipura, Bosariya, 1 Palai Nagar 12.470 Km Kherli

2 Nagar Gurai, Balagarh Balagarh 11.340 Km Satwara, Chandwar, 3 Balagarh Dooni 18.900 Km Ghar, Chandsinghpura Dooni& Additional Link Anwa, Khawaspura, 4 Roneeja 23.464 Km + 3.145 Km to NH-12 Chakanandpura Total 69.319 Km

The existing road passing from Palai - Dooni – Anwa – Roneeja & Additional link of 3.145 Kms from Dooni to NH-12(link terminates at KM 137+600 of NH-12). This Project road ends at Km. 75+764 of MDR-94(terminates at NH-116A at Ronija village).

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 traffic surveys were undertaken during the period 2nd July to 08thJuly- 2015 (First Traffic Count) & 22nd Oct to 29th Oct-2015 (Second Traffic Count).

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 5 of 29

Table 0-2: Traffic Survey Location

S.No Traffic Survey Details Section Location Details Start date End date A Traffic Volume Count 1 Palai to Nagar Section-1 Km.16+000, After Kherli 02.07.2015 08.07.2015 2 Nagar to Balagarh Section-2 Km. 31+000, Gurai 02.07.2015 08.07.2015 3 Balagarh to Dooni Section-3 Km. 46+580, Ghar 02.07.2015 08.07.2015 4 Dooni to Roneeja Section-4 Km 64+000, Before Anwa 02.07.2015 08.07.2015 B Axle Load Survey 1 Balagarh to Dooni Section-3 Km. 46+580, Ghar 07.07.2015 08.07.2015 2 NH-12/Dooni to Roneeja Section-4 Km 64+000, Before Anwa 07.07.2015 08.07.2015

Figure 0.2: Map of Traffic Survey Locations

Traffic demandplays 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 programme as well as capacity augmentation and for economic evaluation, it is necessary to have realistic estimate of the size of traffic from the year 2015 to year 2041.

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 6 of 29

Traffic forecasting is made by assuming an annual growth rate of 5% (five percentages). Applying this growth rate, future traffic volume is estimated. The traffic estimated for future years are given in the Table 0.3 below. Table 0-3: Projected sectional traffic in PCUs

KM_16+00 KM_31+00 KM_46+58 KM_64+00 Year MDR-94 After MDR-94 MDR-94 MDR-94 Average Kherli Gurai _Ghar _Before Anwa Base 827 997 2684 2363 1718 Year 2015 0 2016 869 1047 2818 2481 1804 1 2017 912 1099 2959 2605 1894 2 2018 958 1154 3107 2736 1989 3 2019 1005 1212 3262 2872 2088 4 2020 1056 1272 3426 3016 2192 5 2021 1108 1336 3597 3167 2302 6 2022 1164 1403 3777 3325 2417 7 2023 1222 1473 3965 3491 2538 8 2024 1283 1547 4164 3666 2665 9 2025 1347 1624 4372 3849 2798 10 2026 1415 1705 4591 4042 2938 11 2027 1485 1790 4820 4244 3085 12 2028 1560 1880 5061 4456 3239 13 2029 1638 1974 5314 4679 3401 14 2030 1720 2073 5580 4913 3571 15 2031 1806 2176 5859 5158 3750 16 2032 1896 2285 6152 5416 3937 17 2033 1991 2399 6459 5687 4134 18 2034 2090 2519 6782 5971 4341 19 2035 2195 2645 7121 6270 4558 20 2036 2304 2778 7478 6583 4786 21 2037 2420 2916 7851 6913 5025 22 2038 2541 3062 8244 7258 5276 23 2039 2668 3215 8656 7621 5540 24 2040 2801 3376 9089 8002 5817 25 2041 2941 3545 9543 8402 6108

Table 0-4: Lane Configuration

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

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 7 of 29

4. ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS This activityincludes the following tasks: . Topographic, alignment and land use survey . Road inventory survey ( Details given in appendix-1) . Road condition survey (Details given in appendix-2) . Bridge condition survey (Details given in appendix-3 ,4 & 5) . Soil, geo-technical, material, hydrology and drainage surveys

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 are given in Table 0.5 below. Where it is rigid pavement. Table: 0.5 Rigid Pavement Condition Visual Existing Rigid Type of condition S.No Chainage(as per Design Chainage Pavemen Carriag of Remarks . Km stone) t (Mtr e way pavemen From To From To t 1 21 21.33 20.32 20.650 0.330 CC Poor Mandav Garh 2 31 32 31.02 31.760 0.740 CC Poor Gurai 3 33 34 32.8 33.480 0.680 CC Poor Balagarh 4 38 39 36.93 37.700 0.770 CC Poor Satwara 5 43.15 43.7 41.15 41.700 0.550 CC Fair Chandwar 6 45 45.65 44.45 45.1 0.650 CC Fair Ghar Chandsinghpur 7 51 51.5 50.3 50.8 0.500 CC Fair a 8 64 65 60.5 62 1.500 CC Fair Anwa 9 68 70 64.9 65.5 0.600 CC Fair Khawaspura 10 72 73 66.75 67.08 0.330 CC Fair Chakanandpura 11 80 81 75 75.76 0.760 CC Fair Roneeja Additional link 1 0 0.6 0 0.6 0.6 CC Poor Dooni

The details of condition of Pavement by visual observation are given in Table 0.6below: Table 0-6: Pavement Condition

% of total Description Length (km) Details of Chainage length 23.211& 3.145 9+590-12+450,24+200-39+890, 43+890- Poor 54% (Additional Length) 43+900,0+000 – 3+145 (additional Length) 12+450-22+080,39+890-43+890, 43+900-72+650, Fair 46.050 46% 72+500-75+764 Total 69.319 Km 100%

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 8 of 29

4.2 Pavement Structural Strength BenkelmanBeam deflection studies werecarried 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 0.7. Among the Homogeneous sections the characteristic deflection varies from 0.933 Mtr to 2.089Mtr.

Table 0-7:Homogeneous Sections with Respective Design

Deflection Deflection Deflection S.No. Section LHS RHS Average 1 Km. 10.0 to 16.0 1.814 1.630 1.722 2 Km. 16.0 to 22.0 1.567 1.420 1.494 3 Km. 22.0 to 29.0 1.661 2.338 2.000 4 Km. 29.0 to 35.0 1.782 1.936 1.859 5 Km. 35.0 to 41.0 2.145 2.033 2.089 6 Km. 41.0 to 47.0 1.527 1.750 1.639 7 Km. 47.0 to 53.0 1.506 1.635 1.571 8 Km. 53.0 to 60.0 1.412 1.811 1.612 9 Km. 60.0 to 66.0 1.338 1.540 1.439 10 Km. 66.0 to 72.0 1.395 1.432 1.414 11 Km. 72.0 to 78.0 1.431 2.067 1.749 12 Km. 78.0 to 81.0 1.866 0.000 0.933 13 Km. 0.00 to 2.50 1.725 1.853 1.789

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 and materials investigation is given in Table 0.8& 0.9. Detailed Field soil investigations are shown in table 4.1 & 4.2 of Chapter-4

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 9 of 29

Table: 0.8 Field Soil Investigation

SOIL TEST-OMC, MDD & CBR Maximum Optimum S.No. Chainage Dry Density Moisture CBR (%) Testing Method Remark (g/cc) Content (%) 1 11+000 1.80 12.80 6.50 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 2 13+000 1.84 10.80 6.80 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 3 16+500 1.82 11.20 6.30 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 4 19+500 1.79 12.40 6.80 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 5 24+000 1.83 11.00 7.00 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 6 27+000 1.84 11.50 7.00 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 7 30+000 1.86 11.80 7.00 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 8 33+750 1.78 13.00 6.00 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 9 36+000 1.79 12.80 7.00 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 10 39+000 1.81 12.60 6.30 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 11 42+000 1.98 9.70 6.20 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 12 45+000 1.96 10.50 6.80 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 13 49+000 1.91 10.40 6.80 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 14 51+000 1.87 10.80 7.50 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 15 54+000 1.90 9.50 7.50 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 16 58+500 1.88 10.30 7.90 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 17 61+500 1.90 10.80 7.60 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 18 64+400 1.98 10.20 8.60 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 19 67+750 1.97 10.80 8.40 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 20 70+500 1.86 11.00 8.30 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 21 73+500 1.93 10.40 8.80 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 22 76+750 1.81 12.20 6.80 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 23 78+750 1.86 10.80 8.30 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010 24 1+500 1.97 10.50 8.30 IS: 2720 (P-8)-1985, Reaff. 2010

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 10 of 29

Table: 0.9Material Investigation

02. Stone dust Agg. 03. Fine Agg. - Grain 01. Coarse Agg. Testing Testing Size Analysis

Value Value Value

Water Water Water

Impact Impact

Gravity Gravity

Specific Specific Specific

Content

Test

Crushing Crushing

Stripping Stripping

(mm)

Silt & Clay & Silt Clay

Absorption Absorption

IS Sieve IS Sieve

Bulk Density Bulk

Percentage Percentage

Designation

Passing as per per as Passing

Testing Method Testing

Name of Crusher of Name % % % % % g/cc % Test Description

40 20 10 40 20 10 mm mm mm mm mm mm

10 100

4.75 99.48

2.36 83.12

1.18 60.75

0.6 0.65 0.98 2.83 2.82 2.8 13 21 100 2.98 2.63 1.48 11.78 0.6 51.26

0.3 39.8

Gradation (Stone Dust) (Stone Gradation 0.15 28.7

2007

Village 5 KM From Ch. 65+00(Anawa) Ch. KM 5 From Village 0.75 11.78

Rishabha Stone Crusher Near kalyanpura Near Crusher Stone Rishabha PAN -

I) 1963 Reaff. Reaff. I) 1963

10 100 -

4.75 99.6

IS 2386 (Part IS 2386

2.36 84.63

1.18 61.43

0.6 51.62 0.68 0.66 1 2.8 2.79 2.76 15 23 98 3.02 2.61 1.42 8.94 0.3 41.91

0.15 29.76

Gradation (Stone Dust) (Stone Gradation

(Tonk) (At Ch. 45+00) Ch. (At (Tonk)

0.75 8.94

Rishabha Stone Crusher Of Village Ghar Ghar Village Of Crusher Stone Rishabha PAN -

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 11 of 29

4.4 Existing Pavement Investigation

Investigations have been carried out by digging tests pits on the existing pavement upto a depth of 0.75 mtr. The summary of the existing pavement investigation is given in Table 0.10. Detailed Existing pavement investigations are shown in table-4.4 of Chapter-4 Table:0.10Existing Pavement Investigation

Thickness of crust S.No. Chainage Remarks BT (cm) WBM + GSB (cm) 1 11+000 2 15 2 13+500 2 23 3 16+500 3 22 4 19+500 4 15 5 24+000 4 19 6 27+000 3 16 7 30+000 4 20 8 33+750 2 32 9 36+000 2 24 10 39+000 3 25 11 42+000 7 25 12 45+000 8 44 13 49+000 4 30 14 51+000 4 20 15 54+000 7 25

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, subgrade 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 subgrade (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: 0.9presented in previous clause.

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 12 of 29

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 project road. This material is suitable for construction of road. Bitumen (IS 73- 1961) is available at Mathura (U.P.) which is around 310km 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 Uniara and Nainwa city, near the proposed road.

7. ALIGNMENT

The existing alignment of Road traverses through tonk and Bundidistrict 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.

Table 0.11: Settlement Locations along the Project Corridor

Existing Chainage Design Chainage Population S.N. Name of Village Tehsil/District From To From To (Nos.) 1 Palai 0.000 1.000 9.590 9.900 Uniara / Tonk 2778 2 Lachhmipura 1.300 2.100 11.000 11.300 Uniara / Tonk 668 3 Bosariya 2.600 3.400 12.350 12.750 Uniara / Tonk 1351 4 Kherli 5.000 6.500 14.700 15.700 Uniara / Tonk 644 5 Madhogarh 21.000 21.450 20.190 20.640 Uniara / Tonk <500 6 Nagar 13.200 15.200 22.000 23.800 Dooni / Tonk 5165 7 Gurai 23.100 24.050 31.050 31.750 Dooni / Tonk 1973 8 Balagarh 24.700 25.100 32.800 33.400 Dooni / Tonk 998 9 Satwara 30.100 31.000 36.850 37.850 Dooni / Tonk 1910 10 Chandwar 34.400 35.200 41.150 41.620 Dooni / Tonk 956 11 Ghar 37.700 39.000 43.900 45.580 Dooni / Tonk 4160 12 Chandsinghpura 41.100 44.700 50.350 50.750 Dooni / Tonk 1324 13 Dooni 47.600 50.100 50.530 54.000 Dooni / Tonk 11295 14 Datoonda 52.800 53.100 56.450 56.600 Dooni / Tonk 878 15 Anwa 57.100 58.200 60.650 62.200 Dooni / Tonk 5445 16 Khawaspura 61.400 62.100 65.180 65.670 Dooni / Tonk 805 17 Chakanandpura 63.400 63.700 66.930 67.370 Dooni / Tonk 159 18 Roneeja 72.000 72.800 75.100 75.764 Hindoli / Bundi 3236

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 13 of 29

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 The available ROW along the road is not sufficient to cater for horizontal improvements / developments of the project Highway. Hence additional land will be required for development of the Project Highway. The details of land required for Development of Highway 16 m in open areas and 9.00 m in Habitation and By pass in 30m are along with its cost is given in table below

ABSTRACT FOR COST OF LAND ACQUISITION Area DLC Rate DLC Rate Cost of Land (Rs.) S. No. Village Name Area Sqm. Bhigha @ Sqm. @ Bhigha in Bhigha 1 Pallai 2054.295 0.81 91.70 231934.98 188378.85 2 Hukampura 5889.829 2.33 74.20 187672.58 437028.77 3 Laxmipura 1602.308 0.63 24.20 61208.58 38776.16 4 Bhosariya 738.438 0.29 24.20 61208.58 17870.34 5 Kherli 8681.507 3.43 145.90 369021.95 1266641.89 6 Deopura 777.118 0.31 30.05 75992.22 23348.69 7 Ratanpura 1103.332 0.44 42.87 108430.23 47300.22 8 Vijaynagar 5528.915 2.19 91.70 231934.98 507005.51 9 Nagar Fort 12790.913 5.06 55.20 139616.26 706063.98 10 Jaganthpura 894.256 0.35 27.60 69808.13 24681.66 11 Goverdhanpura 0.00 0.00 27.60 69808.13 0.00 12 Gurai 19593.113 7.75 29.90 75625.47 585838.71 13 Balagarh 9481.540 3.75 27.60 69808.13 261692.57 14 Khera ka balaji 2702.204 1.07 24.20 61208.58 65393.85 15 Balunda 10369.254 4.10 24.20 61208.58 250937.93 16 Satwara 17698.881 7.00 31.10 78660.61 550439.55 17 Rangvils 1415.389 0.56 27.60 69808.13 39064.74 18 Chandwara 3322.236 1.31 29.90 75625.47 99335.64 19 Ghad 16906.995 6.68 66.84 169057.08 1130072.48 20 Datunda 894.611 0.35 61.80 156309.50 55287.40 21 Chandsinghpura 26099.930 10.32 27.12 68594.07 707835.70 22 Dooni 54869.041 21.69 300.00 758784.00 16460842.46 23 Hanumanpura 5570.979 2.20 25.56 64648.40 142395.35 24 Nayagaon 16764.638 6.63 25.56 64648.40 428507.54 Godra 25 Anwa 17851.068 7.06 35.04 88625.97 625506.37 26 Khawaspura 16811.157 6.65 25.56 64648.40 429696.57

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 14 of 29

27 Chakanandpura 7877.009 3.11 25.56 64650.93 201345.82 28 Dharaula 27498.055 10.87 41.19 104181.00 1132653.37 29 Dhardhari 54172.059 21.42 41.19 104181.00 2231363.83 30 Ronija 34867.466 13.79 41.19 104181.00 1436201.69 TOTAL 384826.536 152.150 30091507.645

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. 7.4 Roadway The existing carriageway width for the entire project road is varying from 3.00 m – 5.50 m with a varying earthen shoulder width 0.5 – 2.50.

Table 0.12: Table showing road way

SN Road Section Chainage C/W Formation Width Comprising the Km. 9+590 to Km. 75+764 of 3.00 to 1 section from Palai MDR-94 & Additional link of 5.00 M to 10.00 M To Roneeja 3+145 Kms from Dooni to NH-12 5.50 m

7.4.1 Intersections A total of 36 roads meet the project road,4 Major Junctions and 32 Minor Junction. The details of junctions are given below: Table 0.13: List of Intersections

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

1 9.590 LS NAINAWA MAJOR

2 10.129 T RS HUKUMPURA MINOR

T 3 13.800 LS DEORI MINOR

4 15.350 T RS DEVPURA MINOR

5 18.800 T RS LAXMIPURA MINOR

6 19.600 T RS KALYANPURA MINOR

7 20.020 T RS VIJAY NAGAR MINOR

MANDANGADA 8 20.100 T RS MINOR (MANDIR VILLAGE)

9 20.480 LS BALAPURA MINOR

10 20.860 T RS DHARAMSHALA MINOR

11 21.160 T RS COLONIYA MINOR

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 15 of 29

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

12 22.250 T RS TONK MAJOR

T 13 24.610 LS NAINWA , MAJOR

14 25.650 Y LS SAGRAM PURA MINOR

15 26.000 T RS HEERAPURA MINOR

T 16 27.800 LS GOVERDHAN PURA MINOR

17 27.830 T RS RAGURAG PURA MINOR

18 28.850 T RS KACCHA RASTA MINOR

19 34.200 T RS KACCHA RASTA MINOR

T 20 36.600 LS BALOONDA , MINOR

21 40.550 Y LS KACCHA RASTA MINOR

T 22 43.200 LS JANEWAS MINOR

T 23 44.750 LS JANEWAS , MINOR

24 47.600 Y RS DADUNDA MINOR

T 25 49.200 LS JYOTIPURA MINOR

T 26 50.400 LS TOKRAWAS MINOR

T 27 55.100 LS SAMSAN MINOR

28 55.150 T RS MUGLANA MINOR

L-HANUMAN PURA,R- 29 55.400 LS/RS MINOR + MATA JI

31 60.650 T RS JAIN NASIYA MINOR

T 32 63.150 LS KANWAD , MINOR

33 67.500 Y RS CHAK ANAND PURA MINOR

T 34 72.650 LS DHARJADI, MINOR

35 74.200 T RS SHEETA PURA MINOR

L-NAINAWA , Project 36 75.764 T LS/RS MAJOR R- BUNDI terminates

7.4.2 Submergence The project road does not come under submergence at any location except carriageways which have been replaced by high level bridges/ culverts.

8. PROPOSED ALIGNMENT The present scope of work is to develop the existing Single Lane 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 (2015) AADT along the project road, it is observed in the order of about 636 PCU.This Road forms a link road to NH-12. 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)

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 16 of 29

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.

Table 0.14: Cross Sectional Elements

Particulars Design Values Width (m) Lane 3.50 (Intermediate Lane – 5.50 Mtr.) Hard shoulder 2.25 Camber (%) Carriageway 2.5 Shoulders 3 Embankment Side Slope 1(V) : 2(H) Gradient (%) Maximum 4 Right of Way (m) 30 ,9 ,16 Overall width (m) between Building lines 9 Overall width (m) between Control lines 30 ,9 ,16

Table 0.15: 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

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 17 of 29

Table 0.16: 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 0.17:Min. Radius (for 2.5% camber) not requiring super elevation

Design Speed (kmph) Radius (m) 100 1800 80 1100

Table 0.18: Radius of circular curves not requiring transition curves

Design Speed (kmph) Radius (m) 100 2000

80 1200

9. BYPASSES The available ROW all along the project road is ≥10 m except in urban areas.At village Dooni bypass has been proposed of 1.700 Kms. Length.

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 structureas 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 0.19below. The project road has been considered as two homogeneous sections based on soil properties. Section–1 (Palai – Dooni), Length- 42.710 KMS Design Life : 15 Years for Sub Base / Base Course and 8 years for Bituminous Course CBR : 5% MSA : 5

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 18 of 29

Section –2 (Dooni – Roneeja), Length- 23.464 KMS Design Life : 15 Years for Sub Base / Base Course and 8 years for Bituminous Course CBR : 7% MSA : 5 Table:0.19 Parameters for Flexible Pavement for section I & II(Partial/Full Construction)

15 Years Design Life 8 Years Design Life S. No Chainage GSB WMM DBM BC 1 9+590to 52+300 Kms 250 250 50 40 2 52+300 to 75+764 Kms 180 250 50 40

Table 0.20: New Construction due to Realignment/Curve improvement

S.No. From To Total lenth Remarks 1 15.92 16.05 0.13

2 18.45 18.65 0.2

3 19.92 20.32 0.4

4 24.6 24.88 0.28

5 25.08 25.26 0.18

6 25.45 25.55 0.1

7 27.38 27.62 0.24

8 28.72 28.8 0.08

9 33.48 33.62 0.14

10 35.46 36.4 0.94

11 41.7 42.18 0.48

12 42.44 42.85 0.41

13 45.4 45.58 0.18

14 46.4 46.54 0.14

15 46.62 46.72 0.1

16 51.6 52.15 0.55

17 52.3 54.02 1.72

18 55.3 55.45 0.15

19 59.25 60.5 1.25

20 62.55 62.68 0.13

21 63.11 63.22 0.11

22 65.75 66.08 0.33

23 66.18 66.75 0.57

24 74.1 74.8 0.7

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 19 of 29

11. PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURES 11.1 Culverts – There is total 69 nos. of structures on the project corridor. 15 nos. of structures are retained, 20 nos. are widened, 32 nos. are reconstruction and 2 new proposed 49 nos. are HP culverts & 14 nos. are slab culverts and 6 nos. are VCW are proposed to reconstruct and 01 nos. minor bridge of span 3 x 10 is also proposed as new structure. The chainage wise summary for proposal of structure is given in Table 0.21. Detailed inventory of existing structures with proposal is shown in table no.7.11 of Chapter-7 Table: 0.21Proposal for structures

Type Of Recommendation on Design Structure(RCC S.No. widening/Reconstruction Chainage Boy / Slab / Pipe etc. / Masonry Arch)

1 10.190 VCW Widening 2 11.680 VCW Widening 3 12.790 HP RECONSTRUCTION 4 13.780 VCW Widening 5 15.700 HP RECONSTRUCTION 6 15.840 HP RECONSTRUCTION 7 16.140 HP RECONSTRUCTION 8 17.100 VCW Widening 9 17.910 PIPE Widening 10 18.740 PIPE Widening 11 19.220 HP RECONSTRUCTION 12 19.580 PIPE Widening 13 20.080 PIPE Widening 14 21.700 Slab RECONSTRUCTION 15 23.820 VCW RECONSTRUCTION 16 24.460 SLAB Retained 17 27.400 PIPE Retained 18 39.200 HP RECONSTRUCTION 19 40.420 HP RECONSTRUCTION 20 42.100 SLAB Widening 21 42.350 VCW Widening 22 43.190 HP RECONSTRUCTION 23 45.860 SLAB Retained 24 46.320 Slab RECONSTRUCTION 25 49.000 Slab RECONSTRUCTION 26 50.280 HP RECONSTRUCTION

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 20 of 29

Type Of Recommendation on Design Structure(RCC S.No. widening/Reconstruction Chainage Boy / Slab / Pipe etc. / Masonry Arch)

27 50.890 Slab RECONSTRUCTION

28 52.800 HP RECONSTRUCTION 29 52.940 Slab New Proposed 30 53.010 Slab New Proposed 31 53.960 PIPE Retained 32 55.690 PIPE Retained 33 56.380 SLAB Retained 34 57.760 PIPE Retained 35 58.860 PIPE Retained 36 59.400 HP RECONSTRUCTION 37 59.820 PIPE Retained 38 61.390 PIPE Widening 39 62.090 PIPE Widening 40 62.390 HP RECONSTRUCTION 41 63.520 Slab RECONSTRUCTION 42 63.620 PIPE WIDENING 43 63.880 PIPE WIDENING 44 66.180 PIPE WIDENING 45 66.300 PIPE WIDENING 46 67.400 HP RECONSTRUCTION 47 67.650 HP RECONSTRUCTION 48 68.980 HP RECONSTRUCTION 49 69.060 PIPE Widening 50 69.480 PIPE Widening 51 69.600 HP RECONSTRUCTION 52 70.080 HP RECONSTRUCTION 53 70.250 HP RECONSTRUCTION 54 70.560 HP RECONSTRUCTION 55 70.790 PIPE Widening 56 71.100 HP RECONSTRUCTION 57 71.150 HP RECONSTRUCTION 58 72.290 PIPE Widening 59 72.600 HP RECONSTRUCTION 60 73.480 SLAB Retained 61 73.780 PIPE Retained 62 74.020 PIPE Retained 63 74.690 HP RECONSTRUCTION

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 21 of 29

Type Of Recommendation on Design Structure(RCC S.No. widening/Reconstruction Chainage Boy / Slab / Pipe etc. / Masonry Arch)

64 74.750 HP RECONSTRUCTION 65 74.800 PIPE Retained Additional

Length 66 0.745 slab/ canal Retained 67 1.045 HP Reconstruction 68 1.445 slab Retained 69 1.645 HP Reconstruction

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 22 of 29

11.2 Bridges There isno major bridge in the alignment. Table: 0.22Inventory of Major Bridge

Height

Span Width of above Bed Condition Assessment

arrangement bridge Level

S.No. Chainage TypeofStructure (R.C.C.,Box/Slab/ Pipe, arch) Masonry (m) Length No. Span of Width ofspan (m) Carriage way (m) u/s side(m) D/sside (m) Box/ slab/pipe/ Arch HeadWall WingWall Returnwal l Parapet/H andrail Recomme ndation widening/ reconstruc tion Whetherwaterway adequate(Yes/No) Remarks

Total(m) 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.

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 23 of 29

11.3 Railway Crossings There isno Railway Crossings in the Existing Alignment.: Table: 0.23Railway Crossings

S.No. Design Chainage LC No. TVU Remarks N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

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 at HD-4 Stage.

Abstract of cost for Utilities Shifting & Cutting of Tree Nos S.No. Utility . Rate Unit Amount (Rs) 1 Electric Poll (ROW) 220 35000 Each 7700000 2 Telephon Poll (ROW) 0 10000 Each 0 3 Transformer (ROW) 4 100000 Each 400000 4 Hand Pump 27 100000 Each 2700000 5 Tube Well 0 0 Each 0 6 Well 0 0 Each 0 7 OFC 0 2000 mtr. 0 8 Tree Each 0 (i) T-I (300-600mm) 51 194 9894 (ii) T-II (600-900mm) 137 330 45210 (iii) T-III (900-1800mm) 47 667 31349 TOTAL AMOUNT (Rs.) 10886453

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 24 of 29

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 PWDhas 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 projectroad,monitoring plan has been designed for Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Monitoring, Water Quality Monitoring, Noise Levels measurements, Soil Erosion and Plantation.

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 taken from NH BSR -2013 Jaipur circle. Escalation 5% per anum has also been considered over BSR Rate.

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 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 0.24.

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 25 of 29

13.1 ABSTRACT OF COST Table 0.24: Preliminary Construction Cost Abstract of Cost (BSR NH Jaipur 2013) S. Length / Amount Name of Item Unit No. Nos (in lacs) Upgradation & Strengthening of Existing 1 45.435 Kms 3092.71 Road 2 Construction of New Road 9.51 KMs 1037.82 3 Rigid Pavement and Drains 8.01 Kms 1343.39 4 Toll Plaza 2 Nos 240.00 5 New Pipe Culverts 1 x 1200 m 10 Nos 39.04 6 New Pipe Culverts 2 x 1200 m 26 Nos 163.12 7 New Pipe Culverts 3 x 1200 m 4 Nos 34.574 8 New Slab Culverts 6 Nos. 36 m 117.00 9 Minor Bridge 3-10.00 m 30 m 127.50 10 Widening of Slab Culvert 3 Nos 57.50 11 Widening of Causeways 4 Nos 33.00 12 Road Furniture for entire length 339.42 13 Bus Shelters 20 Nos 20.00 14 Development of Junction 36 Nos 369.24 15 Maintance of Existing bypassed road 3.87 Kms 193.50 Total (Base cost) 7998.08 Escalation @15% 1199.713 Civil Cost 9197.80 TPC (@15%) 10577.47

13.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Table 0.25: Traffic Data Inputs

Section Uniara to Ghar Ghar to Roneeja TP-1 TP-2 Length km 32.00 35.266 Cumulative Length 32.00 35.266 Section Toll Road 32.00 35.266 Length km Cumulative Toll Road 32.00 35.266 Length km

TVC Location Used Km. 31.000 at Gurai Km. 58.200 at After Dooni

Traffic No. TVC-2 TVC-4 Car / Jeep /Van 71 209 Buses and Mini Buses 13 16 LCV 6 8 2AT 8 16

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 26 of 29

Section Uniara to Ghar Ghar to Roneeja TP-1 TP-2 3AT 4 6 MAV 3 6 Tractor with trailer 38 120

0.1.1 PROJECT COST TABLE 0.29: INPUTS PARAMETERS

S.N. Description Inputs Parameters 1. Project Cost Rs. 91.98 Crores 2. Project Cost with Financial overheads (15%)- TPC Rs. 105.77 Crores 3. Nos. & Length of Structures (Bypasses)> 5 Crores Nil 4. Nos. & Length of Structures (ROB/RUB/Major Bridge) Nil 5. Construction Starts at Jan-2017 6. Construction Period 18 Months 7. Road opens to traffic June-2018 8. Concession Period 25 Years 9. Phasing of Project Cost 1st Year- 40% 2nd Year-60%

0.1.2 MAINTENANCE COSTS TABLE 0.30: MAINTENANCE COSTS

S.N. Description Inputs Parameters 1. Annual Maintenance Costs Rs. 0.135 Crores/KM/Annum 2. Periodic Maintenance Costs Rs. 0.30 Crores/KM 3. Annual Toll Plaza O&M Costs Rs. 75 Crores per Toll Plaza 4. Electrical & Petrolicals Rs. 0.003 Crores per KM per annum 5. Insurance Costs Rs. 0.15 Crores/Rs. 1000

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 27 of 29

0.1.3 STRUCTURING OF PROJECT FINANCE

TABLE 0.31: STRUCTURING OF PROJECT FINANCE

S.N. Description Inputs Parameters 1. Required VGF 189 %of TPC ; Rs. 200 Crores 2. Financing Structure 30 % equity; Rs. 22.21 Cr. 3. 70 % equity; Rs. 51.83 Cr. 4. Debt equity Ration 1:2.33

0.1.4 OTHER FINANCIAL PARAMETERS TABLE 0.32: OTHER FINANCIAL PARAMETERS

S.N. Description Inputs Parameters 1. Traffic Growth rates 5% / Year 2. Toll Indexing assumed 5% (3% on base + 40% of WPI change) 3. Toll Rate Rounding Rs 5.0 4. Number of Toll Plaza 02 Nos. 5. Number of Toll Section 02 Nos. 6. Annual Inflation Rate (%) 5% 7. Loan Repayment Period (Years) 15 Years 8. Interest rate on Long Term Debt (%) 12.50%

0.1.5 OTHER FINANCIAL PARAMETERS TABLE 0.33: LOAN & EQUITY REQUIREMENT - DURING CONSTRUCTION

S.N. Description 2017 2018 Total Total Project Cost (incl Financing 1. 41.54 64.25 105.78 Cost on Debt & IDC) 2. Government Grant (Equity Support) 0.00 31.73 31.73 3. TPC (excluding govt. grant) 41.54 32.51 74.05 4. Loan Requirement 20.35 31.48 51.83 5. Equity 21.18 1.03 22.21

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 28 of 29

0.1.6 RESULTS OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - RETURNS FOR CONCESSION PERIOD

TABLE 0.34: RESULTS OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

S.N. Concession Period 18 years 1. Equity IRR 2.24% 2. Project IRR 7.43% 3. Average DSCR 0.83

0.2 CONCLUSION  The Project is non-viable up to 40% VGF on TPC with Concession period of 25 Years & 15% EIRR.  Project is viable with 49.56% VGF on TPC to achieve 15% EIRR & 7.43% PIRR.

LNMIPPL + PCPL + TECHOSUM CONSORTIUM Page 29 of 29