Final Feasibility Report

Public Works Department Government of Rajasthan

Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility

Report for Gadoj (State Border) – Majri to HR/ RJ Border and Majri to Neemrana (SH-111 & 111A) Highway Project (the “Highway-V”)

Package-26

VOLUME-I

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

MARCH 2017

Submitted to:

Additional Chief Engineer (PPP) Public Works Department (PWD)

1-Jacob Road, Jaipur-302006 Rajasthan, India

Pentacle Consultants (India) Private Limited,

Mumbai In Consortium with Techosum Engineers & Consultants Private Limited, Jaipur Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Final Feasibility Report for Two laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400comprising the section of SH- 111 & 111A from Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border(the “Highway-V”) Government of Rajasthan

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER – 1: INTRODUCTION...... 10

1.1 GENERAL ...... 10

1.2 COMMENCEMENT ...... 11

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 11

1.4 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...... 13

1.5 COMPOSITION OF REPORT ...... 14

CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 16

2.1 THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE HIGHWAY ARE CAPTURED BELOW: ...... 16

2.1.1 TERRAIN & LAND USE ...... 16

2.1.2 LANE CONFIGURATION ...... 17

2.1.3 PAVEMENT CONDITION OF THE EXISTING ROAD ...... 17

2.1.4 PROPOSED BYPASSES: ...... 18

2.1.5 PROPOSED WIDENING OF EXISTING ROAD TO FOUR LANE SECTION WITH SERVICE ROAD BOTH SIDE: ...... 18

2.1.6 CROSS-DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ...... 18

2.1.7 FLOOD PRONE STRETCHES DURING MONSOON ...... 19

2.1.8 RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) ...... 19

2.1.7 UTILITIES ALONG THE PROPOSED PROJECT ROAD ...... 19

2.2 PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATION ...... 19

2.2.1 PROPOSED CRUST COMPOSITION ...... 20

2.2.2 JUNCTIONS ...... 20

2.2.3 TOLL PLAZA ...... 22

2.2.4 BUS BAYS AND BUS SHELTERS ...... 22

2.2.5 TRUCK LAY BYES ...... 23

2.2.6 DRAIN CUM FOOTPATH ...... 23

March 2017 Page 1

Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Final Feasibility Report for Two laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400comprising the section of SH- 111 & 111A from Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border(the “Highway-V”) Government of Rajasthan

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

2.2.7 COST ESTIMATES ...... 23

CHAPTER – 3: SOCIO- ECONOMIC PROFILE ...... 24

3.1 GENERAL ...... 24

3.2 GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES...... 24

3.3 DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES ...... 25

CHAPTER – 4: ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS ...... 27

4.1 ROAD INVENTORY ...... 27

4.2 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY ...... 30

4.3 EXISTING CRUST COMPOSITION ...... 33

4.4 BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION SURVEY ...... 34

4.5 INVENTORY OF BRIDGES AND CULVERTS ...... 34

4.6 CONDITION SURVEYS FOR BRIDGES AND CULVERTS ...... 36

4.6.1 BRIDGES...... 36

4.6.2 CULVERTS ...... 36

4.7 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ...... 39

4.7.1 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ...... 39

4.7.2 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL ...... 39

4.7.3 ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY BENCHMARKS ...... 39

4.7.4 TOTAL STATION TRAVERSE ...... 39

4.7.5 L-SECTION AND X-SECTION SURVEY ...... 40

4.7.6 DETAILED SURVEY ...... 40

CHATER – 5: TRAFFIC SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS ...... 41

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 41

5.2 TRAFFIC INTENSITY ...... 42

5.2.1 TRAFFIC VOLUME SURVEY ...... 42

March 2017 Page 2

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

5.2.2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC...... 43

5.2.3 SEASONAL VARIATION FACTOR ...... 46

5.3 AXLE LOAD SURVEY ...... 50

5.3.1 GENERAL ...... 50

5.3.2 LOCATION OF SURVEY...... 50

5.3.3 VEHICLE DAMAGE FACTOR (VDF) ...... 50

5.4 TRAFFIC FORECAST ...... 51

5.4.1 TRAFFIC GROWTH RATES ...... 51

5.4.2 PROJECTED TRAFFIC ...... 51

5.4.2.1 TRAFFIC PROJECTION AND CAPACITY ...... 51

CHEPTER – 6: PAVEMENT DESIGN ...... 52

6.1 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS ...... 52

6.1.1 TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION ...... 52

6.1.2 DESIGN SPEED ...... 52

6.1.3 CROSS SECTIONAL ELEMENTS ...... 53

6.1.4 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ...... 53

6.1.5 SUPER ELEVATION ...... 54

6.1.6 RADIUS ON HORIZONTAL CURVES ...... 54

6.1.7 CURVE WITHOUT SUPER ELEVATION ...... 55

6.1.8 TRANSITION CURVES ...... 55

6.1.9 WIDENING OF CARRIAGEWAY ON CURVES ...... 56

6.2 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ...... 56

6.2.1 VERTICAL CURVES ...... 57

6.2.2 SUMMIT CURVES: ...... 58

6.2.3 VALLEY CURVES: ...... 59

March 2017 Page 3

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

6.2.4 SIGHT DISTANCE: ...... 60

6.2.5 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS ...... 61

6.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN: ...... 61

6.4 METHODOLOGY ...... 61

6.4.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ...... 61

6.4.2 RIGID PAVEMENT ...... 62

6.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN METHODS ...... 62

6.6 PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION ...... 62

6.7 TRAFFIC FORECAST, GROWTH RATES & AXLE LOAD SURVEY ...... 62

6.7.1 TRAFFIC FORECAST ...... 62

6.7.2 GROWTH RATE ...... 63

6.7.3 GENERATED AND DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC ...... 63

6.7.4 AXLE LOAD SURVEY ...... 63

6.7.5 TRAFFIC IN CMSA (CUMULATIVE MILLION STANDARD AXLES) ...... 63

6.8 INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT AND SUB GRADE ...... 65

6.9 FLOOD PRONE STRETCHES DURING MONSOON ...... 66

6.10 PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL STRENGTH ...... 66

6.11 SOIL SURVEY FOR WIDENING PORTIONS ...... 69

6.12 DESIGN OF NEW FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ...... 71

6.14 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 72

6.15 SHOULDERS/ PAVED BLOCKS ...... 81

6.16 COVERED DRAINS CUM FOOTPATH ...... 81

6.17 PROPOSED BYPASSES: ...... 82

PROPOSED FOUR LANE SECTION WITH SERVICE ROAD BOTH SIDE: ...... 83

6.19 WEARING COAT OVER STRUCTURES ...... 83

March 2017 Page 4

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

6.20 GEOMETRIC DESIGNS ...... 83

6.21 JUNCTIONS: ...... 88

CHAPTER 7: - DESIGN OF STRUCTURES ...... 90

7.1 GENERAL ...... 90

7.2 EXISTING BRIDGE ...... 90

7.3 PROPOSED BRIDGE/ROB ...... 90

7.4 EXISTING STRUCTURES ...... 90

CHAPTER – 8: SUMMARY OF LAND ACQUISITION ...... 93

8.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 93

8.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 93

8.3 LAND REQUIREMENT ...... 93

CHAPTER – 9: PROJECT FACILITIES ...... 94

9.1 FOLLOWING FACILITIES ARE ENVISAGED FOR THE HIGHWAY; ...... 94

9.1.1 TOLL PLAZA ...... 94

9.1.2 TRAFFIC AID POST AND MEDICAL AID POST ...... 94

9.1.3 BUS SHELTERS ...... 94

9.1.4 TRUCK LAY BYES ...... 95

9.1.5 REST AREA ...... 95

9.1.6 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ...... 95

CHAPTER 10: COST ESTIMATE...... 97

10.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 97

10.2 COST ESTIMATING AND METHODOLOGY ...... 97

10.3 UNIT RATES ...... 97

10.4 COSTS OF ROAD COMPONENTS ...... 97

10.5 CONTINGENCY AND OTHER CHARGES ...... 98

March 2017 Page 5

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

10.6 ESTIMATED COST ...... 99

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 :VILLAGES & TOWNS ALONG PROJECT ROAD ...... 16

TABLE 2 : SECTION-WISE CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH ...... 17

TABLE 3 : PAVEMENT CONDITION DETAILS ...... 17

TABLE 4 : PROPOSED BYPASSES ...... 18

TABLE 5 : SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES ...... 19

TABLE 6 : PROPOSED CRUST COMPOSITION OF MAIN CARRIAGEWAY (FLEXIBLE)...... 20

TABLE 7 : PROPOSED CRUST COMPOSITION (RIGID) ...... 20

TABLE 8 : JUNCTIONS ...... 21

TABLE 9 : PROPOSED BUS SHELTER LOCATIONS ...... 22

TABLE 10 : DRAIN CUM FOOTPATH ...... 23

TABLE 11 : DISTRICT WISE POPULATION ...... 25

TABLE 12: ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTHS IN RAJASTHAN ...... 26

TABLE 13: SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROAD INVENTORY ...... 28

TABLE 14 : SUMMARY OF EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY ...... 30

TABLE 15 : DETAILS OF EXISTING PIPE CULVERT/ CAUSEWAY ...... 35

TABLE 16: DETAILS OF EXISTING MINOR BRIDGE /SLAB CULVERTS ...... 35

TABLE 17 : INVENTORY AND CONDITION SURVEY FOR MINOR BRIDGES/CULVERTS ...... 37

TABLE 18 : SCHEDULES OF TRAFFIC SURVEYS ...... 41

TABLE 19 : PCU VALUES USED ...... 43

TABLE 20 :SUMMARY ADT ON TOLL PLAZA LOCATION KM. 24+615 (FIRST TRAFFIC SURVEY) ...... 44

TABLE 21 : SUMMARY ADT ON TOLL PLAZA LOCATION KM. 24+615 (SECOND TRAFFIC SURVEY) ...... 45

TABLE 22 :FUEL SALES DATA AND SEASONAL FACTORS ...... 46

TABLE 23 :SUMMARY OF FIRST TRAFFIC SURVEY AADT ON TOLL PLAZA LOCATION ...... 46

March 2017 Page 6

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

TABLE 24 :SUMMARY OF SECOND TRAFFIC SURVEY AADT ON TOLL PLAZA LOCATION ...... 47

TABLE 25 : SUMMARY OF AVERAGE TRAFFIC AADT (FIRST & SECOND TRAFFIC SURVEYS) ON TOLL PLAZA LOCATION ...... 49

TABLE 26 :PROJECTION OF AADT PCUS/DAY) AT 5% GROWTH RATE AT TOLL PLAZA LOCATION ...... 51

TABLE 27: CROSS SECTIONAL ELEMENTS ...... 53

TABLE 28 : MINIMUM RADII FOR HORIZONTAL CURVES AS PER IRC-SP-73-2015 ...... 55

TABLE 29: MIN. RADIUS (FOR 2.5% CAMBER) NOT REQUIRING SUPER ELEVATION ...... 55

TABLE 30 : CURVE RADIUS (M) NOT REQUIRING TRANSITION CURVE ...... 56

TABLE 31 : RECOMMENDED GRADIENTS ...... 57

TABLE 32 : MINIMUM LENGTHS OF VERTICAL CURVES ...... 58

TABLE 33 : SIGHT DISTANCES FOR VARIOUS SPEEDS ...... 60

TABLE 34 : SUMMARY OF AADT AT TOLL PLAZA LOCATION ...... 63

TABLE 35 : SUMMARY OF VDF ...... 63

TABLE 36 :DESIGN TRAFFIC VOLUME (AADT)-BASE YEAR-2017 ...... 64

TABLE 37 : MSA PROJECTIONS FOR KM: 24+615 (TOLL PLAZA LOCATION) ...... 64

TABLE 38 : COMPOSITION OF EXISTING FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ...... 65

TABLE 39 :SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF BENKELMAN BEAM DEFLECTION TEST ...... 67

TABLE 40:RESULTS OF SOIL INVESTIGATION ...... 70

TABLE 41: DESIGN OF NEW FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ...... 71

TABLE 42 : PROPOSED CRUST COMPOSITIONS FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ...... 72

TABLE 43 : CRUST COMPOSITION FOR RIGID PAVEMENT ...... 78

TABLE 44 : LOCATION OF RCC BOX DRAINS ...... 81

TABLE 45 : PROPOSED BYPASSES ...... 82

TABLE 46 : PROPOSED FOUR LANE SECTION WITH SERVICE ROAD BOTH SIDE...... 83

TABLE 47 :DETAILED PARAMETERS OF THE HORIZONTAL CURVES ...... 84

TABLE 48 : JUNCTIONS ...... 88

March 2017 Page 7

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

TABLE 49 : RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BRIDGES/ CULVERTS ...... 91

TABLE 50 :PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITION ...... 93

TABLE 51 : TOLL PLAZA DETAILS ARE AS UNDER:...... 94

TABLE 52 : PROPOSED BUS SHELTER LOCATIONS ...... 94

TABLE 53 : LIST OF SECTIONS FOOTPATHS ...... 96

TABLE 54 : OTHER CHARGES ...... 98

TABLE 55 : ABSTRACT OF COSTS ON PPP (VGF) ...... 99

March 2017 Page 8

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 : INDEX MAP SHOWING PROJECT HIGHWAY 12

FIGURE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH 29

FIGURE 3 : SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT CONDITION 32

FIGURE 4 : EXISTING CRUST COMPOSITION 33

FIGURE 5 :TRAFFIC SURVEY LOCATIONS ON PROJECT ROAD 42

FIGURE: - 6 KILOMETRE WISE CHARACTERISTIC DEFLECTION 68

March 2017 Page 9

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHAPTER – 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General The Governor of Rajasthan acting through the Additional Chief Engineer (PPP), 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 the following roads under Package-26 “the Project” through Public Private Partnership on Design, Build, Finance Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis:

1. Sodawas-Bibirani section of MDR-61 (the “Highway-I”); 2. Kotkasim-Tapukar-Haryana Border section MDR-61 (the “Highway-II”); 3. Kishangarh Bas-Kotkasim-Haryana Border section of MDR-61A (the “Highway-III”); 4. Nadoti-Mahaveerji-Khera section of MDR-67 (the “Highway-IV”); 5. Gadoj-Behror-Haryana section of SH-111& 111A (the “Highway-V”);

The indicative cost of the Project is Rs. 352 Crores. 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 Concessionaire (the “Concession Agreement”).

In pursuance of the above, the authority carried 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”).

March 2017 Page 10

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

In line with the above, PWD, Rajasthan has appointed M/s Pentacle Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. In consortium with Techosum Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd as Consultant to carry out the Feasibility study for determining the technical feasibility and economic & financial viability of the project.

This report deals with the Highway-V: km 0+000 to km 46+400 comprising of the section from Gadoj –Behror -Haryana Borderof SH-111 & 111A and Majarikalan to Neemrana (Village road) hereinafter referred as project highway.

1.2 Commencement

The work for consultancy services for preparation of feasibility report for two laning of km 0+000 to km 46+400 comprising the section from Gadoj –Behror- Haryana BorderofSH-111 & 111Aand Majarikalan to Neemrana (Village road)in the state of Rajasthan (the “Highway-V”) has been awarded to M/s pentacle consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. in consortium with M/s Techosum Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. By public works department, governments of Rajasthan vide Contract Agreement dated 19-12-2014. Work was commenced on 26-12-2014

1.3 Project Description

Rajasthan, the largest state of India is located in the north-western part of the subcontinent. It is bound to the North and North-East by the states of Punjab and Haryana, to the East and South- East by the states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, to the South-West by the state of Gujarat, and to the West and North-West by Pakistan. The southern part of the state is about 225 km from the Gulf of Kutch and about 400Km. from the Arabian Sea. Jaipur is the capital city and lies in the East-Central part of the state.

Project Highway starts at Gadojvillage and ends at Haryana Border viaDinondar, Tasing, Krishan Nagar, Bahror, Bhitenda, Gandla, Majari Kalan, Mandhhan& connect to Neemarana via Majari Kalan. The project highway-V is a section of SH-111 & 111A, Totaling to46+400 Km length. Existing configuration of the section is two lane with granular shoulders.

March 2017 Page 11

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Figure 1 : Index Map Showing Project Highway

March 2017 Page 12

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

1.4 Scope of Services

 General Scope ofServices shall cover the following major tasks -

 Review of all available reports and published information about the project road and the project influence area.

 Detailed reconnaissance;

 Identification of possible improvements in the existing alignment and bypassing congested locations with alternatives; evaluation of different alternatives comparison on techno- economic and other considerations and recommendations regarding most appropriate option;

 Traffic studies including traffic surveys and Axle load survey and demand forecasting for next twenty five years;

 Inventory and condition surveys for road;

 Inventory and condition surveys for Bridges, Cross-Drainage structures and Road side Drainage provisions;

 Detailed topographic surveys using Total Stations and GPS;

 Pavement investigations;

 Sub-grade characteristics and strength: investigation of required sub-grade and sub soil characteristics and strength for road and embankment design and sub soil investigation;

 Identification of sources of construction materials;

 X-Section, Horizontal and vertical alignment of Highway;

 Preparation of GAD for Structures Identification of the type and the design of intersections;

 Contract packaging and implementation schedule.

 Strip plan indicating the scheme for carriageway widening, location of all existing utility services (both over- and underground), the scheme for their relocation, trees to be felled and planted, estimates for cutting of trees and shifting of utilities.

 Preparation of cost estimate

 Provision of parking areas and rest areas, Bus Shelters or any other users facilities as per requirement

March 2017 Page 13

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

1.5 Composition of Report The Report consists of total 3volumes as follows:  volume – 1 : Main report o Chapter 1: Introduces and provides the background of the project to the PPP Division of PWD Rajasthan. o Chapter 2: Executive summary o Chapter 3: Socio-Economic Profile of Project Influence Area describes the condition and growth pattern of various socio-economic variables in the Project Influence Area. o Chapter 4: Engineering Surveys and Investigations describe the various field surveys and investigation their methodology, findings etc. The various field surveys include Topographical survey, and Material Investigations, Inventory and Condition Survey for Road, Bridges and Culverts, Pavement Investigations, etc. o Chapter 5: Traffic Surveys and Analysis Outlines the various types of traffic surveys conducted and their analysis, findings and Traffic Demand forecasting etc. o Chapter 6: Presents the various aspects of pavement design. The design methodology, calculation of MSA and CBR has been described. The detail designs of overlay and crust for new section has also been discussed in this chapter. o Chapter 7: Presents the various aspects of Structures design. The design methodology, design standards adopted and details of structure design for the road. o Chapter 8:Summary of Land Acquisition

o Chapter 9: Project facilities outline the junctions’ line, toll plazas bus bays, truck lay byes. o Chapter10: Discuss cost estimates for each of the items included in the scope of work. It covers cost of basic inputs - materials, equipment, labour, including rate analysis, quantities, and total estimated cost.

March 2017 Page 14

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

 Volume- 2 : Drawings o Index Map o Key plan o Typical cross section o Horizontal & Vertical details o Standard drawings o Plan & Profile  Volume 3 :Annexure. o Annexure-1,First Traffic Survey o Annexure-2,Scond Traffic Survey o Annexure-3,Soil Investigation Reports o Annexure-4,Concrete Pavement Design o Annexure-5,Cost Estimate o Annexure-6, Details of GPS Point, TBM Reference point.

March 2017 Page 15

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 The Main features of the highway are captured below:

2.1.1 Terrain & Land Use The Project Road passes through plain terrain, and there are no hilly sections. The road predominantly passes through agricultural landsand built up areas in the villages adjoining the Project Highway.

The Project Highway passes through following built-up area:

Table 1 :Villages & Towns along Project Road

Chainage S No Village Name Block Remarks From To 1. 2.300 3.000 Tasing Behror - 2. 9.100 10.850 Behror Behror Bypass Proposed 3. 19.200 20.800 Gandla Neemrana - 4. 22.800 23.800 Majarikalan Neemrana - 5. 36.400 37.900 Mandhhan Mandhhan - 6. 44.100 46+400 Neemrana Neemrana Bypass Proposed

Project Start (Km 0+000) Project End (Km 39+620 Haryana Border)

March 2017 Page 16

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Road Alignment (27+500Km)Road Alignment (38+000 Km)

2.1.2 Lane Configuration Based on the road inventory and pavement condition surveys, project road has 19.89%of length as intermediate lane, 79.46% as two lane& 0.63% of length as more than two lane near a Parle Mode.

Table 2 : Section-wise Carriageway Width

Existing Carriageway Width, m Section SL IL DL 2 Lane +

SH Sections 0.000 9.370 37.130 0.600

2.1.3 Pavement Condition of the Existing Road

The pavement condition survey indicates that about 12.95% length of the Project Highway is in poor condition, 26.23% in fair and 60.72 % of the length is in good condition.

Table 3 : Pavement Condition Details

Pavement Surface Condition Section (Good/Fair/Poor) Good Fair Poor

March 2017 Page 17

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

SH Sections 28.600 12.400 6.100

2.1.4 Proposed Bypasses: Table 4 : Proposed Bypasses

S. No. From To Length Bypass 1. 8+100 10+500 2.400 Behror 2. 44+200 45+200 1.000 Neemrana RIICO Industrial Area Total Length 3.400

2.1.5 Proposedwidening of existing road to four lane section with service road both side:

Proposed four lane section with service road both side.

S. No. From To Length Location NeemranaRIICO 1. 45+200 46+400 1.200 Industrial Area Total Length 1.200

2.1.6 Cross-Drainage Structures (a) Bridges:

There are 2 MinorBridgesin the Project Highway section.

(b) Culverts:

Based on the condition / Carriageway width, Cross Drainage structures have been proposed to be retained/reconstructed/widened/ repaired. However, widening of culverts have been proposed as per IRC: SP: 73-2015.Summary of Culverts proposed for development are given below:

March 2017 Page 18

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 5 : Summary of Structures

No. of S.No. Type of structure Recommendations structures

1 Pipe Culverts 2 Widened 2 Pipe Culverts 4 New proposed 3 Pipe Culverts 1 Reconstruction 4 Slab Culverts 10 Widened 5 Minor Bridge 2 Widened 6 Slab Culverts 3 Reconstruction 7 Causeway 1 Reconstruction with HPC Total = 23

2.1.7 Flood Prone Stretches During Monsoon Project Influence Area experiences rains almost for 3 months in a year. It receives heavy rains during July to September. Based on the information collected, none of the Project road area is in submergence. However to permit natural flow of water sufficient number of cross drainage structures have been provided.

2.1.8 Right of Way (RoW) As per survey, the existing Right of Way is approximately 12 to 25 meters and45 meter inNeemranaRIICO Industrial Area.

2.1.7 Utilities along the Proposed Project Road As the project road runs in plain area, presence of utility lines is predominant. In urban area, electric lines, water pipe lines etc. are running along the road.

2.2 Proposed Lane Configuration As per the traffic surveys and provisions of Two LaningManual IRC-SP-73-2015, Road is recommended for up gradation to Two Lane with Paved Shouldersfrom Gadoj (State Border) – Majri to HR/ RJ Border and Majri to Neemrana (SH-111 & 111A) Highway Project.

March 2017 Page 19

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

2.2.1 Proposed Crust Composition The recommended pavement composition is as follows:

Table 6 :Proposed Crust Composition of Main Carriageway (Flexible)

Length Pavement Design Thickness(MM) Design From To CBR (%) MSA Subgrade GSB WMM DBM BC Total

0+000 46+400 10 20 500 200 250 80 40 1070

Table 6A:Proposed Crust Composition of Service Road (Flexible)

Length Pavement Design Thickness(MM) Design From To CBR (%) MSA Subgrade GSB WMM DBM BC Total

45+200 46+400 10 10 500 200 250 50 40 1040

Table 7 :Proposed Crust Composition (Rigid)

Reconstruction Sections Pavement New Good/Fair Poor Composition Construction Widening Central Widening Central Portion portion Portion portion PQC 300 300 300 300 300

DLC 150 150 150 150 150

2.2.2 Junctions The Design Team has identified 32 junctions.

March 2017 Page 20

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 8 :Junctions

S. No. Existing Chainage Design Chainage Location Junction Type Leading to Village (Km) (Km)

1 0+875 0+875 RHS T-junction Dhidhor 2 1+260 1+260 LHS Y-junction Temple 3 2+288 2+288 RHS T-junction Hanuman Temple 4 2+310 2+310 RHS T-junction Gadoj 5 3+750 3+750 LHS Y-junction Khapriya 6 8+115 8+077 LHS Y-junction Bypass Start 7 - 9+450 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Hamindpura/Behror 8 - 10+500 LHS T-junction Narnol 9 10+850 10+500 RHS T-junction Behror 10 14+750 14+365 LHS T-junction Khatankheda 11 15+170 14+800 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Milkpur/Riwadi 12 16+667 16+290 LHS T-junction Googriya 13 17+700 17+300 RHS T-junction Chandi Chana 14 19+417 19+000 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Gandala/Neemrana 15 20+250 19+840 LHS T-junction Gandala 16 23+092 22+700 RHS T-junction Majari/Neemrana 17 24+350 23+950 LHS T-junction Narnaul 18 25+315 24+900 RHS Y-junction Heergarh 19 26+100 25+700 RHS T-junction Mukund Singh pur 20 26+530 26+100 RHS T-junction Bhimpur 21 29+430 29+020 RHS T-junction Ghilot 22 29+470 29+050 LHS T-junction Ateli 23 36+650 36+300 RHS Y-junction Mandan 24 37+700 37+300 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Nanagwas 25 38+700 38+300 LHS T-junction Depot 26 40+800 40+210 LHS T-junction Heergarh 27 41+250 40+690 LHS T-junction Bijaysinghpura 28 42+030 41+450 LHS T-junction Heergarh 29 44+730 44+200 LHS Y-junction Neemrana Bypass 30 - 45+590 RHS T-junction Neemrana RIICO Internal Road 31 - 45+800 RHS Y-junction Neemrana RIICO Internal Road 32 46+750 46+400 LHS/RHS T-junction Neemrana/NH-8

March 2017 Page 21

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

2.2.3 Toll plaza

Toll Plaza is proposed at Design Chainage: -24+615.

2.2.4 Bus Bays and Bus Shelters

Location of proposed Bus Shelters is as follows;

Table 9 :ProposedBus Shelter Locations S. No. Existing Design Side Village Chainage Chainage (Km) (Km) 1 2+300 2+300 LHS Gadoj 2 2+350 2+350 RHS Gadoj 3 3+300 3+300 LHS Tasing 4 3+350 3+350 RHS Tasing 5 5+800 5+800 LHS Krishan Nagar 6 5+800 5+800 RHS Krishan Nagar 7 7+100 7+100 LHS Kharkhara 8 7+150 7+150 RHS Kharkhara 9 7+900 7+865 LHS MoondiyaKhera 10 7+950 7+915 RHS MoondiyaKhera 11 Bypass 10+400 LHS BehrorNarnaul Road 12 10+450 RHS BehrorNarnaul Road 13 10+850 10+500 LHS Behror 14 10+870 10+550 RHS Behror 15 12+600 12+200 RHS Manchal 16 12+650 12+250 LHS Manchal 17 16+450 16+100 LHS Bheeteda 18 16+600 16+150 RHS Bheeteda 19 19+300 18+900 LHS Gandala 20 19+350 18+950 RHS Gandala 21 23+000 22+600 LHS Majari 22 23+150 22+750 RHS Majari 23 24+325 23+910 LHS MajariKhurd 24 1324+400 24+000 RHS MajariKhurd 25 3140+300 29+900 RHS Kahnawas

March 2017 Page 22

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

S. No. Existing Design Side Village Chainage Chainage (Km) (Km) 26 3015+400 30+00 LHS Kahnawas 27 36+950 36+520 LHS Madhan 28 37+050 36+680 RHS Madhan 29 44+950 44+180 RHS Neemrana 30 45+000 44+220 LHS Neemrana

2.2.5 Truck Lay byes

Truck lay byeis not proposed on Project Highway.

2.2.6 Drain cum Footpath

Footpaths have been provided in the following built-up sections:

Table 10 : Drain cum Footpath

S. Design Chainage(Km) Village Name Length Side No. Start End 1 3.400 3.640 Tasing 0.240 Both 2 18.900 19.120 Gandala 0.220 Both 3 21.700 23.000 Majari Kalan 1.300 Both 4 35.200 37.200 Mandan 2.000 Both 5 39.250 39.685 Majari Kalan 0.435 Both 6 45.200 46.400 Neemrana RIICO Industrial Area 1.200 Both Total = 5.395

2.2.7 Cost Estimates  The civil cost for up-gradation of the existing road to 2-lane with paved shoulders is estimated to Rs. 78.62 Cr. on the basis of PWD SOR NH Circle Jaipurw.ef. 01.04.2016.

Viability

 Project is financially viableon PPP(VGF)

March 2017 Page 23

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHAPTER – 3: SOCIO- ECONOMIC PROFILE

3.1 General

The objective of this chapter is to describe the socio-economic context in which the proposed road up gradation project is being implemented and carry out the qualitative analysis of the socio- economic impacts of the project in this context.

In order to estimate the demand for the upgraded facility and to carry out the economic analysis of the project a good amount of economic data is needed. This data will especially be useful in establishing traffic growth rates for forecasting future traffic. Data on past trends of growth of Net State Domestic Product (NSDP), population, etc. can be particularly useful. The relevant data is compiled in this chapter.

3.2 Geographical Features

Total geographical area of the State is 342,239 sq. km and the forest area is 9.5% of total geographical area of the state. The annual rainfall in the state varies significantly. The general trend of Isohyets is from north-west to south-east. There is a very rapid and marked decrease in rainfall west of the Aravalli range making western Rajasthan the most arid part. The average annual rainfall in this part ranges from less than 10 cm in north-west part of Jaisalmer (lowest in the state), to 20 to 30 cm in Ganganagar, Bikaner and Barmer regions, 30 to 40 cm in Nagaur, Jodhpur, Churu and Jalor regions and more than 40 cm in Sikar, Jhunjhunun and Pali regions and along the western fringes of the Aravalli range. On the eastern side of the Aravalli range, the rainfall ranges from 55 cm in Ajmer to 102 cm in Jhalawar. In plains, Banswara (92.0 cm) and Jhalawar (95 cm) districts receive the maximum annual rain. Mount Abu (Sirohi district) in the south-west, however, receives the highest rainfall in the state (163.8 cm). The yearly total rainfall is highly variable at different places all over the state and it is most erratic in the western half with frequent spells of drought, punctuated occasionally by heavy downpour in some years, associated with the passing low pressure systems over the region.Alwar experiences a very short monsoon. The average annual rainfall is around 577 mm. The average humidity of Alwar is 70 per cent. Alwar weather is very moderate.

March 2017 Page 24

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

3.3 Demographic Features As per 2011 Census, total population of the State is 6,85,48,437persons comprising of 3,55,50,997 males and 3,29,97,410 females reflecting sex ratio of 930 females per 1000 males.There is 66.11 percent literate population including 2,36,88,412 male and 1,45,86,870 female.

Table 11 : District wise Population

Population 2011 Percentage Sex Ratio Population S. Decadal (Females per Districts Density (per No. Total Males Females Growth Rate 1,000 males) sq. Km) 2011 2001-2011 2011 1 Ganganagar 1969168 1043340 925828 10 887 247 2 Hanumangarh 1774692 931184 843508 17 906 140 3 Bikaner 2363937 1240801 1123136 24 905 83 4 Churu 2039547 1051446 988101 20 940 121 5 Jhunjhunun 2137045 1095896 1041149 12 950 361 6 Alwar 3674179 1939026 1735153 23 895 438 7 Bharatpur 2548462 1355726 1192736 21 880 503 8 Dhaulpur 1206516 653647 552869 23 846 398 9 Karauli 1458248 783639 674609 21 861 264 10 SawaiMadhopur 1335551 704031 631520 20 897 127 11 Dausa 1634409 857787 776622 24 905 476 12 Jaipur 6626178 3468507 3157671 26 910 471 13 Sikar 2677333 1374990 1302343 17 947 346 14 Nagaur 3307743 1696325 1611418 19 950 187 15 Jodhpur 3687165 1923928 1763237 28 916 161 16 Jaisalmer 669919 361708 308211 32 852 17 17 Barmer 2603751 1369022 1234729 33 902 92 18 Jalor 1828730 936634 892096 26 952 172 19 Sirohi 1036346 534231 502115 22 940 202

March 2017 Page 25

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Population 2011 Percentage Sex Ratio Population S. Decadal (Females per Districts Density (per No. Total Males Females Growth Rate 1,000 males) sq. Km) 2011 2001-2011 2011 20 Pali 2037573 1025422 1012151 12 987 164 21 Ajmer 2583052 1324085 1258967 18 951 305 22 Tonk 1421326 728136 693190 17 952 198 23 Bundi 1110906 577160 533746 15 925 200 24 Bhilwara 2408523 1220736 1187787 20 973 230 25 Rajsamand 1156597 581339 575258 17 990 243 26 Dungarpur 1388552 696532 692020 25 994 368 27 Banswara 1797485 907754 889731 20 980 357 28 Chittaurgarh 1544338 783171 761167 - 972 142 29 Kota 1951014 1021161 929853 24 911 358 30 Baran 1222755 633945 588810 20 929 176 31 Jhalawar 1411129 725143 685986 20 946 227 32 Udaipur 3068420 1566801 1501619 17 958 221 33 Pratapgarh 867848 437744 430104 - 983 211 The state population has increased from 56.50 million in 2001 to 68.54 million by year 2011, growing at compound annual growth rate (CAGR) at 1.95 percent per annum. There is a clear picture of growth in population in the State during 2001-2011 periods as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Annual Population Growths in Rajasthan

Year Population (in millions) Compound Annual Growth Rate (percent)

2001 56507188 1.95 2011 68548437

March 2017 Page 26

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHAPTER – 4:ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS

4.1 Road Inventory The objective is to collect information on all physical and visible features of the road and the roadside features as existing at site to facilitate development of preliminary improvement proposals. All the details were recorded by actual measurements done at site, according to formats provided by the Authority duly modified as per the project requirements. The existing kilometre stones formed the reference marks for the survey team. The Road Inventory was recorded under the following sub-heads: -

 Type of Terrain- (Flat/ Rolling/ mountainous)  Land use – (Agri. /Commercial/Forest/ Residential/ Barren)  Name of Village/Town  Formation Width  Carriageway- Type/ Width/ Condition  Shoulder - Type/ Width/ Condition  Embankment height  Submergence area - location  Details of Crossroads –Location/Road Name. /Carriageway Width  Existence of Water bodies  Road Side Drainage (Non Existing, Partially Functional, Functional)

Details of Road Inventory Survey are attached as Annexures. The summary of Inventory Survey is given in Table 13 and Figure 2 below.

March 2017 Page 27

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 13:Summary of Existing Road Inventory

Chainage (Km) Carriageway From To Type Width(m) 0.000 1.915 Bitumen 7 1.915 1.965 CC 7 1.965 3.400 Bitumen 7 3.400 3.640 CC 7 3.640 7.120 Bitumen 7 7.120 7.170 CC 7 7.170 9.550 Bitumen 7 9.550 9.950 CC 7 9.950 11.000 CC 5.5 11.000 11.100 Bitumen 14 11.100 11.600 CC 5.5 11.600 11.700 Bitumen 7 11.700 11.720 CC 5.5 11.720 14.800 Bitumen 7 14.800 16.470 Bitumen 7 16.470 16.540 CC 7 16.540 19.325 Bitumen 7 19.325 19.435 CC 7 19.435 19.850 Bitumen 7 19.850 19.950 CC 7 19.950 22.350 Bitumen 7 22.350 23.450 CC 5.5 23.450 29.440 Bitumen 7 29.440 29.720 CC 7 29.720 32.860 Bitumen 7 32.860 33.355 CC 7

March 2017 Page 28

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Chainage (Km) Carriageway From To Type Width(m) 33.355 35.700 Bitumen 7 35.700 37.200 CC 7 37.200 39.160 Bitumen 7 39.160 39.410 CC 7 39.410 40.200 Bitumen 7 40.200 40.700 CC 5.5 40.700 45.800 Bitumen 5.5 45.800 46.900 CC 5.5 46.900 47.200 Bitumen 10

Distribution of Existing Carriageway Width

0.63%

19.89%

Inter. Lane Two Lane > Two Lane

79.46%

Figure 2: Distribution of Existing Carriageway Width From the above figure 2, it can be seen that 79.46% of road is two-lane while 19.89% of the road is inter mediate lane and 0.63% more than two lane.

March 2017 Page 29

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

4.2 Pavement Condition Survey

The survey on general pavement conditions was primarily a visual exercise undertaken by means

of slow drive-over survey, and supplemented with measurements where necessary. Visual

assessment was carried out from a vehicle, with speed not exceeding 30 - 40 km/hr and stopping

at various locations at suitable intervals and wherever necessary, by variations in pavement

conditions. At the points of stoppage, simple measurements using measuring tape, straight edge

was carried out to quantify pavement deficiency on a representative basis. Aspects of pavement

conditions assessed include surface defects, rut depth, cracking, potholes, patched areas, shoulder

condition etc. An overall assessment of performance – serviceability of the road was also done to

qualitatively rate the existing pavement and shoulder condition.

The pavement condition was measured under the following sub-heads:

1. Pavement Condition-(Good/Fair/Poor)

2. Shoulder- Composition

3. Road Side Drain (Existing/Non Existing)

All the distress conditions were estimated by carrying out visual condition survey, Results of

which are tabulated in Table 14.

Table 14 : Summary of Existing Pavement Condition Survey

Chainage Condition of Chainage Condition of (Km) Pavement (Km) Pavement From To (Good/fair/Poor) From To (Good/fair/Poor) 0.000 1.000 Good 6.000 7.000 Good 1.000 2.000 Good 7.000 8.000 Good 2.000 3.000 Good 8.000 9.000 Good 3.000 4.000 Good 9.000 10.000 Fair 4.000 5.000 Good 10.000 11.000 Good 5.000 6.000 Good 11.000 12.000 Fair

March 2017 Page 30

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Chainage Condition of Chainage Condition of (Km) Pavement (Km) Pavement From To (Good/fair/Poor) From To (Good/fair/Poor) 12.000 13.000 Good 28.000 29.000 Fair 13.000 14.000 Good 29.000 30.000 Fair 14.000 15.000 Good 30.000 31.000 Good 15.000 16.000 Good 31.000 32.000 Good 16.000 17.000 Good 32.000 33.000 Good 17.000 18.000 Good 33.000 34.000 Good 18.000 19.000 Good 34.000 35.000 Good 19.000 20.000 Good 35.000 36.000 Good 20.000 21.400 Good 36.000 37.000 Good 21.400 22.000 Fair 37.000 38.000 Fair 22.000 23.000 Poor 38.000 39.000 Good 23.000 23.700 Fair 39.000 40.200 Good 23.700 24.900 Fair 40.200 40.700 Fair 24.900 25.400 Fair 40.700 45.800 Poor 25.400 26.000 Fair 45.800 46.900 Fair 26.000 27.400 Fair 46.900 47.100 Fair 27.400 28.000 Fair

March 2017 Page 31

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Pavement condition Figur e 3 : 12.95% Sum mary

Good of 26.32% Fair Pave Poor ment 60.72% Cond ition R esults It is seen from the results of the Table that 60.72% of Pavement is in good condition, 26.32 % is fair Condition while 12.95% of Pavement is in poor condition.

Pavement in Good Condition Pavement in Poor Condition

March 2017 Page 32

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Pavement in Fair condition

4.3 Existing Crust Composition

Existing pavement crust thickness varies from 285mm to 470mm consisting of 80-120 mm surface material, 70-200 mm base material and 100-200mm sub base material at different locations. Kilometer wise crust composition isgiven in Figure 4.

500

450

400

350

300 Surface 250 Base Sub Base

200 Thickness (mm) Thickness 150

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839.62414243444546 Chainage (Km)

Figure 4 :Existing Crust Composition

March 2017 Page 33

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

4.4 Benkelman Beam Deflection Survey Benkelman Beam Deflection studies are carried out for evaluating the requirements of strengthening of pavements. Performance of flexible pavement is closely related to elastic deflection under the wheel loads. The deformation under a given load depends upon subgrade soil type, its moisture content and compaction, pavement surface temperature, drainage condition etc.

Benkelman Beam Deflection measurements were taken as specified in the ToR i.e. one set of ten readings in 250 meters for every three kilometers of the Project Highway. Pavement deflections were analyzed as per IRC: 81 – 1997 “Guidelines for strengthening of Flexible pavements using Benkelman Beam Deflection Technique”.

4.5 Inventory of Bridges and Culverts The culvert and bridge inventory was undertaken by actual study, site visit, measurements and visual inspections. It was supplemented by survey from experienced team. After preparing draft inventory and condition survey report, verification was carried by the design team. Necessary corrections as observed during site visit were incorporated. i. Location of bridge ii. Span arrangement iii. Width of carriageway iv. Type of bridge v. Type of superstructure & substructure vi. Condition of superstructure & substructure Culvert Inventory covers the following features. i. Location of culvert ii. Span arrangement iii. Type of structure iv. Condition of slab & pipe v. Condition of abutment & headwall There are a total 19existing structures which includes, 2 Minor Bridges, 3pipe culvert, 13slab culverts and 1 causewayand the abstract of culvert inventory is presented in Table 5.

March 2017 Page 34

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 15 : Details of Existing Pipe Culvert/ Causeway

S. No. Existing Type Number of pipe Dia. of Width of Chainage Pipe(m) Structure (km) (m) 1. 1+915 Causeway - - 20.000 2. 2+635 Pipe 1 0.900 12.000 3. 4+270 Pipe 1 0.900 12.000 4. 14+050 Pipe 1 0.900 12.000

Table 16: Details of Existing Minor Bridge /Slab Culverts

S. No. Existing Chainage Type Span Arrangement Width of Structure (km) (m) (m) 1. 0+170 Slab 1X4.5 12.000 2. 0+720 Slab 1X4.5 12.000 3. 0+825 Slab 1X2.5 12.000 4. 1+425 Minor Bridge 1X9.5 12.000 5. 2+935 Slab 1X2.0 12.000 6. 20+250 Slab 1X2.75 12.000 7. 22+960 Slab 1X2.75 12.000 8. 29+000 Slab 1X2.75 12.000 9. 33+540 Slab 1X2.75 12.000 10. 34+500 Slab 1X2.75 12.000 11. 36+340 Slab 1X1.5 12.000 12. 36+750 Slab 1X0.75 12.000 13. 38+355 Minor Bridge 2X4.5 12.000 14. 38+700 Slab 1X3.5 12.000 15. 39+500 Slab 1x1.75 12.000

March 2017 Page 35

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

4.6 Condition surveys for bridges and culverts

4.6.1 Bridges There are 2 Minor bridges on the Project Highway.

4.6.2 Culverts Detailed visual inspection was made for each Culvert and their condition was assessed. The

inventory and condition survey of the culverts along the project road were conducted and is

presented in Table 17along with the recommendations and proposals

March 2017 Page 36

Consultancy Services for Preparation of Final Feasibility Report Public Works Department for Two laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400 comprising the section of SH-111 & 111Afrom Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border(the Government of Rajasthan “Highway v”)

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 17 : INVENTORY AND CONDITION SURVEY FOR MINOR BRIDGES/CULVERTS

KM.

SPAN SPAN

CULVERT

WIDTH OF WIDTH

ARRANGEME

WATERWAY WATERWAY

/ SLAB/PIPE, / SLAB/PIPE,

(CHANAGE)

S.N

REMARKS

WIDENING/ WIDENING/

MASONARY ARCH) MASONARY

RECONSTRUCTION

(M) (M)

ISTING ISTING

PIPE

ADEQUATE (YES/NO) ADEQUATE

TYPE OF STRUCTURE OF STRUCTURE TYPE

(RCC, BO (RCC,

TOTAL TOTAL

WIDTH WIDTH

WHETHER WHETHER

RECOMMENDATION ON ON RECOMMENDATION

OF SPAN OF SPAN

NUMBER NUMBER

OF SPAN/ OF SPAN/

CONDITION ASSESSMENT CONDITION

E 1 0+170 Slab 1 4.5 12 Good Yes Widening 2 0+720 Slab 1 4.5 12 Good Yes Widening 3 0+825 Slab 1 2.5 12 Good Yes Widening 4 1+425 Minor Bridge 1 9.5 12 Good Yes Widening 5 1+915 Causeway - - - Good Yes Reconstruction Reconstruction with 2x1.200mdia HPC 6 2+635 Pipe 1 0.900 12 Good Yes Widening 7 2+935 Slab 1 2.0 12 Good Yes Widening 8 4+270 Pipe 1 0.900 12 Good Yes Widening 9 14+050 Pipe 1 0.900 12 Poor Yes Reconstruction 10 20+250 Slab 1 2.75 12 Good Yes Widening 11 22+960 Slab 1 2.75 12 Good Yes Widening 12 29+000 Slab 1 2.75 12 Good Yes Widening 13 33+540 Slab 1 2.75 12 Good Yes Widening 14 34+500 Slab 1 2.75 12 Poor Yes Reconstruction 15 36+340 Slab 1 1.5 12 Good Yes Widening 16 36+750 Slab 1 0.75 12 Good Yes Widening

February 2016 Page 37

Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report for Two Public Works Department laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400 comprising the section of SH- Government of Rajasthan 111 & 111Afrom Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border(the “Highway v”)

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

KM.

SPAN SPAN

CULVERT

WIDTH OF WIDTH

ARRANGEME

WATERWAY WATERWAY

/ SLAB/PIPE, / SLAB/PIPE,

(CHANAGE)

S.N

REMARKS

WIDENING/ WIDENING/

MASONARY ARCH) MASONARY

RECONSTRUCTION

(M) (M)

ISTING ISTING

PIPE

ADEQUATE (YES/NO) ADEQUATE

TYPE OF STRUCTURE OF STRUCTURE TYPE

(RCC, BO (RCC,

TOTAL TOTAL

WIDTH WIDTH

WHETHER WHETHER

RECOMMENDATION ON ON RECOMMENDATION

OF SPAN OF SPAN

NUMBER NUMBER

OF SPAN/ OF SPAN/

CONDITION ASSESSMENT CONDITION

17 Minor Bridge 2 12 Good Yes Widening 38+355 4.5 18 Slab 1 12 Good Yes Widening 38+700 3.5 19 Slab 1 12 Good Yes Widening 39+500 1.75

February 2016 Page 38

Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Final Feasibility Report for Government of Rajasthan Two laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400 comprising the section of SH- 111 & 111Afrom Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border(the “Highway-V”)

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

4.7 Topographical Survey

4.7.1 Reconnaissance Survey

The reconnaissance survey was conducted to study various features of the road. An initial

assessment of the different features like geometric deficiencies, deficient curves, stretches

requiring corrections in alignment/realignment identifications of junctions/intersections needing

improved design, etc. were made.

4.7.2 Horizontal and Vertical Control

Horizontal control was fixed by Total Station. The azimuth was determined through DGPS with Total

Station. For vertical control, reference was used from the Benchmark established through DGPS.

DGPS pillars have been established at every 5 Kilometre along the project road.

4.7.3 Establishing Temporary Benchmarks

In order to establish temporary benchmarks (TBM) along the proposed route, reference pillars

have been fixed at permanent structures along the route. Levelling was carried out to connect all

the reference pillars along the route. These temporary benchmarks were used for further detailed

survey.

4.7.4 Total Station Traverse Levelling was carried out from the known Benchmarks to the reference pillars along the route.

All the coordinates i.e. x, y and z were fixed at the temporary benchmarks by close traversing.

Levelling adjustments were also been made for horizontal as well as vertical co-ordinates with

normal process for error distribution. These coordinates have been used for further detail survey.

February 2016 Page 39

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

4.7.5 L-Section and X-Section Survey

Longitudinal section levels were taken at every 25 m interval along the centre line of the existing

carriageway. Cross sections were taken at every 50 m interval covering full extent of survey

corridor with nos. of spot levels on the ground to give existing ground levels for widening

purpose. Longitudinal section for cross roads was taken for a length of 100 m with adjacent spot

levels of the ground on both sides to design intersections. Longitudinal and cross sections survey

for major/minor streams was also carried out as per the requirements.

4.7.6 Detailed Survey

The detailed field Surveys within road corridor was carried out using high precision and

sophisticated instruments like Total Stations and Auto level. The output data from the

topographical survey are in (x, y, z) format. Road corridor was taken as 15m on either side of

existing centre line i.e. total width of 30m. Additional survey was carried out at the location of

realignments and streams. Various features were recorded in x, y, z co-ordinates, along the

existing road and also on both sides of the existing road within road corridor. The features

include ROW, existing carriageway, Km stones, buildings, structures, monuments, places of

worship, railway lines, streams, rivers, canals, culverts, trees, plantations, utility services such as

electric power lines, electric poles, telephone posts and telephone lines and cross roads etc. The

recorded survey data were later downloaded to computer and converted to text files as well as

AutoCAD drawings using appropriate software.

February 2016 Page 40

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHATER – 5:TRAFFIC SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Introduction

In order to appreciate the amount and nature of traffic plying on the project road, the following traffic surveys were carried out.

 7 day classified traffic volume count surveys on Project Road.

 Axle Load Survey for 24 Hrs on Project Road to calculate the Vehicle Damage Factor for various types of Vehicles

The schedule of the traffic surveys conducted is listed in Table 18 and shown in Figure 5. All the traffic surveys were conducted manually by employing sufficient number of enumerators and traffic surveyors. Enumerators were trained prior to commencement of traffic survey.

Table 18 : Schedules of Traffic Surveys Start Duration of S.No. Type of Survey Location End Date Date Survey

1 7 Day CVC -1 Majarikalan at Km. 23+500 21/01/2015 27/01/2015 7

2 7 Day CVC -2 Majarikalan at Km. 23+500 29/07/2015 04/08/2015 7

Axle Load 3 Surveys Majarikalan at Km. 23+600 30/01/2015 31/01/2015 24 Hours (For 24 Hrs)

February 2016 Page 41

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

End

Axel Load Survey 23+615 MajriKalan (Ch 23+500)

Neemrana ea

Start

Figure 5 :Traffic Survey Locations on Project Road

5.2 Traffic Intensity

5.2.1 Traffic Volume Survey

The directional classified traffic volume was counted for seven consecutive days (24 hrs) at the above-mentioned location. Methodology The vehicle classification considered was in accordance with IRC-64 and TOR covered cars, jeeps, vans, buses, standard trucks, multi-axle vehicles, light goods vehicles, tractors (with and without trailers), motorized two-wheelers, three wheelers, Non-Motorized vehicles (cycles, cycle rickshaw and carts).

Traffic volume data was collected using our standard survey forms, which record the direction- wise traffic for every 15 (fifteen) minutes on round the clock basis. The road name, the count location, weather, name of the enumerator, time-interval and the traffic direction were recorded.

February 2016 Page 42

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Analysis

The classified traffic count data collected was analyzed with respect to hourly and daily traffic volume, traffic composition, peak hour share, directional distribution, and average daily traffic (ADT) and finally annual average daily traffic (AADT) by considering the seasonal correction factors. Traffic volume analysis has been carried out to assess the magnitude and composition of traffic, the hourly variation in traffic over 24 hours, and the daily variation in traffic over 7 days at the project location. The compiled data obtained from field traffic survey have been analyzed to work out the average daily traffic in terms of total vehicles and total PCUs. The PCU factors used in the analysis, as referred from IRC: 64 are presented in the Table 19.

Table 19 : PCU Values Used

Vehicle Type PCU Vehicle Type PCU Car/Jeep/Taxi 1.0 Auto Rickshaw 1.0 Mini Bus/ LCV 1.5 Agricultural Tractor 1.5 Standard Bus 3.0 Agricultural Tractor & Trailer 4.5 2/3 Axle Truck 3.0 Animal Drawn Vehicle 6.0 MAV 4.5 Cycle 0.5 Two Wheeler 0.5 Hand Cart 3.0

Reference: IRC: 64-1990: Guidelines for capacity of Roads in Rural Areas

The data collected during the survey was analyzed using our standard analysis formulated in Excel based Program. Fifteen-minute counts were summed up direction wise to arrive at daily traffic volume for all vehicle categories. The daily data was analyzed to work out total traffic volume and total PCUs.

5.2.2 Average Daily Traffic

The seven-day’s average classified traffic volume in terms of number of vehicles and PCUs areshowing in the Figure below.

February 2016 Page 43

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 20 :Summary ADT on Toll Plaza Location Km. 24+615(First Traffic Survey) Average Daily Traffic(ADT) Vehicle Category Project Road Location Majari 2 Wheeler 2302 3 Wheeler 37 Car / Jeep /Van 1673 Mini Bus 9 School Bus 75 Govt Bus 15 Private Bus 67 Mini LCV 417 LCV 43 2 Axle Truck 260 3 Axle Truck 281 MAV 204 MAV (more than 6 Axles) 4 Tractor 14 Tractor + Trailer 167 Pedal Cycle 101 Hand Cart 1 Animal Drawn 15 Toll Exempted - Car 3 Toll Exempted - Bus 0 Toll Exempted - LCV 0 Toll Exempted - Truck 0 Vehicles (Nos) 5686 Vehicles (PCUs) 7298

February 2016 Page 44

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 21 : Summary ADT on Toll Plaza Location Km. 24+615(Second Traffic Survey)

Average Daily Traffic(ADT) Vehicle Category Project Road Location Majari 2 Wheeler 2288 3 Wheeler 29 Car / Jeep /Van 1402 Mini Bus 6 School Bus 62 Govt. Bus 13 Private Bus 59 Mini LCV 426 LCV 123 2 Axle Truck 215 3 Axle Truck 362 MAV 160 MAV (more than 6 Axles) 0 Tractor 17 Tractor + Trailer 183 Pedal Cycle 73 Hand Cart 5 Animal Drawn 22 Toll Exempted - Car 2 Toll Exempted - Bus 0 Toll Exempted - LCV 0 Toll Exempted - Truck 0 Vehicles (Nos) 5448 Vehicles (PCUs) 7086

February 2016 Page 45

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

5.2.3 Seasonal Variation Factor

Petrol and Diesel sales are collected on the Project Stretch to analyze the seasonal variation. A seasonal factor has been taken from Table 22 for arriving AADT.

Table 22 :Fuel Sales Data and Seasonal Factors

Total Monthly Sales (L) Average Daily Sales (L) Seasonal Correction Factors Month Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel (L) Petrol (L) Combined Combined (L) (L) (L) (L) April 22000 25000 4767 833 5600 0.96 1.11 0.98 May 31000 33000 4742 1065 5806 0.96 0.87 0.94 June 18000 29000 4233 967 5200 1.08 0.96 1.05 July 25000 29000 4097 935 5032 1.11 0.99 1.09 August 33000 32000 3355 1032 4387 1.36 0.9 1.25 September 29000 26000 4467 867 5333 1.02 1.07 1.03 October 29000 33000 5387 1065 6452 0.85 0.87 0.85 November 32000 27000 5100 900 6000 0.89 1.03 0.91 December 26000 33000 4871 1065 5935 0.93 0.87 0.92 January 33000 22000 4710 710 5419 0.97 1.3 1.01 February 27000 31000 4893 1107 6000 0.93 0.84 0.91 March 33000 18000 4065 581 4645 1.12 1.59 1.18

Table 23 :Summary of First Traffic Survey AADTon Toll Plaza Location Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT) Vehicle Category Project Road Location Majari 2 Wheeler 2225 3 Wheeler 38 Car / Jeep /Van 1691 Mini Bus 11 School Bus 97 Govt. Bus 19 Private Bus 87

February 2016 Page 46

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT) Vehicle Category Project Road Location Majari Mini LCV 544 LCV 56 2 Axle Truck 339 3 Axle Truck 367 MAV 266 MAV (more than 6 Axles) 5 Tractor 18 Tractor + Trailer 217 Pedal Cycle 101 Hand Cart 1 Animal Drawn 15 Toll Exempted - Car 3 Toll Exempted - Bus 0 Toll Exempted - LCV 1 Toll Exempted - Truck 0 Vehicles (Nos) 6102 Vehicles (PCUs) 8584

Table 24 :Summary of Second Traffic Survey AADTon Toll Plaza Location Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT) Vehicle Category Project Road Location Majari 2 Wheeler 2150 3 Wheeler 34 Car / Jeep /Van 1641 Mini Bus 7 School Bus 76 Govt Bus 16

February 2016 Page 47

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT) Vehicle Category Project Road Location Majari Private Bus 72 Mini LCV 525 LCV 151 2 Axle Truck 265 3 Axle Truck 446 MAV 196 MAV (more than 6 Axles) 0 Tractor 17 Tractor + Trailer 183 Pedal Cycle 73 Hand Cart 5 Animal Drawn 17 Toll Exempted - Car 2 Toll Exempted - Bus 0 Toll Exempted - LCV 1 Toll Exempted - Truck 0 Vehicles (Nos) 5877 Vehicles (PCUs) 8026

February 2016 Page 48

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 25 : Summary of Average Traffic AADT (First & Second Traffic Surveys) on Toll Plaza Location Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT) Vehicle Category Project Road Location Majari 2 Wheeler 2188 3 Wheeler 36 Car / Jeep /Van 1666 Mini Bus 9 School Bus 87 Govt Bus 18 Private Bus 80 Mini LCV 534 LCV 104 2 Axle Truck 302 3 Axle Truck 406 MAV 231 MAV (more than 6 Axles) 2 Tractor 18 Tractor + Trailer 200 Pedal Cycle 87 Hand Cart 3 Animal Drawn 16 Toll Exempted - Car 3 Toll Exempted - Bus 0 Toll Exempted - LCV 1 Toll Exempted - Truck 0 Vehicles (Nos) 5989 Vehicles (PCUs) 8305

February 2016 Page 49

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

5.3 Axle Load Survey

5.3.1 General The intensity of traffic loading and the corresponding damaging factor of different categories of vehicles is an important parameter for the design of pavements. The intensity of traffic loading is defined in terms of cumulative number of standard axle load repetitions in a given period of time. IRC-37-2001 provides a scientific method for design for flexible pavements based on the concept of Equivalent Standard Axle and Vehicle Damage Factor.

5.3.2 Location of Survey Axle load studies were carried out at one location, at Km 23+600. The studies were conducted using calibrated electronic weigh axle load pads, in each direction. Two axle, three axle and multi axle trucks, Bus and light commercial vehicles were selected at random and weighed to determine their individual axle weights.Tones). The equivalent single axle (ESA)

5.3.3 Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) can be defined as the relative load factor termed as Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) for each vehicle is calculated using the following formula:

LE VDF= (AXLj/SXLj)

Where,

Pavement damage potential of a particular vehicle of known axle load as compared to that of a vehicle with standard axle load of 18000 lb (8.16) VDF = Vehicle Damage Factor

LE = Axle load equivalency exponent=4.0

AXLj = Axle load

SXLj = Standard load

Vehicle Damage Factors (VDF) is assessed for each category of vehicles that contribute significantly to pavement distress for project road as under:

 Light Commercial Vehicles (LCV)

 Two Axle Single Unit Commercial Vehicle (2 axle)

 Three Axle Single Unit Commercial Vehicle (3 Axle)

February 2016 Page 50

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

 Multi Axle Vehicle

 Bus

5.4 Traffic Forecast

5.4.1 Traffic Growth Rates The ToR specifies adopting 5% growth rate for the feasibility study. This suggested growth rate may be used for revenue determination during the financial analysis.

5.4.2 Projected Traffic

5.4.2.1 Traffic Projection and Capacity

The AADT so obtained at all the traffic survey locations are projected at a uniform growth rate of 5% for all categories of vehicles as mentioned in the TOR. The results are tabulated Table 26.

Table 26 :Projection of AADT PCUs/day) at 5% Growth Rate at Toll Plaza Location

Year SH-111, Km 24+615

Base Year 2017 9156 1 2018 9614 2 2019 10094 3 2020 10599 4 2021 11129 5 2022 11686 6 2023 12270 7 2024 12883 8 2025 13528 9 2026 14204 10 2027 14914 11 2028 15660 12 2029 16443 13 2031 18128 14 2032 19035 15 2033 19986

February 2016 Page 51

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHEPTER – 6:PAVEMENT DESIGN

6.1 Design Standards for Roads

6.1.1 Terrain Classification  Gadoj – Behror- Haryana Border : Plain  Majari to Neemarana : Plain

6.1.2 Design Speed The Design Speed selected is the governing factor for all the geometric and road components. Based on, table no 2 of IRC-SP- 73-2015, Design Speed, and Different sections of the Project Road have been designed with different design speed corresponding to the terrain classification.

For different terrain classes, the design speed has been followed as per table 2 of IRC: 73-2015.

The terrain classification of the project road section. But at certain sections, lower design speeds have been adopted to minimize the project-affected people (PAP’s) of the proposed project on the social life and also to minimize the land acquisition. Attempts have been made to restrict the New Pavement within the existing RoW throughout the Road Stretch.

February 2016 Page 52

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

6.1.3 Cross Sectional Elements . Standard Widths

Table 27: Cross Sectional Elements

Particulars Design Values Width (m) Lane 3.5 Paved shoulder 1.5 2.5 (1.0 incase provided along with paved Granular shoulder shoulder) Cross fall (%) Carriageway 2.5 Shoulders 2.0 Embankment Side Slope Gradient (%) 1(V) : 2(H) Maximum 4 Right of Way (m) 12 to 30 Overall width (m) between Building lines 50 Overall width (m) between Control lines 100 As pavement composition of the paved shoulders shall be same as of the main carriageway therefore the paved shoulders will normally have the same cross fall as of the pavement.

6.1.4 Horizontal Alignment As per clause 2.9 of the 2-lane manual IRC-SP-73-2015 following general principles shall be kept in view while designing horizontal alignment:

Alignment should be fluent and it should blend well with the surrounding topography.

On new roads, the curves should be designed to have largest practical radius, but in no case less than ruling value corresponding to ruling design speed.

As a normal rule, sharp curves should not be introduced at the end of long tangent since. These can be extremely hazardous.

February 2016 Page 53

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

The curves should be sufficiently long and they should have suitable transitions to provide pleasing appearance.

Reverse curves shall be avoided as far as possible. Where unavoidable, sufficient length between two curves shall be provided for introduction of requisite transition curves.

Curves in the same direction, separated by short tangents known as broken back curves, should be avoided as far as possible.

To avoid distortion in appearance, the horizontal alignment should be coordinated carefully with the longitudinal profile.

Hairpin bends on hilly terrain should be avoided as far as possible.

6.1.5 Super elevation Super elevation required on horizontal curves is calculated from the following formula: e = V2 / 225R

Where, e = super elevation in meter per meter V = Speed in Km/h and R = Radius in meters

Super elevation obtained from the above formula has been limited to a maximum of 7 percent.

6.1.6 Radius on Horizontal Curves The radius of horizontal curves is calculated from the following formula: R = V2 / 127 (e + f) Where, V = vehicle speed in Km/h e = Super elevation in meter per meter f = coefficient of side friction between vehicles tyre and pavement (Taken as 0.15) R = radius in meter

February 2016 Page 54

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Based on the above equation and the maximum permissible value of super elevation of 7%, radii for horizontal curves corresponding to ruling and minimum design speeds will be as per Table 28given below:

Table 28 : Minimum Radii for Horizontal Curves as per IRC-SP-73-2015

Particular Design Speed (KMPH)

100 80

Minimum Radius (m) of horizontal curves 360 250

Maximum Super Elevation (%) 7 7

Rate of change of Super elevation 1 in 200 1 in 200

6.1.7 Curve without Super elevation When the value of super elevation obtained from the parameters stated above is less than the road camber, the normal cambered section has been continued on the curve portion, without providing any super elevation. Table 29 given below indicates the radii of horizontal curves for different rates of camber beyond which super elevation is not required.

Table 29: Min. Radius (for 2.5% camber) not requiring super elevation

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

6.1.8 Transition Curves Transition curves are necessary for vehicle to progress smoothly from a straight section into a circular curve or between curves of different radii. The transition curve also facilitates a gradual application of the super elevation and any widening of the carriageway that may be required for the horizontal curves.

The minimum length of the transition curve is determined from the following two considerations.

February 2016 Page 55

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

(a) Ls = 0.0215 V3 /CR

Where,

Ls = length of transition curve in meters V = Speed in km/h R = radius of circular curve in meters C = 80 / (75 + V) (subject to maximum of 0.8 and minimum of 0.5)

(b) The rate of change of super elevation shall not be steeper than 1 in 150 for plain/rolling terrain and 1 in 60 for mountainous/steep terrain. The formula for minimum length of transitions on this basis is

Ls = 2.7 V2/ R

Transition curves shall be omitted if the radius of horizontal curves is greater than the values indicated in Table 30.

Table 30 : Curve Radius (m) not requiring Transition Curve

Design Speed (Km / h) Curve Radius (m) not requiring transition curve 100 2000 80 1200 65 800

6.1.9 Widening of carriageway on Curves In view of desired minimum radius of curves provided on this project road and with the provision of 2.5 m granular shoulders, extra width on curves is unlikely to be applicable to the main carriageway. Therefore, extra widening of carriageway at curves is not provided.

6.2 Vertical Alignment

February 2016 Page 56

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

(1) The vertical alignment should provide for a smooth longitudinal profile. Grade changes should not be too frequent as to cause kinks and visual discontinuities in the profile. The ruling and limiting gradients are given in Table 31.

Table 31 : Recommended Gradients

Nature of terrain Ruling gradient Limiting gradient

Plain and rolling 2.5% 3.3% Mountainous 5.0% 6.0% Steep 6.0% 7.0%

(2) Gradients up to the value corresponding to ruling gradient shall be adopted, as far as possible. Limiting gradients shall be adopted only in very difficult situations and for short lengths. (3) Long sweeping vertical curves shall be provided at all grade changes. These shall be designed as square parabolas. (4) For design of vertical curves and its co-ordination with horizontal curves, reference may be made to IRC: SP: 73-2015

6.2.1 Vertical Curves Parabolic curves are introduced between two gradients to ensure a smooth transition at changes of grade.

Vertical curves are provided at all grade changes exceeding those indicated in Table 32. The minimum length of vertical curve has been kept for a design speed of 100kmph as far as possible with absolute minimum length as shown in the table below:

1. Vertical curve are introduced for smooth transition at grade changes. Convex vertical curves are known as summit curves and concave vertical curves as valley or sag curves. Both these should be designed as square parabolas.

2. The length of the vertical curves is controlled by sight distance requirement, but greater lengths are aesthetically better.

February 2016 Page 57

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

3. Curves should be provided at all grade changes exceeding those indicated in Table. For satisfactory appearance, the minimum length should be as shown in the table.

Table 32 : Minimum Lengths of Vertical Curves

Design Speed km / h Maximum grade changes (%) not Minimum length of vertical requiring a vertical curve curve (m) 100 0.5 60 80 0.6 50 65 0.8 40

6.2.2 Summit curves: The length of summit curves is governed by the choice of sight distance. The length calculated on the basis of the following formulae: a. For safe stopping sight distance Case (i) when the length of the curve exceeds the required sight distance, L is greater than S NS2 L= ---- 4.4

Where N= deviation angle, i.e. the algebraic difference between the two grades L= Length of parabolic vertical curve in meters S= Sight distance in meters

Case (ii) when the length of the curve less than the required sight distance, L is less than S

4.4 L= 2S- ---- N

b. For intermediate or overtaking sight distance

February 2016 Page 58

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Case (i) when the length of the curve exceeds the required sight distance, L is greater than S

NS2 L= ---- 9.6

Case (ii) when the length of the curve less than the required sight distance, L is less than S

9.6 L= 2S- ---- N

The length of summit curve for various cases mentioned above can be read from Plates 3, 4 and 5. In these Plates, value of the ordinates “M” to the curve from the intersection point of grade lines is also shown.

6.2.3 Valley curves:

1. The length of valley curves should be such that for night travels, the headlight beam distance is equal to the stopping sight distance. The length of curve may be calculated as under:

Case (i) when the length of the curve exceeds the required sight distance, L is greater than S NS2 L= ------1.50+0.035 S Case (ii) when the length of the curve less than the required sight distance, L is less than S

1.50+0.035 S L= 2S ------

February 2016 Page 59

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

N In both cases N= deviation angle, i.e. the algebraic difference between the two grades L= Length of parabolic vertical curve in meters S= Sight distance in meters

6.2.4 Sight distance:

1. Visibility is an important requirement for the safety of travel on roads. For this, it is necessary that sight distance of adequate length is available in different situations, to permit drivers enough time and distance to control their vehicles so that chances of accidents are minimized. 2. On two-lane roads, normally intermediate sight distance should be available throughout. The attempt should, however, be to provide overtaking sight distance in as much length of the road as possible. In stretches where even intermediate sight distance is not available, the safe stopping sight distance should be provided as a last resort. Traffic signs depicting "Overtaking Prohibited:" shall be installed at all such locations. 3. The recommended sight distances for various speeds are given in Table 33.

Table 33 : Sight Distances for Various Speeds

Design Speed (kmph) Sight distance (m) Stopping Sight Overtaking Sight Intermediate Sight

distance Distance Distance 100 180 640 360

80 120 470 240

65 90 340 180

50 60 235 120

40 45 165 90

30 30 120 60

4. The requisite sight distance shall be available across the inner side of horizontal curves.

February 2016 Page 60

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

5. Where horizontal and summit curves overlap, the design shall provide for the required sight distance, both in the vertical direction, along the pavement and in the horizontal direction on the inner side of curve.

6.2.5 Typical Cross Sections Proposed typical Cross-Sections including pavement compositions are shown in the Drawing enclosed in Drawing Volume 6.3 Pavement Design: The project involves widening of existing bituminous / cement concrete rode of varying width to 2 lane with paved shoulders on either side. i). New flexible pavement. ii). Strengthening overlays over existing pavement. iii) Rehabilitation of concrete payment

6.4 Methodology 6.4.1 Flexible Pavement

The principal method of pavement design for new carriageway is based on IRC: 37-2012. For the strengthening of the pavement overlay IRC-81-1997 is the principal. The analysis and design of the pavements have been done using MS-Excel spread sheets.

While designing the pavement following factors have been considered:  New Flexible pavement has been designed using granular sub base course (GSB), Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) and bituminous surfacing (DBM & BC);  Overlay of Dense Bituminous Macadam and Bituminous concrete, after scarification of the existing Bituminous surfacing;  Paved shoulder has been designed using Granular sub base course (GSB), Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) and bituminous surfacing (DBM & BC);

February 2016 Page 61

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

6.4.2 Rigid Pavement

In general, cement concrete pavement has been provided in built –up sections on the existing road. Width of existing cement concrete pavement varies between 5.5m to 7m. Rigid pavement of 10mt. width with paving block in remaining width has been proposed in the built-up section.The covered drains cum footpaths on either side of rigid pavement have been proposed. Existing cement concrete pavement varying widths has been widened to 10 meter width with same cross section i.e. 150mm DLC &300 mm PQC. Moreover whenever the condition of existing cement concrete pavement is poor, the same has been provided with300mm PQC over existing Pavement.

6.5 Pavement Design Methods

The following method has been adopted for design of pavements for different components:

New Flexible Pavement:  IRC-37 -2012 Guidelines for Design of Flexible Pavement. Strengthening Overlay:  IRC-81 - Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible Pavement - Benkelman Beam Deflection Technique.

6.6 Pavement Investigation Design inputs required to the pavement design are established based on the pavement investigations. A summary of results of pavement investigations carried out are explained in the sub Para below

6.7 Traffic Forecast, Growth Rates & Axle Load Survey

6.7.1 Traffic Forecast The Classified Traffic Count Survey was carried out for 7 Consecutive days in both directions at Km: 24+615 (Majari). The traffic survey was carried out by manual count technique. The data as collected was analyzed and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was computed. The ADT as estimated was converted to AADT

February 2016 Page 62

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

applying the seasonal factor as applicable to the area. The details of AADT, as computed are given in Table 34.

Table 34 : Summary ofAADT at Toll Plaza Location AADT Location Motorized only Including NMT Veh/ day PCU Veh/ day PCU Km: 24+615 5884 8159 5989 8305

6.7.2 Growth Rate The Design Traffic has been estimated from AADT applying the annual growth rates of 5% across all categories of vehicles.

6.7.3 Generated and Development Traffic Some amount of Traffic may be generated on this road after development of road.

6.7.4 Axle Load Survey Average VDF for various types of vehicle is as follows:

Table 35 : Summary of VDF

Vehicle Type Average VDF

Bus 1.00

LCVs 1.90

2-Axle Trucks 3.50

3-Axle Trucks 5.00

Multi-Axle Trucks 4.00

6.7.5 Traffic in CMSA (Cumulative Million Standard Axles) The design traffic has been computed following the VDF as stated above and the relationship stated in IRC-37-2012. The traffic for 15 years design life been worked out.

February 2016 Page 63

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 36:Design Traffic Volume (AADT)-Base Year-2017

Busses(School+GO LCV+M. 2AT+Toll MAV Location VT.+PVT.+Toll Buses+Toll Exempted 3AT MAV (> 6 Exempted Buses) exempted lcv) trucks Axles)

km 24+615 207 119 333 470 270 2

Table 37 :MSA Projections for Km: 24+615 (Toll Plaza Location)

le le Standar Cumulati

x x

A A

- -

BUS VDF LCV d Axles ve CUMULA

MAV

2 3 in the Standard TIVE MSA 1.90 3.50 5.00 4.00 1.00

Year Axles of Years No Year Base Year 2017 129 333 470 270 207 920596 Construction Period 18 1.00 2018 months 137 350 505 290 220 983310 2.00

2019-HY 142 358 523 301 226 1016289 1016289 1.02 2.50 2019-HY 146 367 543 312 233 1050399 1050399 1.05 3.00 2020 156 385 583 335 240 1120880 2171279 2.17 4.00 2021 161 395 605 348 247 1159237 3330516 3.33 5.00 2022 171 415 651 374 262 1238639 4569155 4.57 6.00 2023 182 435 699 402 278 1323603 5892759 5.89 7.00 2024 194 457 752 432 294 1414527 7307286 7.31 8.00 2025 207 480 808 464 312 1511836 8819122 8.82 9.00 2026 220 504 869 499 331 1615986 10435108 10.44 10.00 2027 235 529 934 537 351 1727466 12162574 12.16 11.00 2028 250 556 1004 577 372 1846800 14009374 14.01 12.00 2029 266 584 1079 620 394 1974552 15983926 15.98 13.00 2030 283 613 1160 667 417 2111323 18095250 18.10 14.00 2031 302 643 1247 717 443 2257762 20353012 20.35 15.00 2032 321 676 1341 770 469 2414563 22767575 22.77 16.00 2033 342 709 1441 828 497 2582468 25350043 25.35 17.00 2034 364 745 1550 890 527 2762278 28112321 28.11 18.00 2035 388 782 1666 957 559 2954849 31067170 31.07 19.00

February 2016 Page 64

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

6.8 Investigation of Existing Pavement and Sub grade

The pavement and materials investigation were performed in accordance with the methodology described in the Inception Report. The existing road level is slightly above natural ground level in maximum portion. At some locations it is at/below natural ground level. To determine the existing pavement thickness and its composition, trial pits were dug through the existing pavement at every 5000 m interval and at each major change in the pavement condition.

Thickness and composition of existing pavement layers kilometer-wise are given below.

Table 38 : Composition of Existing flexible pavement

Chainage Pavement Composition (Km) S. No. Thickness From To Composition Type (mm) Surface BT 80 1 0+000 4+000 Base WBM 90 Sub-Base GSB 200 Surface BT 85 2 4+000 6+000 Base WBM 90 Sub-Base GSB 180 Surface BT 85 3 6+000 12+000 Base WBM 70 Sub-Base GSB 150 Surface BT 120 4 12+000 16+000 Base WBM 150

Sub-Base GSB 150 Surface BT 120 5 16+000 20+000 Base WBM 200 Sub-Base GSB 150 Surface BT 110 6 20+000 24+000 Base WBM 75 Sub-Base GSB 100 Surface BT 120 7 24+000 27+000 Base WBM 80 Sub-Base GSB 100 Surface BT 100 8 27+000 31+000 Base WBM 75 Sub-Base GSB 150 Surface BT 100 9 31+000 34+000 Base WBM 80

February 2016 Page 65

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Chainage Pavement Composition (Km) S. No. Thickness From To Composition Type (mm) Sub-Base GSB 150 Surface BT 100 10 34+000 39+620 Base WBM 80 Sub-Base GSB 150 Surface BT 90 11 39+920 43+000 Base WBM 120 Sub-Base GSB 155 Surface BT 85 12 43+000 46+000 Base WBM 130 Sub-Base GSB 155

The results indicated that the existing pavement crust is composed of bituminous surfacing (80to 120 mm thick) followed by water bound macadam base (70 to 200 mm thick). Sub base (100to 200 mm thick) is provided.

The investigation to characterize the existing sub grade was part of the comprehensive pavement investigations as discussed above. To verify the soil characteristics reported above, trial pits measuring 1m x 1m were excavated left or right of the existing carriageway edge at 5 Km intervals. Trial pits excavated to determine the composition of pavement crust were also used to investigate the sub grade by conducting various tests.

Sub grade of existing road is generally sandy with CBR valueslying between 10% to 12%.

6.9 Flood Prone Stretches During Monsoon

Project Influence Area experiences rains almost for 3 months in a year. It has heavy rains during June to August. No flood prone sections have been identified on the project road.

6.10 Pavement Structural Strength

Benkelman Beam Deflection studies are carried out for evaluating the requirements of strengthening of pavements. 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 compaction, pavement surface temperature etc.

February 2016 Page 66

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

The BBD survey was carried out as per Terms of Reference.

The pavement surface temperature, seasonal variation in climate and average annual rainfall, influences the deflection measurement by Benkelman Beam. Pavement temperature was recorded once every hour by inserting a thermometer in a hole (45mm depth and 10mm dia) drilled in the pavement and filled with glycerol. The initial, intermediate and final deflections are recorded and Pavement deflection analyzed as per IRC: 81 – 1997 “Guidelines for strengthening of Flexible pavements using Benkelman Beam Deflection Technique”.

Finally, the characteristic deflections

i.e. CharacteristicDeflection = Individualdeflection + 2(Standard deviation)

Have been determined to work out the thickness of overlay. The results are presented graphically at Fig. 13.

The correction factors have been applied for moisture content and Pavement Temperature as per the guidelines given in IRC: 81-1997. Deflection measurements obtained from the field surveys have been used in the analysis to determine the mean deflection, standard deviation and characteristic defection.

Table 39 :Summary of Results of Benkelman Beam Deflection Test

Mois Sr. ture Pavement Moisture Mea Standard Characteristi Soil Rainfall No Km. Cont Temperatu Correctio n Deviatio c Deflection Type (mm) . ent re (oC) n Factor (mm) n (mm) (mm) (%) 1 0 sandy 4.5 >=1300 45 1.240 0.36 0.07 0.49 2 4 sandy 3.7 >=1300 48 1.320 0.38 0.12 0.60 3 6 sandy 3.5 >=1300 51 1.320 0.28 0.09 0.47 4 9 sandy 3.6 >=1301 50.5 1.320 0.18 0.20 0.58

February 2016 Page 67

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

5 12.25 sandy 3.5 >=1300 53 1.320 0.57 0.26 1.10 6 16.7 sandy 4.5 >=1300 49 1.240 0.82 0.19 1.20 7 18.5 sandy 4.5 >=1300 51 1.240 0.70 0.20 1.10 8 24.6 sandy 5 >=1300 50 1.120 0.61 0.17 0.85 9 27.6 sandy 3.5 >=1300 48 1.320 0.29 0.14 0.55 10 31.3 sandy 5.5 >=1300 45 1.120 0.16 0.11 0.38 11 34.6 sandy 4.5 >=1300 44 1.240 0.19 0.13 0.44 12 38.5 sandy 4 >=1300 46 1.240 0.16 0.11 0.37

1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40

0.30CharacteristicDefelction (mm) 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 Chainage, KM

Figure: -6 Kilometre wise Characteristic Deflection

February 2016 Page 68

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Figure -9 of IRC 81 for computing the overlay thickness is as

400 Overlay Thickness

300

100 msa 20 msa 200 10 msa 5 msa 2 msa 1msa 100 0.5 msa

0.1 msa Overlay thickness (mm) thickness Overlay

0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Char. Deflection (mm)

It is clear from the Figure above that for characteristic deflectionsmore than 0.10 mm and MSA 10, BMoverlay of 0-70 mm is required. 1 cm of BM= 0.7 cm of DBM 7 cm of BM= 4.9 cm of DBM Hence 50 mm of DBM overlay is required between km. 12+000 and 21+200.It is recommended that 50 mm overlay is provided between km. 12+000 and 21+200 wherever the flexible pavement in good/fair condition exists.

6.11 Soil Survey for Widening Portions

For widening of the project road it is proposed to utilize the right of way (ROW) available on the left/right side of the existing carriageway. Similarly, sections requiring realignment will traverse along virgin land. Since the TOR (clause 4.8 - ii) prohibits the borrowing of materials from within the right-of-way, embankment and sub grade materials must be obtained from approved borrow areas outside ROW. Soil investigation for normal embankment heights was thus limited to soil

February 2016 Page 69

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

identification and classification tests only. The appraisal of quality of the native soil along the proposed widening portions was accomplished in two steps, namely (a) review of existing soil information, (b) supplementary soil investigation to fully characterize the alignment soils.

The test results of soils in proposed widening portion are given at Table 40.

Table 40:Results of Soil Investigation

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (% PROCTOR

CBR (%)

Passing) TEST

(%)

S. No.

Soaked

Chainage

Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve

MDD MDD

INDE

2.0mm 2.0mm

Soaked

(gm/cc)

4.75mm 4.75mm

FREE SWELL SWELL FREE

OMC (%) OMC

75 Micron 75 Micron

425micron 425micron

LIQUID LIMIT LIMIT LIQUID

Un 1 2+550 100 97.90 96.00 5.80 26.00 7.14 1.925 10.80 10.00 2 5+900 100 98.20 94.70 7.20 26.00 9.88 1.910 11.00 10.00 3 7+950 100 97.70 95.40 6.60 31.00 9.76 1.875 10.50 8.00 4 11+620 100 97.00 94.80 4.10 23.00 11.90 1.970 10.25 8.10 5 14+925 100 97.50 95.80 9.90 24.00 11.90 1.896 11.20 9.90 6 17+200 100 97.60 94.70 5.60 21.00 9.76 1.900 10.50 9.00 7 20+070 100 97.00 93.80 6.70 22.00 14.64 1.940 10.50 9.80 8 23+265 100 98.10 95.30 5.80 25.00 11.01 1.930 11.20 9.10 9 26+870 100 96.80 93.70 7.20 27.00 10.95 1.890 11.00 9.50 10 29+945 100 97.40 93.90 6.20 24.00 7.14 1.935 11.10 10.05 11 32+300 100 97.30 94.10 8.50 25.00 7.14 1.875 10.75 10.00 12 35+040 100 96.60 93.80 6.10 24.00 8.48 1.910 10.50 10.00 13 38+110 100 98.10 95.60 4.50 25.00 12.50 1.850 10.25 10.25 14 41+900 100 96.70 94.40 7.50 25.00 7.23 1.960 10.00 9.90 15 44+750 100 97.00 94.90 6.10 27.00 12.50 1.915 10.00 10.80

A survey was carried out to locate the sources of construction material available locally. Soil for construction of embankment and sub grade layers is abundantly available along the

February 2016 Page 70

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Entire section of Project Highway. Quarries for granular sub base are available at Village Doitiya which is about 50kms fromCentre of the Project.Besides, a number of crushers are seen in Operation at Doitiya from where reasonably good quality of aggregate can be sourced.

6.12 Design of New Flexible Pavement IRC: 37-2012 As per Clause 5.4.1 of Two LaningManual IRC-S-73-2015;

“Pavement shall be designed for a minimum design period of 15 years. Stage construction shall

notbe permissible subject to the requirement specified in Para (ii) below.

Alternative strategies or combination of initial design, strengthening and maintenance can be

developed by the Concessionaire to provide the specified level of pavement performance over the

operation period, subject to satisfying the following minimum design requirements.

The thickness of sub-base and base of pavement section is designed for a minimum design period

of 15 years with minimum 20 MSA.

The pavement shall be strengthened by bituminous overlay, as and when required, to extend the

pavement life to full operation period. Strengthening in stages for not less than five years at a

time can be done. The thickness of bituminous overlay shall be determined on the basis of IRC:

81.”

In view of above, the thickness of sub-base and base of pavement section is being designed for a

design period of 15 years.

The Sub grade CBR of 10% and design traffic of 20 MSA (for 15 years), the total thickness of pavement according to Fig. 2 of IRC-37-2012 is worked out and presented in Table 44.It may be noted that the Sub base has been designed for 15 years.

Table 41: Design of New Flexible Pavement

Length Design Pavement Design Thickness(MM) From To CBR (%) MSA* Subgrade GSB WMM DBM BC Total

0.000 46.400 10 20 500 200 250 80 40 1070

February 2016 Page 71

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

*Flexible pavement shall be designed for a minimum design period of 15 years

6.14 Recommendations

The recommended pavement composition is as follows:

Table 42: Proposed Crust Compositions for Flexible pavement

From Length Overlay Thickness (mm) New pavement Thickness (mm) Type of S.No To (km) (km) (m) BC DBM TOTAL BC DBM WMM GSB TOTAL TCS 1 0.000 3.400 3400.00 40 - 40 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 2 3.640 3.900 260.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-2 3 3.900 4.850 950.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-5 4 4.850 6.800 1950.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 5 6.800 7.220 420.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-5 6 7.220 7.320 100.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 7 7.320 7.600 280.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-5 8 7.600 7.640 40.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 9 7.680 8.100 420.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 10 8.100 10.500 2400.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-6 11 10.500 10.945 445.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-2 12 11.100 11.150 50.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-2 13 11.200 15.015 3815.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-2 14 15.500 16.200 700.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-2 15 16.200 21.200 5000.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-3 16 21.200 22.015 815.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-2 17 23.200 23.665 465.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-3 18 23.665 24.465 800.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-3 19 24.765 25.900 1135.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-3 20 25.900 27.900 2000.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 21 27.900 28.900 1000.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-2 22 29.200 31.580 2380.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 23 32.070 34.400 2330.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 24 35.900 37.890 1990.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 25 38.140 38.520 380.00 40 50 90 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-1 26 38.520 39.000 480.00 40 50 90 40 50 250 200 540 TCS-2 27 39.260 44.200 4940.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-4 28 44.200 45.200 1000.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-6 29 45.200 45.800 600.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-9 30 45.800 46.400 600.00 - - - 40 80 250 200 570 TCS-8

February 2016 Page 72

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

February 2016 Page 73

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

February 2016 Page 74

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

February 2016 Page 75

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

February 2016 Page 76

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

February 2016 Page 77

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 43: Crust Composition for Rigid pavement

New pavement Widening

S.No. From To Length (m) Type of TCS DLC (mm) PQC (mm) GSB (mm) DLC (mm) PQC (mm) GSB (mm)

1 3.400 3.640 240 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 2 7.640 7.680 40 150 300 150 - - - TCS-7 3 10.945 11.100 155 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 4 11.150 11.200 50 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 5 15.015 15.500 485 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 6 22.015 23.200 1185 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 7 24.465 24.765 300 150 300 150 Toll Plaza 8 28.900 29.200 300 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 9 31.580 31.700 120 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 10 31.700 32.070 370 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 11 34.400 35.900 1500 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7 12 37.890 38.140 250 - ` - 150 300 150 TCS-7 13 39.000 39.260 260 - - - 150 300 150 TCS-7

February 2016 Page 78

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

February 2016 Page 79

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

February 2016 Page 80

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

6.15 Shoulders/Paved Blocks For the movement of 2-Wheelers and slow moving traffic the paving block shoulders have been proposed in Urban Areaseither side of rigid pavement. Generally the shoulder is structurally designed to carry 10 to 20% of the traffic load; the design lane is expected to carry. However the structural drainage system of the shoulder is required to be integrated with that of the carriageway pavement. The latter condition thus requires the thickness of pavement structure to be the same as that for the traffic lanes since the lower layer of the sub-base for the carriageway is extended to the full width of formation for the lateral drainage of any water percolating into the pavement. Therefore the drainage requirements demand that each carriageway pavement layer be extended to shoulder as this ensures constructional ease, quality and speed. Paved Shoulders As per Two Laning Manual 1.5 meters paved shoulders shall be provided to the pavement. Layer configuration for the paved shoulders shall be same as that of the adjoining newly constructed pavement. Moreover; the drainage layer shall extend beyond the paved shoulders. Earthen Shoulders To allow proper drainage, layer of granular sub-base from the carriageway will be extended up to the embankment slope. The shoulder will have sub grade soil characteristics and top 150mm shall be granular.

6.16 Covered Drains cum Footpath The RCC Box of 1.0 m width and variable depth (minimum of 1.0 m) shall be provided on both side of the road in the built up sections identified and presented below in Table 44.The covered drains are to be used as footpath for the pedestrian movement.

Table 44 : Location of RCCBox Drains

S. Chainage Village Name Length Side No. (Km) Start End 1 3.400 3.640 Tasing 0.240 Both 2 10.850 10.870 Behror 0.020 Both 3 18.900 19.120 Gandala 0.220 Both 4 21.700 22.900 Majari Kalan 1.200 Both

February 2016 Page 81

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

S. Chainage Village Name Length Side No. (Km) Start End 5 35.200 37.200 Mandan 2.000 Both 6 39.250 39.685 Majari Kalan (Towards Neemrana) 0.435 Both 6 45.200 46.400 Neemrana RIICO Industrial Area 1.200 Both

6.17 Proposed Bypasses: Table 45 : Proposed Bypasses

S. No. From To Length Bypassing 1. 8+100 10+500 2.400 Behror 2. 44+200 45+200 1.000 Neemarana Total Length 3.400

February 2016 Page 82

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Proposed four lane section with service road both side:

Table 46 : Proposed four lane section with service road both side.

S. No. From To Length Bypass TCS 1. 45+200 45+800 0.600 Neemrana RIICO Industrial Area TCS-9 2. 45+800 46+400 0.600 Neemrana RIICO Industrial Area TCS-8 Total Length = 1.200

6.19 Wearing Coat over Structures

Bituminous Wearing Coat over culverts

All new culvert top slabs shall be covered as follows; i) One layer of dense bituminous macadam (DBM) of thickness matching with the thickness of adjacent DBM layer of the road. ii) Bituminous concrete layer of 40 mm thickness on the top of the DBM layer as per pavement design.

6.20 Geometric Designs Highway geometric designs are finalized using MX highway design software and as per IRC Standards and specifications. The details of proposed horizontal curves are given in the following section of this chapter.

Horizontal Alignment

There are total 81 horizontal curves in this section. All the curves are meeting all the parameters as per the IRC Standards.

The detailed parameters of the horizontal curves are tabulated in the Table 47. Vertical Profile

The detailed topographical survey of the proposed project road alignment has already been done. The detailed kilometer-wise proposed longitudinal profiles as per the IRC-SP 19: 2001 along with respective alignment plans have been given in the Drawings Volume.

February 2016 Page 83

Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Final Government of Rajasthan Feasibility Report for Two laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400 comprising the section of SH-111 & 111Afrom Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border(the “Highway v”) FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

Table 47 :Detailed Parameters of the Horizontal Curves

HIP Transition HIP No. Easting Northing Radius TS SC/TC CS/CT ST Speed D Lc Dc S Es e D Ts(m) Lc Dc Chainage Length

12 1841.272 640819.902 3082237.882 230 40 1429.149 1469.149 1472.024 1512.024 80 0.186417 2.875815 0.013 0.29 1.294 5 10.681 41.520 2.880 0.716

19 3049.943 641955.953 3082587.852 360 35 2828.299 2863.299 2891.989 2926.988 95 0.176916 28.68982 0.080 0.14 1.554 5 10.137 49.440 28.690 4.566

21 3301.611 642246.245 3082554.778 500 45 3106.314 3151.314 3156.144 3201.144 100 0.099661 4.830356 0.010 0.17 0.792 5 5.710 47.440 4.830 0.554

29 4542.900 643498.029 3082608.021 500 25 4360.260 4411.397 4436.397 80 0.152274 51.13682 0.102 0.05 1.503 5 8.725 50.650 51.140 5.860

31 4845.824 643773.742 3082642.809 150 30 4573.065 4603.065 4632.086 4662.086 60 0.393477 29.02159 0.193 0.25 3.205 5 22.545 44.940 29.020 11.085

32 5180.288 644043.248 3082499.887 230 40 4744.474 4784.474 4845.824 4885.823 80 0.440651 61.34973 0.267 0.29 5.995 5 25.247 71.570 61.350 15.283

34 5530.257 644424.067 3082602.056 60 0 5408.778 5428.608 80 0.330488 19.82928 0.330 0 0.829 5 18.936 10.010 19.830 18.936

36 5802.958 644527.571 3082878.074 130 0 5694.439 5702.519 55 0.062157 8.080415 0.062 0 0.063 5 3.561 4.040 8.080 3.561

37 6128.417 644751.216 3083066.544 230 40 5719.281 5759.281 5802.958 5842.958 80 0.363815 43.67752 0.190 0.29 4.153 5 20.845 62.350 43.680 10.881

41 7406.188 646057.742 3083247.328 230 40 7220.951 7260.951 7268.323 7308.322 80 0.205965 7.371929 0.032 0.29 1.517 5 11.801 43.790 7.370 1.836

54 10475.614 648896.143 3084313.126 230 40 10194.57 10234.573 10235.160 10275.16 80 0.176469 0.587829 0.003 0.29 1.189 5 10.111 40.370 0.590 0.146

59 11408.791 649832.118 3084104.072 200 40 11109 11149.000 11166.619 11206.61 80 0.288095 17.61901 0.088 0.33 2.427 5 16.507 49.050 17.620 5.048

63 12201.466 650570.818 3084254.292 360 60 11790.54 11850.542 11868.879 11928.87 95 0.217603 18.33692 0.051 0.42 2.564 5 12.468 69.360 18.340 2.918

65 12530.630 650946.712 3084139.084 400 20 12330.41 12350.410 12499.683 12519.68 100 0.423184 149.2734 0.373 0.04 9.165 5 24.247 95.930 149.270 21.382

66 12616.887 651020.571 3084125.475 400 30 12496.55 12526.554 12530.630 12560.63 100 0.085189 4.07565 0.010 0.09 0.453 5 4.881 32.050 4.080 0.584

71 13535.390 651877.540 3083839.275 800 30 13344.87 13374.873 13395.340 13425.34 100 0.063084 20.46718 0.026 0.05 0.448 5 3.614 40.240 20.470 1.466

72 13637.303 651978.405 3083792.691 500 25 13453.71 13478.705 13535.390 13560.39 100 0.16337 56.68496 0.113 0.05 1.723 5 9.360 53.440 56.680 6.496

76 14271.121 652583.296 3083604.516 100 0 14075.282 14094.253 50 0.189709 18.97089 0.190 0 0.452 5 10.870 9.510 18.970 10.870

77 14484.736 652738.131 3083474.837 100 0 14231.353 14271.121 50 0.397679 39.76793 0.398 0 2.010 5 22.785 20.150 39.770 22.785

78 14556.367 652755.421 3083394.685 400 20 14398.62 14418.623 14484.736 14504.73 100 0.215283 66.11303 0.165 0.04 2.369 5 12.335 53.230 66.110 9.470

79 14711.657 652815.110 3083246.381 35 0 14508.293 14556.367 25 1.373546 48.0741 1.374 0 10.261 5 78.698 28.700 48.070 78.698

81 14868.422 652964.448 3083338.276 230 40 14721.037 14807.350 80 0.375276 86.31351 0.375 0 4.109 5 21.502 43.670 86.310 21.502

February 2016 Page 84

HIP Transition HIP No. Easting Northing Radius TS SC/TC CS/CT ST Speed D Lc Dc S Es e D Ts(m) Lc Dc Chainage Length

82 14924.424 653027.597 3083363.676 200 0 14824.231 14868.422 70 0.220955 44.19091 0.221 0 1.227 5 12.660 22.190 44.190 12.660

84 15122.577 653207.108 3083461.985 500 45 14911.87 14956.874 15009.772 15054.77 100 0.195794 52.89721 0.106 0.17 2.576 5 11.218 71.620 52.900 6.062

87 15621.140 653623.279 3083650.887 230 40 15320.19 15360.189 15388.185 15428.185 75 0.295635 27.99611 0.122 0.29 2.829 5 16.939 54.290 28.000 6.974

91 15898.732 653940.933 3083604.384 500 0 15839.823 15883.439 100 0.087231 43.61538 0.087 0 0.476 5 4.998 21.820 43.620 4.998

94 16030.496 654072.039 3083586.688 400 30 15900.22 15930.225 15963.083 15993.083 100 0.157146 32.8583 0.082 0.09 1.328 5 9.004 46.500 32.860 4.707

95 16072.527 654125.766 3083574.147 230 0 16019.916 16030.496 75 0.046003 10.58058 0.046 0 0.061 5 2.636 5.290 10.580 2.636

97 16201.040 654244.358 3083561.502 300 40 16077.71 16117.714 16126.870 16166.87 85 0.163855 9.15641 0.031 0.22 1.230 5 9.388 44.650 9.160 1.749

98 16290.168 654321.294 3083564.245 500 20 16178 16197.997 16201.040 16221.04 100 0.046086 3.043 0.006 0.03 0.163 5 2.641 21.520 3.040 0.349

99 16372.128 654412.151 3083558.851 500 30 16232.7 16262.701 16290.168 16320.168 100 0.114934 27.46721 0.055 0.08 0.907 5 6.585 43.770 27.470 3.148

100 16483.067 654524.155 3083543.280 500 45 16317.71 16362.710 16372.129 16417.128 100 0.108838 9.418864 0.019 0.17 0.912 5 6.236 49.740 9.420 1.079

101 16615.959 654656.789 3083538.276 600 20 16457.85 16477.852 16483.067 16503.067 100 0.042025 5.214753 0.009 0.03 0.162 5 2.408 22.610 5.210 0.498

102 16718.691 654757.022 3083530.202 230 40 16570.36 16610.356 16615.959 16655.959 75 0.198274 5.60305 0.024 0.29 1.426 5 11.360 42.900 5.600 1.396

103 16819.707 654844.491 3083503.272 230 0 16708.481 16718.691 75 0.044389 10.20957 0.044 0 0.057 5 2.543 5.110 10.210 2.543

104 16887.977 654916.129 3083504.279 100 0 16767.776 16819.707 50 0.519309 51.93094 0.519 0 3.468 5 29.754 26.570 51.930 29.754

106 17067.283 655092.341 3083461.074 500 0 16944.582 17004.372 100 0.119579 59.78966 0.120 0 0.895 5 6.851 29.930 59.790 6.851

107 17168.053 655180.936 3083450.245 1000 0 17022.251 17067.283 100 0.045032 45.03201 0.045 0 0.254 4.444 2.580 22.520 45.030 2.580

108 17234.967 655248.842 3083438.951 230 25 17099.87 17124.868 17168.053 17193.053 75 0.296457 43.18516 0.188 0.11 2.661 5 16.986 46.860 43.190 10.758

109 17287.504 655325.081 3083447.908 230 0 17195.163 17234.967 75 0.173064 39.80464 0.173 0 0.864 5 9.916 19.950 39.800 9.916

111 17468.922 655494.775 3083457.062 230 40 17286.98 17326.975 17403.728 17443.728 80 0.507622 76.75298 0.334 0.29 7.912 5 29.085 79.730 76.750 19.120

112 17542.885 655558.983 3083446.111 100 0 17453.842 17468.922 50 0.150802 15.08016 0.151 0 0.285 5 8.640 7.550 15.080 8.640

113 17587.262 655620.530 3083456.347 230 20 17489.51 17509.512 17542.885 17562.885 75 0.232056 33.37294 0.145 0.07 1.627 5 13.296 36.810 33.370 8.314

114 17747.713 655750.212 3083464.490 1000 50 17536.28 17586.281 17587.262 17637.262 100 0.050981 0.980517 0.001 0.1 0.425 4.444 2.921 50.500 0.980 0.056

115 17835.465 655871.854 3083485.568 230 20 17668.86 17688.856 17747.713 17767.713 75 0.342857 58.85708 0.256 0.07 3.493 5 19.644 49.830 58.860 14.662

116 17941.356 655954.049 3083488.639 500 25 17809.59 17834.592 17835.465 17860.465 100 0.051745 0.872478 0.002 0.05 0.217 5 2.965 25.440 0.870 0.100

117 18035.927 656041.009 3083502.445 800 0 17906.300 17941.357 100 0.043821 35.05692 0.044 0 0.192 5 2.511 17.530 35.060 2.511

February 2016 Page 85

HIP Transition HIP No. Easting Northing Radius TS SC/TC CS/CT ST Speed D Lc Dc S Es e D Ts(m) Lc Dc Chainage Length

118 18052.829 656075.843 3083510.150 230 40 17987.736 18035.927 80 0.209524 48.19048 0.210 0 1.268 5 12.005 24.180 48.190 12.005

121 18412.534 656411.222 3083567.387 230 40 18216.39 18256.387 18273.715 18313.71 80 0.249248 17.3271 0.075 0.29 2.090 5 14.281 48.840 17.330 4.316

122 18507.103 656526.149 3083540.372 230 40 18321.61 18361.612 18412.534 18452.53 80 0.395314 50.92215 0.221 0.29 4.863 5 22.650 66.120 50.920 12.685

123 18578.941 656585.790 3083538.386 230 0 18501.658 18507.103 75 0.023674 5.444966 0.024 0 0.016 5 1.356 2.720 5.440 1.356

124 18644.438 656669.290 3083524.588 230 0 18548.931 18578.941 75 0.13048 30.01048 0.130 0 0.490 5 7.476 15.030 30.010 7.476

125 18736.301 656739.421 3083523.962 230 40 18588.82 18628.824 18644.438 18684.43 75 0.241799 15.61383 0.068 0.29 1.983 5 13.854 47.970 15.610 3.890

128 19065.368 657055.455 3083490.499 1000 0 18834.592 18920.673 100 0.08608 86.08027 0.086 0 0.927 4.44 4.932 43.070 86.080 4.932

129 19153.455 657144.049 3083488.709 1200 0 19007.505 19065.368 100 0.048219 57.86291 0.048 0 0.349 3.703 2.763 28.940 57.860 2.763

130 19169.178 657186.441 3083489.861 1000 0 19096.616 19153.455 100 0.056838 56.83844 0.057 0 0.404 4.44 3.257 28.430 56.840 3.257

131 19352.361 657361.766 3083490.273 230 40 19114.35 19154.353 19169.178 19209.17 80 0.238367 14.82432 0.064 0.29 1.935 5 13.657 47.570 14.820 3.693

132 19410.542 657431.859 3083471.869 230 0 19332.763 19352.361 75 0.085209 19.59796 0.085 0 0.209 5 4.882 9.800 19.600 4.882

133 19501.165 657510.300 3083463.733 230 0 19395.254 19410.542 75 0.066466 15.28713 0.066 0 0.127 5 3.808 7.650 15.290 3.808

134 19603.502 657598.653 3083448.646 1000 30 19456.04 19486.038 19501.165 19531.16 100 0.045127 15.12686 0.015 0.04 0.295 4.44 2.586 37.570 15.130 0.867

135 19814.298 657746.298 3083434.049 600 0 19562.929 19603.502 100 0.067622 40.57316 0.068 0 0.343 5 3.875 20.290 40.570 3.875

136 19888.228 657869.954 3083380.228 1200 0 19637.116 19814.298 100 0.147651 177.1818 0.148 0 3.278 3.703 8.460 88.750 177.180 8.460

137 19978.986 657970.847 3083340.908 400 40 19801.54 19841.542 19888.228 19928.22 100 0.216716 46.68629 0.117 0.17 2.531 5 12.417 63.530 46.690 6.687

138 20144.205 658101.198 3083308.693 100 0 19967.256 19978.986 50 0.117296 11.72958 0.117 0 0.172 5 6.721 5.870 11.730 6.721

143 20899.420 658715.667 3083658.715 1200 0 20616.802 20648.550 100 0.026456 31.74735 0.026 0 0.105 3.703 1.516 15.870 31.750 1.516

146 21433.621 659255.010 3083889.688 230 40 21262.97 21302.973 21306.227 21346.22 80 0.188059 3.253475 0.014 0.29 1.312 5 10.775 41.710 3.250 0.811

160 22773.958 660059.514 3084975.922 300 40 22410.34 22450.338 22455.250 22495.25 85 0.149706 4.911762 0.016 0.22 1.063 5 8.578 42.510 4.910 0.938

174 24357.790 660558.686 3086492.194 230 40 24116.76 24156.760 24171.619 24211.61 75 0.238516 14.85861 0.065 0.29 1.937 5 13.666 47.590 14.860 3.702

178 25016.493 660933.234 3087001.507 400 20 24703.56 24723.556 24730.160 24750.16 100 0.066511 6.604442 0.017 0.04 0.261 5 3.811 23.310 6.600 0.946

179 25154.825 661038.930 3087084.836 1200 0 24928.713 25016.493 100 0.07315 87.77966 0.073 0 0.803 3.703 4.191 43.910 87.780 4.191

180 25309.632 661174.226 3087210.271 230 40 25018.85 25058.849 25154.825 25194.82 80 0.591202 95.97649 0.417 0.29 10.731 5 33.873 90.120 95.980 23.909

181 25525.184 661270.680 3087392.711 300 40 25232.15 25272.153 25309.632 25349.63 85 0.258264 37.47908 0.125 0.22 2.741 5 14.797 58.980 37.480 7.158

February 2016 Page 86

HIP Transition HIP No. Easting Northing Radius TS SC/TC CS/CT ST Speed D Lc Dc S Es e D Ts(m) Lc Dc Chainage Length

202 28241.740 663217.418 3089312.032 230 40 28085.61 28125.613 28130.020 28170.01 80 0.19307 4.406071 0.019 0.29 1.367 5 11.062 42.300 4.410 1.098

210 29249.745 664045.295 3089826.100 800 30 28968.47 28998.467 29009.863 29039.86 100 0.051745 11.39601 0.014 0.05 0.318 5 2.965 35.700 11.400 0.816

216 30066.918 664671.581 3090338.047 230 40 29851.56 29891.558 29896.939 29936.93 80 0.197306 5.380433 0.023 0.29 1.415 5 11.305 42.790 5.380 1.340

219 30520.794 664774.593 3090776.364 750 25 30179.01 30204.007 30223.487 30248.48 100 0.059307 19.48039 0.026 0.03 0.360 5 3.398 34.750 19.480 1.488

220 30713.556 664859.331 3090956.125 230 40 30352.42 30392.423 30520.794 30560.79 80 0.732048 128.371 0.558 0.29 16.627 5 41.943 108.260 128.370 31.979

256 34311.486 668214.599 3092332.300 230 40 34074.29 34114.286 34121.594 34161.59 80 0.205689 7.30857 0.032 0.29 1.513 5 11.785 43.760 7.310 1.821

3 41197.896 632549.459 3097420.847 500 45 25232.15 40405.338 40419.101 100 0.0275 13.76 0.028 0 0.047 5 0.028 6.880 13.760 1.577

4 41269.760 632624.912 3097406.464 230 40 28085.61 41157.115 41197.896 80 0.1773 40.78 0.177 0 0.907 5 0.177 20.440 40.780 10.159

11 44373.173 635567.149 3097139.777 360 60 28968.47 43187.067 43205.642 95 0.0516 18.58 0.052 0 0.120 5 0.052 9.290 18.580 2.956

February 2016 Page 87

6.21 Junctions:

The Design Team has identified 32 junctions. Table 48 : Junctions

Existing S. No. Design Chainage Location Junction Type Leading to Village Chainage 1 0+875 0+875 RHS T-junction Dhidhor 2 1+260 1+260 LHS Y-junction Temple 3 2+288 2+288 RHS T-junction Hanuman Temple 4 2+310 2+310 RHS T-junction Gadoj 5 3+750 3+750 LHS Y-junction Khapriya 6 8+115 8+077 LHS Y-junction Bypass Start 7 - 9+450 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Hamindpura/Behror 8 - 10+500 LHS T-junction Narnol 9 10+850 10+500 RHS T-junction Behror 10 14+750 14+365 LHS T-junction Khatankheda 11 15+170 14+800 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Milkpur/Riwadi 12 16+667 16+290 LHS T-junction Googriya 13 17+700 17+300 RHS T-junction Chandi Chana 14 19+417 19+000 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Gandala/Neemrana 15 20+250 19+840 LHS T-junction Gandala 16 23+092 22+700 RHS T-junction Neemrana 17 24+350 23+950 LHS T-junction Narnaul 18 25+315 24+900 RHS Y-junction Heergarh 19 26+100 25+700 RHS T-junction Mukund Singh pur 20 26+530 26+100 RHS T-junction Bhimpur 21 29+430 29+020 RHS T-junction Ghilot 22 29+470 29+050 LHS T-junction Ateli 23 36+650 36+300 RHS Y-junction Mandan 24 37+700 37+300 LHS/RHS Cross-junction Nanagwas 25 38+700 38+300 LHS T-junction Depot 26 40+800 40+210 LHS T-junction Heergarh 27 41+250 40+690 LHS T-junction Bijaysinghpura 28 42+030 41+450 LHS T-junction Heergarh 29 44+730 44+200 LHS Y-junction Neemrana Bypass

February 2016 Page 88

Existing S. No. Design Chainage Location Junction Type Leading to Village Chainage 30 - 45+590 RHS T-junction Neemrana RIICO Internal Road 31 - 45+800 RHS Y-junction Neemrana RIICO Internal Road 32 46+750 46+400 LHS/RHS T-junction Neemrana/NH-8 The junctions shall be developed as per the IRC guidelines and standard junction drawing presented in Drawings Volume separately.

February 2016 Page 89

Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Government of Rajasthan Feasibility Report for Two laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400 comprising the section of SH-111 & 111Afrom Gadoj- Behror-Haryana Border(the “Highway-V”) FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHAPTER 7: - DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

7.1 General The only type of structure in the project highway is Culverts. Culverts which are structurally in good condition and have adequate width and water way have been retained. Culverts which are not structurally sound or have inadequate waterway have been proposed for reconstruction while the ones which are structurally sound and have adequate waterway but having width less than 12 meters have been proposed for widening.

7.2 Existing Bridge There are 2 existingminor Bridges in the section.

7.3 Proposed Bridge/RoB No bridges/RoB is proposed for the section.

7.4 Existing Structures There are 19 existing Structures. Pipe Culverts - 3 Slab Culverts - 13 Minor Bridge - 2 Causeway - 1 It is recommended that all existing culverts are widened as per IRC-SP 73-2015 . Moreover4 new Pipeculverts are proposed to be introduced at the newly aligned bypasses for proper drainage and 1 pipe culvert proposed at Causeway location. Summary of condition of culverts along with final recommendations are presented below

February 2016 Page 90

Table 49 : Recommendations for Bridges/Culverts

SPAN

(KM.)

CULVERT

WIDTH OF WIDTH

/ SLAB/PIPE, / SLAB/PIPE,

ARRANGEMENT

S.No.

(YES/NO)

ISTING ISTING

REMARKS

CONDITION

WHETHER W WHETHER

ASSESSMENT

ON WIDENING/ WIDENING/ ON

DESIGN CHANAGE DESIGN

MASONARY ARCH) MASONARY

RECONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

(RCC, BO (RCC,

ATERWAY ADEQUATE ATERWAY

TYPE OF STRUC0TURE TYPE

SPAN (M) SPAN

WIDTH OF WIDTH

TOTAL (M) TOTAL

SPAN/ PIPE SPAN/

NUMBER OF NUMBER 1 0+170 0+185 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Widening 4.5 2 0+720 0+720 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Widening 4.5 3 0+825 0+825 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Widening 2.5 4 1+425 1+425 Minor Bridge 1 14 Good Yes Widening 9.5 5 14 Reconstruction At Causeway proposed 1+915 1+915 Causeway 2 - - 1.2 2x1200mm Pipe Culvert 6 14 Widening 2+630 2+635 Pipe 1 0.900 Good Yes 900 mm Dia 7 2+935 2+935 Slab 2 14 - - Widening 2.0 8 4+290 14 Widening 4+277 Pipe 1 0.900 Good Yes 900 mm Dia 9 - 14 New Construction 8+500 Pipe 1 1.2 - - Behror Bypass 10 - 14 New Construction 9+900 Pipe 1 1.2 - - Behror Bypass 11 14+050 14 Reconstruction 13+660 Pipe 1 0.900 - - 900 mm Dia

February 2016 Page 91

SPAN

(KM.)

CULVERT

WIDTH OF WIDTH

/ SLAB/PIPE, / SLAB/PIPE,

ARRANGEMENT

S.No.

(YES/NO)

ISTING ISTING

REMARKS

CONDITION

WHETHER W WHETHER

ASSESSMENT

ON WIDENING/ WIDENING/ ON

DESIGN CHANAGE DESIGN

MASONARY ARCH) MASONARY

RECONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

(RCC, BO (RCC,

ATERWAY ADEQUATE ATERWAY

TYPE OF STRUC0TURE TYPE

SPAN (M) SPAN

WIDTH OF WIDTH

TOTAL (M) TOTAL

SPAN/ PIPE SPAN/

NUMBER OF NUMBER 12 20+250 19+840 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Widening 2.75 13 22+960 22+550 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Widening 2.75 14 29+000 28+250 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Reconstruction 2.75 15 14 Widening 33+540 33+150 RCC Box 1 2.75 - - 16 14 Reconstruction 34+500 34+100 Slab 1 2.75 Good Yes 17 36+340 35+950 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Reconstruction 1.5 18 36+750 36+400 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Widening 0.75 19 38+355 37+950 Minor Bridge 2 14 Good Yes Widening 4.5 20 38+700 38+300 Slab 1 14 Good Yes Widening 3.5 21 39+200 14 Reconstruction 39+500 Slab 1 Good Yes 1.75 22 - - New Construction 42+200 Pipe - - - - Neemrana Bypass 23 - - New Construction 44+600 Pipe - - - - Neemrana Bypass

February 2016 Page 92

Public Works Department Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility Report for Government of Rajasthan Two laning of Km0+000 to Km 46+400 comprising the section of SH-111 &11A from Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border(the “Highway-V”) FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

CHAPTER – 8: Summary of Land Acquisition

8.1 Introduction Land Plan Schedules are the basic document to fulfil the process of land acquisition. It is prepared based on the Proposed Right of way (PRoW) as per codal requirement. Project road has insufficient RoW for 2 Lane widening, junctions, toll plaza, By-passes, Realignments and additional land for proposed 30 mtr. RoW.

8.2 Methodology Revenue maps of concerned villages through which the project road is passing are obtained from the Revenue Department. Proposed alignment of the project road along with Coordinates of proposed center line and limit of proposed RoW is marked on these maps. From these Land Plan maps according to the scale area of each khasra falling within the Proposed RoW is worked out and tabulated with khasra number and type of land use from the jamabandi (Revenue Records) collected from Revenue Department.

8.3 Land Requirement As per TOR present scope is to prepare Land Plan schedules for land acquisition. The Toll Plaza is proposed at km. 24+615 (Design Chainage) for which additional land acquisition of 1.17 Hectareis proposed. The details of Land required to be acquired is detailed below:

Table 50 :Proposed Land Acquisition Area To Be Acquired Sl. No. Purpose of Acquisition Remarks (Hect.) 1 Behror Bypass 6.977 From Km 8+100 To Km 10+500

2 Neemrana Bypass 3.777 From Ch44.200 To Ch45.200

3 Toll Plaza 1.384 At Km 24+615

Total Land to be Acquired 12.138 (Hect.)

February 2016 Page 93

CHAPTER – 9: PROJECT FACILITIES

9.1 Following facilities are envisaged for the Highway;

9.1.1 Toll plaza

Table 51 : Toll Plaza details are as under:

Section Toll Road Section Length(kms.) Toll Plaza location

Gadoj-Behror-Haryana Border, 46+400 Km. 24+615 Majarikalan-Neemrana

9.1.2 Traffic Aid post and Medical Aid post

Traffic Aid post and Medical Aid post shall be provided at toll plaza as per provisions of Concession Agreement.

9.1.3 Bus Shelters

Location of proposed Bus Shelters are as follows;

Table 52 : ProposedBus Shelter Locations

Existing Chainage Design Chainage S. No. Side Village (Km) (Km) 1 2+300 2+300 LHS Gadoj 2 2+350 2+350 RHS Gadoj 3 3+300 3+300 LHS Tasing 4 3+350 3+350 RHS Tasing 5 5+800 5+800 LHS Krishan Nagar 6 5+800 5+800 RHS Krishan Nagar 7 7+100 7+100 LHS Kharkhara 8 7+150 7+150 RHS Kharkhara 9 7+900 7+865 LHS MoondiyaKhera 10 7+950 7+915 RHS MoondiyaKhera 11 10+400 LHS BehrorNarnaul Road Bypass 12 10+450 RHS BehrorNarnaul Road 13 10+850 10+500 LHS Behror

February 2016 Page 94

Existing Chainage Design Chainage S. No. Side Village (Km) (Km) 14 10+870 10+550 RHS Behror 15 12+600 12+200 RHS Manchal 16 12+650 12+250 LHS Manchal 17 16+450 16+100 LHS Bheeteda 18 16+600 16+150 RHS Bheeteda 19 19+300 18+900 LHS Gandala 20 19+350 18+950 RHS Gandala 21 23+000 22+600 LHS Majari 22 23+150 22+750 RHS Majari 23 24+325 22+600 LHS MajariKhurd 24 24+400 22+750 RHS MajariKhurd 25 30+300 29+890 RHS Kahnawas 26 30+400 30+000 LHS Kahnawas 27 36+950 36+550 LHS Madhan 28 37+050 36+680 RHS Madhan 29 44+950 44+180 RHS Neemrana 30 45+000 44+250 LHS Neemrana

9.1.4 Truck Lay byes No truck lay bye has been proposed for the Project.

9.1.5 Rest Area No rest Area has been proposed for the Project.

9.1.6 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrians are vulnerable to being involved in accidents. Therefore, adequate consideration has been given to their safety through provision of facilities. The facilities for pedestrians given in this Section are as under;

February 2016 Page 95

9.1.6.1 Footpath

Footpaths have been provided in the following built-up sections;

Table 53 : List of Sections Footpaths

S. Chainage(Km) Village Name Length Side No. Start End 1 3.400 3.640 Tasing 0.240 Both 2 10.850 10.870 Behror 0.020 Both 3 18.900 19.120 Gandala 0.220 Both 4 21.700 22.900 Majari Kalan 1.200 Both 5 35.200 37.200 Mandan 2.000 Both 6 39.250 39.685 Majari Kalan 0.435 Both 7 45.200 46.400 Neemrana RIICO Industrial Area 1.200 Both

February 2016 Page 96

CHAPTER 10: COST ESTIMATE

10.1 Introduction This chapter presents the cost estimates for strengthening and upgrading of existing road to 2-lane with paved shoulders configuration of two laning of km 0+000 to km 46+400 comprising the section from Gadoj –Behror- Haryana BorderofSH-111 & 111Aand Majarikalan to Neemrana (Village road)in the state of Rajasthan (the “Highway-V”)in the state of Rajasthan.

10.2 Cost Estimating and Methodology Cost estimating is based on PWD BSR (JaipurNH Circle) 2016 Market Rates have been considered for the items not available in the BSR.Estimation of the quantities of sub grade, sub base and wearing course and other road components are derived from Typical Cross sections.

10.3 Unit Rates Unit rates for construction items have been taken from BSR (Jaipur NHCircle) 2016. Market Rates have been considered for the items not available in the BSR.

10.4 Costs of Road Components The cost of the road components has been worked out under the following sub heads:  Site Clearance  Earthworks  Sub-base and Base Courses  Bituminous Courses(Flexible Pavement)  Rigid Pavement  Culverts  Maintenance of existing culverts  Railway Over Bridge  Drainage and protection works  Toll Plaza  Traffic signs,markings,safety devices and Road Appurtenances  Miscellaneous Items  Dismantling

February 2016 Page 97

It may be noted that:  The cost of earthworksincludes earthwork in embankment, sub grade and shoulders.  The sub base and base course includes GSB and WMM.  The estimate provides for roadside amenities, improvement of all major and minor junctions, roadside drainage, traffic signs and other appurtenances.

10.5 Contingency and Other Charges

Besides the cost estimate of items, the following percentages have been added in the cost of civil works:

Table 54 : Other Charges

S. Items Percentage (%) No. as per Clause 3.16 of Schedule-I, TOR of RFP( Including provision for 1 physical & Price Contingencies, Interest During Construction and other 15 financing Costs, pre-construction expanses etc.) ON PPP VGF MODE

February 2016 Page 98

10.6 Estimated Cost Cost of construction for both the options is given in the Table 55below: Table 55 : Abstract of Costs on PPP (VGF)

Gadoj - Behror (From Km 0+000 to km 46+400)

Sr. Description Amount Rs. Amount Cr. No 1 SITE CLEARANCE 1,275,474.14 0.13

2 EARTHWORK 69,255,150.65 6.93 3 SUB BASE AND BASE COURSES 189,394,880.75 18.94 4(a) BITUMINOUS COURSES(FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT) 283,147,066.67 28.31 4(b) (RIGID PAVEMENT) 104,914,539.25 10.49 5 CULVERTS 16,055,727.90 1.61 6 MAINTENANCE OF CULVERTS AND BRIDGES 1,000,000.00 0.10 7 RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE - 0.00 8 DRAINAGE AND PROTECTIVE WORKS 28,953,080.00 2.90 9 TOLL PLAZA 34,380,416.09 3.44 10 TRAFFIC SIGNS, MARKINGS,SAFETY DEVICES AND ROAD 25,828,221.75 2.58 APPURTENANCES 11 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 11,368,310.43 1.14

12 DISMANTLING 11,526,340.95 1.15 13 MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ROAD (Built-up Area) 9,074,095.00 0.91

I TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 786,173,303.58 78.62 Length of Project 46.400 46.400 Per Km Cost in Cr 1.694 1.69 c Add 25 % as per Clause 3.16 of Schedule-I, TOR of RFP 1965,43,325.90 19.65 (Including provision for physical & Price Contingencies, Interest During Construction and other financing Costs, pre-construction expanses etc.) II TOTAL PROJECT COST 9827,16,629.48 98.27

The total cost of the project works out to Rs.982.70MillionINR on PPP (VGF) Mode.

February 2016 Page 99