Final NH22 Main Report Part 2

(Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport &
Highways)
Government of India
Consultancy Services for Preparation of Feasibility cum
preliminary design report for 2-Laning to 4-Laning of NH-22
From Solan to Shimla
in the State of Himachal Pradesh Under NHDP Phase - III.
SOLAN-SHIMLA NH22
VOLUME - I : MAIN REPORT

(Executive Summary, Economic Analysis
& Financial Analysis)
(PART-2)
FEBRUARY 2012
Document: 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0
Meinhardt Singapore Pte. Ltd. (India Branch)

A-8, Sector 16, NOIDA 201301
Uttar Pradesh, INDIA
Fascimile : +91 120 2515745
Telephone : +91 120 2516165
E-mail : info@meinhardtindia.com
Website : www.meinhardtgroup.com
FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
National Highways Authority Of India
Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4-laning of Solan to Shimla section of NH-22
Main Report Executive Summary, Economic Analysis & Financial Analysis
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.0
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4
1.1
General................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2
Project Description ................................................................................................................. 4
1.3
Clearance from Archeological Survey of India. ....................................................................... 5
1.4
Salient Features of Existing Road........................................................................................... 5
1.4.1
Land Use & Roadside Development and Villages ........................................................... 5
1.4.2
Terrain............................................................................................................................. 6
1.4.3
Existing and Proposed Right of Way (ROW) ................................................................... 6
1.4.4
Existing Geometrics......................................................................................................... 6
1.4.5
Existing Bridges and Culverts.......................................................................................... 7
1.5
The Proposed Alignment ........................................................................................................ 7
1.6
Traffic Surveys, Analysis and Projections............................................................................. 12
1.6.1
Traffic Surveys .............................................................................................................. 12
1.6.2
Projected Traffic ............................................................................................................ 12
1.6.3
Capacity Up gradation ................................................................................................... 14
1.7
Project Development ............................................................................................................ 14
1.7.1
Design Standards.......................................................................................................... 14
1.7.2
The Proposed Alignment ............................................................................................... 14
1.7.3
Bypass/Realignment...................................................................................................... 15
1.7.4
Pavement design........................................................................................................... 15
1.7.5
Tunnels ......................................................................................................................... 15
1.7.6
Bridges and Structures/ CD works................................................................................. 16
1.7.7
Retaining Wall ............................................................................................................... 36
1.8
Miscellaneous Facilities........................................................................................................ 36
1.8.1
Rest Area ...................................................................................................................... 36
1.8.2
Bus-bays ....................................................................................................................... 36
1.8.3
Truck Lay-byes.............................................................................................................. 36
1.8.4
Toll Plaza Location ........................................................................................................ 36
1.9
Project Cost.......................................................................................................................... 37
1.10
Economic Viability............................................................................................................. 38
1.10.1 ECONOMIC INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN ................................................................ 38
1.10.2 SENSITVITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 38
1.10.3 CONCLUSION OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.................................................................. 38
1.11
Financial Analysis and Viability ......................................................................................... 38
1.11.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 39
1.11.2 Suggestions................................................................................................................... 39
2.0
CHAPTER - 2: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS................................................................................... 41
2.1
APPROACH ......................................................................................................................... 41
2.2
DEFENITION of WITHOUT PROJECT AND WITH PROJECT SITUATION .................... 41
2.3
PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULING ................................................................................. 41
2.3.1
Capital Cost and Phasing .............................................................................................. 42
2.3.2
Maintenance Cost ......................................................................................................... 42
2.4
PROJECT BENEFITS .......................................................................................................... 43
2.4.1
VOC Saving................................................................................................................... 43
2.4.2
Time Saving .................................................................................................................. 46
Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0
Page 1
ECONOMIC INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN ....................................................................... 46

2.5
2.6
SENSITVITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 47
2.7
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 47
3.0
CHAPTER - 3: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................... 50
3.1
General................................................................................................................................. 50
3.2
Tollable Traffic...................................................................................................................... 50
3.3
Capital Cost and Funding ..................................................................................................... 50
3.3.1
Phasing ......................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.2
Capital Cost................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.3
Base Cost...................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.4
Financial Overheads...................................................................................................... 50
3.3.5
Cost Escalation ............................................................................................................. 51
3.3.6
Interest during Construction (IDC) ................................................................................. 51
3.3.7
Landed Project Cost ...................................................................................................... 51
3.3.8
Project Financing........................................................................................................... 51
3.4
Operations and Maintenance Cost ....................................................................................... 52
3.5
Basic Assumptions of Financial Model ................................................................................. 52
3.6
Project Revenue ................................................................................................................... 53
3.6.1
Toll Revenue ................................................................................................................. 53
3.6.2
Toll Plaza ...................................................................................................................... 54
3.7
Financial Viability.................................................................................................................. 54
3.8
Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 54
3.8.1
Suggestions................................................................................................................... 54
Page 2
CHAPTER - 1: Executive Summary
Page 3
1.0
Executive Summary
1.1
General
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Government of India has decided to take The SolanShimla section of NH-22 through Public Private Partnership (PPP) venture in a Design-Build-FinanceOperate format. The Solan-Shimla section of NH-22 is to be developed as a partially access controlled
toll highway. Bypasses NHAI has assigned the consultancy services for carrying out Feasibility cum
Preliminary Design Report to M/s MEINHARDT SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED, NOIDA.
This report include preliminary highway design, design of pavement and overlay, preliminary design of
bridges and CD structures and grade separated structures, design of service road, preliminary cost
estimate etc. economic and financial viability analyses. The consultant throughout the preparation of
this report has endeavoured to ensure enhanced safety of traffic, road users and enhanced
operational efficiency of the highway.
1.2
Project Description
The project road starts from km 106 (on Solan Bypass) of NH-22 near railway level crossing and Tjunction between Solan Bypass, and NH-22 going to Shimla. There is a existing bypass of Shimla
starting at Km 145.100 and ends at Km 153.17 (old NH Chainage) at Dhalli Tunnel. The Existing
Shimla bypass Chainage at start point is Km 0+000 and at end Point is Km 24+200. The route Length
as Mandated by the TOR is along the Existing Bypass ie 63.3 Km. However as per NHAI Letter
No.NHAI/BOT/11012/03/2008/HP/95 dated 21 May 2010 and during subsequent site visit of
consultant along with team of officials of NHAI headed by GM (J&K/HP) on 14.8.2010 it was observed
that a option to combined bypass for the congestion in Shoghi, Shimla, Mehli and Dhalli shall be
explored by the consultant. The consultant has identified the option and this option end at Existing
Chainage KM 154+894 just before junction of NH-22 and SH-13 leading to Tatapani, Naldera and
Karsog approximately 1.724 Km from Dhalli Tunnel.
The Start point of the project has been modified to existing Chainage 105+910 i.e. 90m before the
mandated start point (106+000) to accommodate the approach of proposed elevated road in Solan
and acceleration and deceleration lanes of corresponding service road.
The Design Chainage corresponding to start of Project start are thus Km 105+910 for both
carriageways and that of end is Km 156+507 for left carriageway and 156+327 for the right
carriageway. Thus there is substantial reduction in Route Length From old existing alignment
through existing Shimla bypass and the proposed route length is approximately sane as that of
old NH-22 before construction of Existing Shimla bypass as per details given below
Route Length along Old NH from Km 105+910 to Km 154+894+1km overlap on account of

repetition of Km stone 106 = 49.948 Km
Route Length along Existing NH 22 from Km 105+910 to Km 145+100 +1 Km overlap on account

of repetition of Km stone 106, along existing Shimla bypass from Km 0+000 to Km 24+200, along
Existing NH 22 from Km 53+170 to Km 154+894 = 65.144 Km
The Route Length along Proposed alignment Left CW Design Chainage 105+910 to 156+507 =
50.597 Km
The Route Length along Proposed alignment Right CW Design Chainage 105+910 to 156+327
= 50.417 Km
Page 4
1.3
Clearance from Archeological Survey of India.

The UNESCO World Heritage Railway line from Kalka to shimla is running very close and parallel to
the project road at same or different elevation up to the start of Proposed Shimla Bypass. The Project
Before the start of proposed Shimla Bypass may thus require a clearance from Archeological Survey
of India (ASI).
1.4
Salient Features of Existing Road
1.4.1
Land Use & Roadside Development and Villages

The Existing road stretch for a major length has mainly commercial, Forest, barren and agricultural on
either side interspersed with a number of villages. The project road passes through a number of
villages/ built up areas. Details of the important towns/congested area along existing road are
presented in table below
Sl.
No
Name of Town/ Village
Location (Km)
Remarks
Solan
106+000 to
107+500
Small semi pucca settlement on both

side of road
Kandaghat
115+000 to
118+500

side of road
Waknaghat
125+000 to
127+000

side of road
Shoghi
134+000 to
136+000
Road is congested with development of

both side settlements of permanent
buildings.
Taradevi
140+500 to
142+000

side of road
Kachhighati
142+000 to
145+100

both side (hill & valley) settlements of
permanent buildings.
Shimla
Bypass:
Tutikandi,Fagli & Lalpani
0+000 to 6+000

both side (hill & valley) settlements of
permanent buildings.
Shimla Bypass : Khalini
6+000 to 7+000
Road is heavily congested with

development of both side (hill & valley)
settlements of permanent buildings.
Shimla
Shimla
New
7+000 to 8+000
Small settlement. No interference to

through traffic.
10
Shimla Bypass : Vikas

Nagar & Kasumpti
8+000 to 11+000

11
Shimla
Bypass
Panthaghati
11+000 to 13+000

12
Shimla Bypass : Mehli
13+500 to 14+500

Bypass:
Page 5
Sl.
No
Name of Town/ Village
Location (Km)
Remarks
13
Shimla Bypass : Malyana
17+000 to 17+500

14
Shimla Bypass : Shanan,

Housing Board Colony
18+500 to 19+500

15
Shimla Bypass : Jawhar

Colony,
Bhatakufer
,
Ranjeet Nagar
20+200 to 22+500

16
Dhalli
153+150 to
154+700

1.4.2
Terrain
The entire project road is in Mountainous to Steep terrain. The project road as such has number of
sharp horizontal and vertical curves which require improvement to current IRC standards and
conformation to the NHAI Policy on the road Geometrics.
1.4.3
Existing and Proposed Right of Way (ROW)

The existing ROW for the project road generally varies from as low as 12 m in Built up areas to 30m or
more in open areas.
IRC:SP 48-1998, recommends the ROW for National and State Highways as under:
Area
Normal
Exceptional
Open Area
24
18
Built-up
20
18
However Since the road is being upgraded to dual 2 lane configuration having a formation width of 22
m and has deep cutting at many places the recommendation of IRC will not be sufficient to
accommodate the proposed development. Further as the road will require dual 3 lane configuration in
the year 2024 as per the traffic projection having a formation width of 29m it is recommended that road
must have a ROW of at least 45m. This shall be suitably increased in sections of proposed road in
deep cutting to accommodate Cut Interface.
1.4.4
Existing Geometrics
Analysis of road geometrics data presented in chapter 5 reveals that the road is mostly conforming to
a design speed of 20 to 30 km/hrs. The Summary of IRC Conformance is presented in table below
Design Speed
Desirable speed
(50 Kmph)
No Of
Curves
% of Total No
of Curves
Conformance Criteria
IRC Conforming Speed
20
5.10
Desirable speed (50 Kmph)
Minimum speed
(40 Kmph)
% Conforming/
Non Conforming
46
11.73
16.84
Minimum speed (40 Kmph)
Page 6
Design Speed
No Of
Curves
% of Total No
of Curves
35 Kmph
50
12.76
30 Kmph
75
19.13
25 Kmph
61
15.56
20 Kmph
121
30.87
15 Kmph
19
4.85
Total
392
100.00
% Conforming/
Non Conforming
Conformance Criteria
IRC
Non
Conforming/
Substandard Design Speed
83.16
100.00
It is brought out from above analysis that only about 17% curves on the project road before
start of Proposed Shimla bypass is IRC compliant. Thus any proposal for the four laning shall
involve frequent realignment from the existing road to bring the proposed alignment to IRC
conformance. This may thus involve no of proposals for viaducts/bridges/valley cutting
considering the terrain of the route.
1.4.5
Existing Bridges and Culverts
There are a total of 3 minor bridges on the Existing Road as per details below
S. No
Exisiting Structure ID
Exisiti ng Span
Existing Width
Condition of the
Bridge
108/7
8.7
10.2
Good
109/1
8.7
12
Good
128/4
20.5
12
Good
In addition to the bridges there are 185 no Culverts as indicated in Table below
1.5
Type of CD Structure
No. of CD Structures
Pipe Culvert
178
Slab Culvert
Arch Culverts
Total
185
The Proposed Alignment

The Existing alignment passes through mainly 16 congested locations as listed above. Thus the road
shall be required to bypass these congested locations. In addition to this the remaining portion of road
has sharp geometry and gradients with curves having the design speed of 20 to 30 km/hr which is not
in conformity with the current IRC codes and the General policy of NHAI for its four laning projects.
The road thus requires frequent realignment and Geometric improvement to bring it into the
conformance with IRC. The Main feature of the proposed route is presented in table below.
Page 7
Proposed
Improvement
Justification
107+100
Elevated Road
along existing
Road
Centerline with
Geometric
Improvements
with both side
Service
road
under Viaduct
At grade Widening will require

widening toward right side along
with service road to ward right as
the railway line is running parallel to
existing road on left side. Under
such circumstances at grade
improvement will require demolition
of approximately 150 to 175
structures.
By
providing
the
elevated road the impact on
settlement has been reduced to
approx 30 to 40 structures
107+800
Right
Side
(Valley
Side)
Widening with
Geometric
Improvements
Railway line is too close on left side

ie within 10 m of existing road edge
and thereby central/Left widening not
possible without disturbing Railway
line
108+110
Left Side (Hill

Side) Widening
with Geometric
Improvements
10 No of built up structure saved on

Right side. Further construction of
new retaining walls avoided on Right
side
108+360
Right
Side
(Valley
Side)
Widening with
Geometric
Improvements

line
108+580
Existing
CW
retained
with
Geometric
Improvement
for Left CW.
Realignment for
Right
Carriageway
(valley
side)
with 12 m wide
Bridge
of
Length 100m
Four-laning along Existing Road will

disturb about 20 to 25 built up
structures in Baruri Village and four
laning along realignment would
require construction of four lane
bridge
108+875
Right
Side
(Valley
Side)
Widening with
Geometric
Improvements
Left widening will mean that the

curve at design Chainage LCW
108+825 will move further towards
hillside and the resulting cutting will
disturb the railway line above.
108+360
108+110
107+800
107+100
105+910
To
From
Right CW
108+580
To
107+100
107+800
108+110
108+360
108+660
108+970
From
105+910
107+100
107+800
108+110
To
106A+029
106A+758
107+077
107+336
107+644
108+360
108+660
107+336
107+644
Proposed Chainage
Left CW
108+084
From
106A+029
107+077
106A+758
Existing
Chainage
105+910
S.No
Page 8
Justification
Right widening involve construction

of new retaining walls on Right side
which is avoided by left widening,
Left widening Possible as railway
line is far at approximately 50m from
existing road edge
disturb the railway line and railway
tunnel above.
Four-laning along Existing Road will

disturb about 7 to 10 built up
structures including a temple in
Salogra Village and four laning along
realignment
would
require
construction of four lane bridge
109+105
Left Side (Hill

Side) Widening
with Geometric
Improvements
109+508
Right
Side
(Valley
Side)
Widening with
Geometric
Improvements
109+780
Existing
CW
retained
with
Geometric
Improvement
for Left CW.
Realignment for
Right
Carriageway
(valley
side)
with 12 m wide
Bridge
of
Length170m
113+780
To
Proposed
Improvement

Left Side (Hill Also the right widening will increase
Side) Widening the length of Cross drainage
on
geometric
with Geometric structures
Improvements improvement on valley side. Left
widening Possible as railway line is
far at more than 50m from existing
road edge
114+093
109+780
109+508
109+105
108+875
From
Right CW
113+780
To
109+200
109+600
109+960
113+960
114+270
From
108+970
109+200
To
108+236
From
108+084
108+236
108+714
109+139
109+600
109+960
113+960
11
113+740
10
Proposed Chainage
Left CW
114+056
108+714
109+139
Existing
Chainage
113+740
S.No
Right
Side
(Valley
Side)
Widening with
Geometric
Improvements

disturb the Village Parotha on the hill
top
Page 9
Justification
115+542
Improvement along existing road

involves large scale disturbance of
commercial properties in Kandagath
bazaar and also the bridge for
railway
overpass
require
construction of new railway overpass
bridge
and
thereby
causing
disturbance to the heritage railway
line
117+952

line especially at location of
geometric improvement on hill side
Kandaghat
Bypass
120+121
Right
Side
(Valley
Side)
Widening with
Geometric
Improvements
Left widening involve construction of

new retaining walls on Left side
Right Side (Hill
which is avoided by Right widening,
Side) Widening
Also the right widening will increase
with Geometric
the length of Cross drainage
Improvements
structures
on
geometric
improvement on valley side.
120+373

Left Side (Hill Also the right widening will increase
Side) Widening the length of Cross drainage
on
geometric
with Geometric structures
Improvements improvement on valley side. Left
widening Possible as railway line is
far at more than 70m from existing
road edge
116+603
To
Proposed
Improvement
Left
Side
(Valley
Side)
Right Widening will disturb two big
Widening with
buildings
Geometric
Improvements
126+821
120+121
117+952
116+603
115+542
114+093
From
Right CW
120+373
To
115+720
116+780
118+130
120+300
120+550
127+000
From
114+270
115+720
116+780
To
115+728
From
114+056
115+728
116+949
118+717
121+169
118+130
120+300
120+550
17
121+444
16
Proposed Chainage
Left CW
128+881
15
116+949
14
118+717
13
121+169
12
Existing
Chainage
121+444
S.No

Right Side (Hill
Side) Widening
Also the right widening will increase
with Geometric
the length of Cross drainage
Improvements
structures
on
geometric
improvement on valley side.
Page 10
Justification
127+042
Left
Side
(Valley
Side) Right Widening will disturb railway
Widening with line which is just abutting existing
Geometric
road
Improvements
127+441
Right Side (Hill

Side) Widening
with Geometric
Improvements
127+621
Left
Side
(Valley
Side)
Right Widening will disturb the big
Widening with
building
Geometric
Improvements
128+271
Right Side (Hill

Side) Widening
with Geometric
Improvements
128+470
Left
Side
(Valley
Side) Right Widening will disturb railway
Widening with line which is just abutting existing
Geometric
road
Improvements
128+720
Right
Side
(Valley
Side)
Left widening will disturb railway line
Widening with
which is just abutting existing road
Geometric
Improvements
128+870
To
Proposed
Improvement
Left Side (Hill

Side) Widening
of new retaining walls on Left side
with Geometric
Improvements
156+327
128+720
128+470
128+271
127+621
127+441
127+042
126+821
From
Right CW
128+870
To
127+220
127+620
127+800
128+450
128+650
128+900
129+050
From
127+000
127+220
127+620
127+800
128+450
128+650
128+900
To
129+110
129+545
129+732
130+507
130+718
130+986
From
128+881
129+110
129+545
156+507
25
129+050
24
131+137
23
Proposed Chainage
Left CW
154+894
22
129+732
21
130+507
20
130+718
19
130+986
18
Existing
Chainage
131+137
S.No
Widening along existing route will

cause large scale disturbance to
inhabited areas in Shimla and its
surrounding townships ( Shoghi,
Taradevi, Kachhighati on NH-22,
Tutikandi,Fagli, Lalpani, Khalini, New
Shimla, Vikas Nagar, Kasumpti,
Panthaghati, Mehli and Dhalli on
existing bypass), Considering the
steep nature of terrain it was not
possible to provide short individual
bypasses at all these locations
Shogi-ShimlaDhalli Bypass
Page 11
1.6
Traffic Surveys, Analysis and Projections
1.6.1
Traffic Surveys
The traffic surveys were carried out as per TOR and in consultation with NHAI as per Schedule
presented in following Table:
S. No.
1.6.2
Type of
Survey
Locations
Duration
Dates
Classified
Traffic
Volume
Count
Salogara
(Km
112.8),
Kandaghat (Km 130.6)
and Mehli(Km 16.1)
7 days
10th Nov to 16th Nov, 2009 and

8th Nov to 14th Nov,2009
OriginDestination
Salogara (Km 112.8) and

Mehli (Km 16.1)
1 day
18th Nov and 23rd Nov 2009

respectively
Turning
Movement
Count
Kandaghat (Km 117.4),

Bilaspur
Chowk
(Km
144.2), Tutikandi Bypass
(Km 145.1), Khalini Chowk
(Km 6.5), Vikas Nagar (Km
10) and Mehli Chowk (Km
13.3)
1 day

respectively
Speed and
Delay Survey
Complete Project Road
Axle
Load
Survey
Salogara (Km 112.800)

and Mehli(Km 16.100)
1 day

respectively
Pedestrian
Volume
Count
Kandaghat (Km 117.4),

Khaithlighat ( Km 130.5),
Tara Devi (Km 141),
Khalini Chowk (Km 6.9),
BCS Market (Km 8) and
Vikas Marg Crossing (Km
10)
12 Hrs.
23rd Nov 2009 ,

24th Nov 2009,
And
26th Nov 2009

respectively
Projected Traffic
Based on the moderated perspective elasticity values and the growth rates of weighted projected
State income of PIA states, the future Average Annual compound traffic growth rates by mode have
been estimated as presented in table below
Period
Car
Bus
LCV
2A
3A
MAV
2009/10 to 2011/12
9.1
4.3
8.4
6.5
9.2
8.5
2012/13 to 2016/17
9.3
4.7
8.6
6.5
9.4
8.7
2017/18 to 2021/22
7.0
3.5
7.0
5.7
7.8
6.6
Beyond 2022/23
5.6
2.6
5.6
4.5
6.3
5.3
Page 12
The base year Annual Average Day Traffic (AADT) is projected over the various horizon years using
the growth rates estimated in the next page Table.
YEAR
PROJECT
ED
VOLUME
(PCU)
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
2-LANE
7000
4-LANE
20000
6-LANE
30000
2009
8496
1.21
0.42
0.28
2010
9144
1.31
0.46
0.30
2011
9845
1.41
0.49
0.33
2012
10621
1.52
0.53
0.35
2013
11460
1.64
0.57
0.38
2014
12369
1.77
0.62
0.41
2015
13354
1.91
0.67
0.45
2016
14420
2.06
0.72
0.48
2017
15330
2.19
0.77
0.51
2018
16301
2.33
0.82
0.54
2019
17335
2.48
0.87
0.58
2020
18436
2.63
0.92
0.61
2021
19611
2.80
0.98
0.65
2022
20606
2.94
1.03
0.69
2023
21653
3.09
1.08
0.72
2024
22755
3.25
1.14
0.76
2025
23916
3.42
1.20
0.80
2026
25138
3.59
1.26
0.84
2027
26424
3.77
1.32
0.88
2028
27779
3.97
1.39
0.93
2029
29205
4.17
1.46
0.97
2030
30707
4.39
1.54
1.02
2031
32289
4.61
1.61
1.08
2032
33955
4.85
1.70
1.13
2033
35709
5.10
1.79
1.19
2034
37557
5.37
1.88
1.25
2035
39503
5.64
1.98
1.32
2036
41554
5.94
2.08
1.39
2037
43713
6.24
2.19
1.46
2038
45988
6.57
2.30
1.53
2039
48385
6.91
2.42
1.61
Page 13
1.6.3
Capacity Up gradation
The road is presently a 2-lane Hill Road. As per the capacity analysis presented above the road shall
require up gradation in the years as presented
Year
Km. 112+800
Scenario 4-laning
Normal
Growth
Km. 130+600
6-laning 8-laning 4-laning
Already
Exceeded
the
2022
Capacity
of 2 lane
Hill Road
2030
Km. 16+100
6-laning 8-laning 4-laning 6-laning 8-laning
Already
Exceeded
the
2024
Capacity
of 2 lane
Hill Road
2032
2020
Beyond
2039
Beyond
2039
1.7
Project Development
1.7.1
Design Standards
Design Standard adopted for the project are as per IRC:SP 83 Manual for 4 laning.The manual SP:83
specifies the Minimum Radius to be 75m which IRC has given for up gradation to ultimately eight
lanes. For up gradation to six lanes the min radius of 60m shall be sufficient. Considering the terrain a
minimum of 75m would require no of additional viaducts. Hence the minimum radius has been
restricted to 60m.
1.7.2
The Proposed Alignment

The project is for widening the existing 2-lane NH Section to 4-lane. The horizontal geometry of the
project road is mostly sub-standard except a few curves at isolated locations and most of curves are
for design speed of 20 to 30 km/hrs. Apart from this the road passes through congested areas
Salogra, Kandaghat, Shoghi, Shimla and Dhalli,. Thus the improvement proposal has got the following
distinct characteristics:
Widening on both side of the existing carriageway with major geometric improvements.
Widening on one side of the existing carriageway with major geometric Improvements.
Realignments on account of Non Conforming Geometry
Two bypass ( Kandaghat and Shimla) to avoid congested areas.
The proposed alignment improvements have been discussed in article 8.5
Page 14
1.7.3
Bypass/Realignment
The Bypasses proposed are given in following table:
S.no
Name of
Bypass
Existing Route Details

From
To
Proposed Route Details
Length
Left CW
From
Kandaghat 116+949
Bypass
ShoghiShimla
Bypass
131+137
000+000*
153+170
118+717 1.768
Right CW
To
From
Length
To
116+780 118+130 116+603 117+952 1.35
145+100 39.887 129+050 156+507 128+870 156+327 27.457

24+200*
154+894
Besides these Bypasses following realignments are proposed:

Proposed Route Details
RCW
Existing Route Details

S.No.
1.7.4
Realignment
Side
From
To
Length
Km
From
To
Length
Km
Realignment to
Right
107+336
107+644
0.308
108+360
108+580
0.220
Realignment to
Right
108+714
109+139
0.425
109+508
109+780
0.272
Pavement design
The recommended overlay designs for general application for the project is 50 mm DBM + 40 mm BC
The recommended Design of new Pavement for general application for the project is 100 mm GSB +
250mm WMM + 90 mm DBM + 40 mm BC
For widening for existing carriageway, where the strengthening of existing pavement involves
application of 40 mm thick BC on top of 50 mm DBM, the top two layers of bituminous course shall
match. So the widening will be done with top layer of BC 40, next layer of DBM 50 and below that
another layer of DBM 50 as we cannot provide layer of DBM less then 50 mm as per specifications.
1.7.5
Tunnels
Four no of Two lane tunnels are proposed in project as per following details
Left
S.No.
Right
From
To
117600
118060
460
117420.75
117881.68
460.93
130190
130880
690
130009.82
130699.78
689.96
135930
137160
1230
135749.15
136979.23
1230.08
156350
156450
100
156170.49
156270.35
99.86
Total Length
Length
2480
From
To
Length
2480.82
Page 15
1.7.6
Bridges and Structures/ CD works

Following new minor/major bridges/viaducts are required to be constructed in the project road.
Design Chainage
Left
S.No.
From
To
Right
Length
From
To
Length
106180.000 106780.000 600.000 106179.819 106779.695 599.876
108550.000 108558.700 8.700
3
4
Type
Type and Span

Arangement
Pier
Height
Width
ROB Cum Elevated Road

(4 Lane)
Simply Supported(20x30m)
6.25
24
Widening of Ecxisting Bridge Left

CW
108430.000 108530.000 100.000
108950.000 108960.000 10.000 108856.458 108866.208 9.750
1.8
2 Lane Viaduct Right CW
Simply Supported(4x25)
18
12
Bridge (4 Lane) Reconstruction
10
24
2 Lane Viaduct Right CW
Cantilevel Module
(47+76+47)
55
12
109600.000 109770.000 170.000
115280.000 115320.000 40.000 115103.753 115142.754 39.000
Bridge (4 Lane)
18
24
116910.000 117340.000 430.000 116731.702 117160.159 428.457
ROB Cum Viaduct (4 Lane)
Simply
Supported(8x50+1x30)
30
24
125549.000 125569.500 20.500
Existing bridge on LCW

Retained 2 lane Bridge (RCW)
Simply Supported(1x20.5)
10
12
2 Lane ROB on Left CW
15
12
128570.000 128600.000 30.000
10
129080.000 129330.000 250.000 128899.650 129150.382 250.731
Bridge (4 Lane)
Cantiliver Module of
(70m+110m+70m)
35
24
11
131960.000 132070.000 110.000 131780.487 131888.485 107.998
Bridge (4 Lane)
Simply supported
(30m+50m+30m)
25
24
12
133150.000 133390.000 240.000 132969.055 133208.891 239.836
Bridge (4 Lane)
48
24
Page 16
Design Chainage
Left
S.No.
From
To
Right
Length
From
To
Length
Type
Type and Span

Arangement
Pier
Height
Width
(68m+104m+68m)
13
138600.000 138640.000 40.000 138422.801 138461.650 38.848
Bridge (4 Lane)
Simply supported 40m
20
24
14
138910.000 139220.000 310.000 138730.000 139039.810 309.810
Bridge (4 Lane)
(88m+134m+88m)
55
24
15
142890.000 143220.000 330.000 142709.974 143039.758 329.785
Bridge (4 Lane)
(95m+140m+95m)
65
24
16
147070.000 147670.000 600.000 146891.340 147491.340 600.000
Bridge (4 Lane)
Cable stayed (120 + 360

+120)
65 Pier +90
Pylon
24
17
149410.000 149450.000 40.000 149231.269 149270.103 38.834
Bridge (4 Lane)
10
24
18
149885.000 149925.000 40.000 149705.991 149744.906 38.915
Bridge (4 Lane)
15
24
19
153200.000 153570.000 370.000 153021.990 153393.145 371.155
Viaduct (4 Lane)
Simply supported 8 x 46.25
40
24
20
154280.000 154500.000 220.000 154101.104 154324.332 223.228
Viaduct (4 Lane)
Simply supported 2 x 35 +
3 x 50
25
24
21
155080.000 155140.000 60.000 154901.981 154960.877 58.896
Bridge (4 Lane)
10
24
22
155790.000 156280.000 490.000 155609.340 156099.800 490.460
Viaduct (4 Lane)
Simply supported 10 x 49
45
24
Page 17
The following table presents the scheme for widening and reconstruction of Culverts.
S.no
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
106/3
106+430
9.4
1x1000
HP
25.90
BSW
106+415
106+413
5.5
11.00
Retained
106/4
106+770
10.3
1x1000
HP
41.30
BSW
106+767
106+767
16
15.00
Retained
106/5
106+880
10.4
1x1000
HP
44.90
BSW
106+870
106+870
12.5
22.00
Retained
106/6
106+910
10.4
1x1000
HP
44.40
RSW
106+990
106+990
11
23.00
Retained
107/1
106A+190
12.8
1x1000
HP
27.80
RSW
107+175
107+175
15.00
Retained
107/2
106A+230
11.2
1x1000
HP
26.20
RSW
107+208
107+207
15.00
Retained
107/3
106A+310
11.3
1x1000
HP
25.05
RSW
107+285
107+283
13.75
Retained
107/4
106A+470
10.7
1x1000
HP
27.20
RSW
107+456
107+455
16.50
Retained
107/5
106A+640
12.9
1x1000
HP
24.90
BSW
107+615
107+613
6.00
Retained
10
107/6
106A+710
9.9
1x1000
HP
22.40
RSW
107+685
107+683
12.50
Retained
11
107/7
106A+790
10.2
1x1000
HP
22.00
BSW
107+830
107+831
6.3
5.50
Retained
12
107/8
106A+970
11.6
1x1000
HP
23.60
BSW
108+009
108+010
10
2.00
Retained
13
108/1
107+090
12.7
1x1000
HP
22.70
BSW
108+108
108+109
10.00
Retained
14
108/2
107+100
16
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
108+185
108+185
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
15
108/3
107+125
9.5
1x1200
HP
25.00
Reconstructi
on
108+212
108+212
12.5
12.50
Reconstructio
n
16
108/4
107+190
9.8
1x1000
HP
22.30
RSW
108+266
108+266
12.50
Retained
17
108/5
107+331
9.5
1x1000
HP
12.00
LSW
108+410
2.5
0.00
Retained
Proposal
LW
RW
Remark's
Page 18
S.no
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
19
108/7
107+601
9.3
1x1000
HP
23.80
RSW
108+668
20
108/8
107+691
10
1x1000
HP
22.50
BSW
108+750
21
108/9
107+859
1x1000
HP
19.00
BSW
108+900
23
109/1
108+010
9.8
1x1000
HP
22.50
LSW
109+025
24
109/2
108+120
11.3
1x1000
HP
24.00
LSW
25
109/3
108+190
11.2
1x1000
HP
24.70
26
109/4
108+330
11.4
1x1000
HP
27
109/5
108+420
12.2
1x1200
28
109/6
108+580
11.2
29
109/7
108+757
30
109/8
31
Proposal
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
Remark's
14.50
Retained
7.5
5.00
Retained
2.5
7.50
Retained
108+931
12.7
0.00
Retained
109+130
109+035
12.7
0.00
Retained
BSW
109+200
109+106
11
2.50
Retained
22.40
BSW
109+330
109+235
5.5
5.50
Retained
HP
25.00
New
Construction
109+400
109+306
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
1x1000
HP
23.70
RSW
109+560
109+468
12.50
Retained
11.5
1x2000
RCC
SLAB
19.00
RSW
109+720
7.50
Retained
108+870
10
1x1000
HP
15.00
LSW
109+820
5.00
0.00
Retained
110/1
108+964
10
1x1000
HP
12.50
RSW
109+920
0.00
2.50
Retained
32
110/2
109+150
11.2
1x1000
HP
24.90
BSW
109+970
6.2
7.50
Retained
33
110/3
109+310
11
1x1000
HP
23.50
LSW
110+110
109+932
12.5
0.00
Retained
34
110/4
109+530
11.1
1x1000
HP
23.60
LSW
110+340
110+162
12.5
0.00
Retained
35
110/5
109+620
14
1x1000
HP
26.50
LSW
110+430
110+252
12.5
0.00
Retained
36
110/6
109+800
11.4
1x1000
HP
23.90
RSW
110+620
110+441
12.50
Retained
37
111/2
110+050
10.5
1x1000
HP
23.10
BSW
110+760
110+581
7.8
4.80
Retained
108+845
Page 19
S.no
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
38
111/3
110+370
10.9
1x1000
HP
30.90
LSW
111+025
110+846
20
0.00
Retained
39
111/4
110+500
11.6
1x1000
HP
24.10
LSW
111+155
110+976
12.50
0.00
Retained
40
111/5
110+670
11
1x1200
HP
36.00
New
Construction
111+300
12.50
12.50
Abendoned
41
111/6
110+800
14.8
1x1000
HP
29.80
RSW
111+440
111+261
15.00
Retained
42
112/1
111+050
9.8
1x1000
HP
22.30
LSW
111+690
111+511
12.5
0.00
Retained
43
112/2
111+140
10
1x1000
HP
21.00
BSW
111+770
111+591
5.5
5.50
Retained
44
112/3
111+300
11.6
1x1000
HP
22.60
BSW
111+932
111+753
3.50
7.50
Retained
45
112/4
111+425
10.3
1x1000
HP
22.80
LSW
112+040
111+861
12.5
0.00
Retained
46
112/5
111+600
12.4
1x1000
HP
24.90
LSW
112+220
112+041
12.5
0.00
Retained
47
112/6
111+750
10.1
1x1000
HP
22.60
LSW
112+355
112+176
12.50
0.00
Retained
48
112/7
111+900
9.6
1x1000
HP
22.10
BSW
112+475
112+296
10
2.50
Retained
49
113/1
112+010
11.3
1x2100
RCC
SLAB
24.00
Reconstructi
on
112+585
12
12.00
Reconstructio
n
50
113/2
112+140
10
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
112+720
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
51
113/3
112+275
9.9
1x1000
HP
22.40
LSW
112+820
112+641
12.5
0.00
Retained
52
113/4
112+320
10.2
1x1000
HP
25.20
LSW
112+865
112+686
15
0.00
Retained
53
113/6
112+487
10
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
113+100
112+921
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
Proposal
LW
RW
Remark's
Page 20
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
54
113/7
112+792
10
1x1200
55
113/8
112+863
14
56
113/9
112+950
57
114/1
58
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
Remark's
HP
25.00
New
Construction
113+175
112+996
12.50
12.50
Abendoned
1x1000
HP
31.50
LSW
113+250
113+071
17.5
0.00
Retained
12.1
1x1000
HP
24.60
LSW
113+325
113+146
12.5
0.00
Retained
113+080
10.3
1x1000
HP
22.80
LSW
113+455
113+277
12.5
0.00
Retained
114/2
113+120
12.4
1x1000
HP
24.90
RSW
113+495
12.50
Retained
59
114/3
113+260
11.7
1x1000
HP
25.00
New
Construction
113+625
113+447
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
60
114/4
113+410
10.1
1x1000
HP
25.10
LSW
113+775
113+597
15
0.00
Retained
61
114/5
113+494
1x1000
HP
24.00
LSW
113+835
113+657
15
0.00
Retained
62
114/6
113+594
11.5
1x4200
RCC
SLAB
24.00
New
Construction
113+890
113+712
12
12.00
Abendoned
63
114/7
113+702
9.5
1x1000
HP
21.50
RWS
113+970
113+792
12.00
Retained
64
115/1
114+110
13.1
1x1000
HP
25.60
BSW
114+340
114+162
7.5
5.00
Retained
65
115/2
114+210
11.1
1x1000
HP
23.60
LSW
114+435
114+257
10.00
2.50
Retained
66
115/2a
114+390
11.1
1x1000
HP
23.60
LSW
114+600
114+422
12.5
0.00
Retained
67
115/3
114+640
9.9
1x1000
HP
24.90
LSW
114+800
114+622
15
0.00
Retained
68
115/4
114+740
11.8
1x1000
HP
24.30
BSW
114+890
114+712
7.5
5.00
Retained
69
115/6
114+815
9.7
1x1000
HP
22.20
LSW
114+970
114+792
12.5
0.00
Retained
70
115/7
114+865
14.3
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
115+015
114+837
12.50
12.50
Abendoned
Page 21
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
Remark's
Construction
HP
25.00
New
Construction
115+060
HP
25.00
New
Construction
115+340
1x1000
HP
24.50
LSW
115+685
12.3
1x5700
RCC
SLAB
24.00
New
Construction
115+900
10.8
1x1000
HP
23.30
117/1
116+050
10.7
1x1000
HP
78
117/2
116+170
12
1x1000
79
117/3
116+250
10.7
1x1200
80
117/5
116+440
12.7
81
117/6
116+580
82
117/7
83
71
115/8
114+944
12
1x1200
73
116/5
115+282
10
1x1200
74
116/6
115+650
9.5
75
116/7
115+850
76
116/8
77
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
115+507
15
0.00
Retained
115+772
115+593
12
12.00
Abendoned
RSW
115+850
115+671
12.50
Retained
23.20
BSW
116+010
115+831
2.5
10.00
Retained
HP
24.50
BSW
116+130
115+951
7.50
Retained
HP
25.00
New
Construction
116+200
116+021
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
1x1000
HP
30.20
RSW
116+315
116+136
17.50
Retained
10.1
1x1000
HP
22.60
RSW
116+360
116+181
12.50
Retained
116+690
13
1x1000
HP
25.50
RSW
116+570
116+390
12.50
Retained
117/8
116+790
13.3
1x1000
HP
25.80
RSW
116+660
116+480
12.50
Retained
84
117/9
116+990
12.6
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
116+820
116+640
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
85
117/10
117+050
12.6
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
116+860
116+680
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
114+882
Page 22
S.no
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
86
119/6
118+725
12.5
1x4400
RCC
SLAB
26.00
BSW
87
119/7
118+825
12.4
1x1000
HP
24.90
88
119/8
118+850
12.8
1x1000
HP
89
119/9
118+950
12.8
1x1000
90
120/1
119+170
11
91
120/2
119+375
92
120/3
93
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
Remark's
118+140
117+960
7.50
Retained
BSW
118+230
118+050
7.5
5.00
Retained
25.30
BSW
118+255
118+075
10
2.50
Retained
HP
25.30
RSW
118+345
118+165
0.00
12.50
Retained
1x1000
HP
23.50
RSW
118+530
118+350
12.50
Retained
12
1x4700
RCC
SLAB
27.00
LSW
118+680
118+500
15.00
0.00
Retained
119+525
12.9
1x1000
HP
25.40
RSW
118+835
118+655
12.50
Retained
120/4
119+625
10
1x1000
HP
22.50
RSW
118+945
118+764
0.00
12.50
Retained
94
120/5
118+595
11.4
1x1000
HP
23.90
RSW
119+080
118+899
12.50
Retained
95
120/6
119+875
15
1x1000
HP
27.50
RSW
119+200
119+019
0.00
12.50
Retained
96
121/1
120+030
15
1x1000
HP
27.50
RSW
119+315
119+134
0.00
12.50
Retained
97
121/2
120+080
12.3
1x1000
HP
24.80
RSW
119+370
119+189
12.50
Retained
98
121/4
120+380
11.9
1x1000
HP
24.40
RSW
119+580
119+399
0.00
12.50
Retained
99
121/5
120+440
12
1x1000
HP
24.50
RSW
119+635
119+454
12.50
Retained
100
121/6
120+517
16.5
1x1000
HP
29.00
RSW
119+735
119+554
0.00
12.50
Retained
101
122/1
121+060
11
1x1000
HP
26.00
LSW
120+210
120+029
15
0.00
Retained
102
122/3
121+210
11
1x1000
HP
23.50
LSW
120+350
120+169
12.5
0.00
Retained
103
122/4
121+400
12.5
1x1000
HP
25.00
BSW
120+515
120+334
10.00
2.50
Retained
Page 23
S.no
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
104
122/5
121+510
12.4
1x1000
HP
27.40
LSW
120+620
120+439
15
0.00
Retained
105
122/6
121+610
12.1
1x1000
HP
24.60
RSW
120+715
120+534
12.50
Retained
106
122/7
121+750
12.3
1x1000
HP
24.80
RSW
120+840
120+659
12.50
Retained
107
122/8
121+873
13.5
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
120+950
120+769
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
108
123/1
122+030
12.6
1x1000
HP
25.10
LSW
121+055
120+874
12.50
0.00
Retained
109
123/2
122+180
11.6
1x1000
HP
24.10
RSW
121+175
120+994
12.50
Retained
110
123/3
122+300
14.2
1x1000
HP
26.70
RSW
121+320
121+139
0.00
12.50
Retained
111
123/4
122+400
11.7
1x1000
HP
24.20
RSW
121+430
121+249
12.50
Retained
112
123/5
122+442
12.4
1x1000
HP
24.90
RSW
121+480
121+299
12.50
Retained
113
123/6
122+700
13.7
1x1000
HP
26.20
RSW
121+715
121+534
12.50
Retained
114
123/7
122+980
11.9
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
121+950
121+769
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
115
124/2
123+235
12.4
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
122+130
121+949
12.50
12.50
Abendoned
116
124/3
123+440
12.5
1x1000
HP
22.50
BSW
122+175
121+994
5.00
5.00
Retained
117
124/4
123+567
11.3
1x1000
HP
23.80
RSW
122+290
122+109
12.50
Retained
118
124/5
123+710
14.8
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
122+415
122+234
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
119
124/6
123+867
17.8
1x1000
HP
29.80
BSW
122+570
122+389
6.00
Retained
Proposal
LW
RW
Remark's
Page 24
S.no
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
120
124/7
124+079
15.1
1x1000
HP
27.60
RSW
122+740
122+559
12.50
Retained
121
125/1
124+160
13.7
1x1000
HP
26.20
RSW
122+830
122+649
0.00
12.50
Retained
122
125/2
124+475
15
1x1000
HP
25.00
RSW
123+140
122+959
10.00
Retained
123
125/3
124+595
12.6
1x1000
HP
25.10
RSW
123+250
123+069
12.50
Retained
124
125/4
124+651
17.6
1x1000
HP
30.10
BSW
123+320
123+139
7.5
5.00
Retained
125
125/5
124+651
17.6
1x1000
HP
30.10
RSW
123+450
123+269
12.50
Retained
126
125/6
124+910
16
1x1000
HP
28.50
BSW
123+560
123+379
7.50
Retained
127
125/7
124+995
14.7
1x1000
HP
27.20
RSW
123+645
123+464
12.50
Retained
128
126/2
125+340
10
1x1000
HP
30.00
RSW
123+930
123+749
20.00
Retained
129
126/3
125+435
11.1
1x1000
HP
23.60
RSW
124+030
123+849
12.50
Retained
130
126/4
125+520
10.8
1x1000
HP
23.30
RSW
124+105
123+924
12.50
Retained
131
126/5
125+590
14.8
1x1000
HP
25.00
New
Construction
124+175
123+994
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
132
126/7
125+755
12.1
1x1000
HP
24.60
RSW
124+320
124+139
12.50
Retained
133
126/8
125+867
12.4
1x1000
HP
24.90
RSW
124+430
124+249
0.00
12.50
Retained
134
126/9
125+995
14.8
1x1000
HP
32.30
LSW
124+550
124+369
17.5
0.00
Retained
135
127/1
126+050
11
1x1000
HP
26.00
BSW
124+590
12.5
2.50
Retained
136
127/2
126+120
12.1
1x1000
HP
27.10
RSW
124+650
124+469
0.00
15.00
Retained
137
127/3
126+270
12.5
1x1000
HP
25.00
LSW
124+785
124+604
12.5
0.00
Retained
Proposal
LW
RW
Remark's
Page 25
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
138
127/4
126+360
13
1x1000
139
127/5
126+565
11
1x1200
140
127/6
126+707
13.8
141
127/7
126+827
142
127/8
143
144
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
Remark's
HP
28.00
LSW
124+880
124+699
15.00
Retained
HP
25.00
New
Construction
125+035
124+854
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
1x1000
HP
26.30
RSW
125+155
124+974
12.50
Retained
11
1x1000
HP
23.50
RSW
125+280
125+099
12.50
Retained
126+902
12
1x1000
HP
24.50
BSW
125+360
125+180
7.50
Retained
128/2
127+136
10.5
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
125+485
125+295
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
128/3
127+350
11.7
1x1000
HP
24.20
RSW
125+685
125+505
12.50
Retained
1x1000
HP
12.50
RSW
125+910
125+730
12.50
Retained
145
146
128/5
127+915
12.5
1x1000
HP
25.00
RSW
126+140
125+960
12.50
Retained
147
129/3
128+230
11.7
1x1000
HP
24.20
RSW
126+380
126+200
12.50
Retained
148
129/4
128+373
14
1x1000
HP
26.50
RSW
126+515
126+335
12.50
Retained
149
129/5
128+415
15.8
1x1000
HP
23.30
RSW
126+560
126+380
7.50
Retained
150
129/7
128+510
12
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
126+645
126+465
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
151
129/8
128+540
12.5
1x1000
HP
25.00
RSW
126+680
126+500
12.50
Retained
152
129/9
128+576
15.9
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
126+710
126+530
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
153
129/10
128+725
11
1x1000
HP
23.50
RSW
126+845
126+665
12.50
Retained
Page 26
S.no
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
154
129/11
128+776
11.7
1x1000
HP
24.20
RSW
126+900
126+720
12.50
Retained
155
129/12
128+842
11.8
1x1000
HP
24.30
RSW
126+960
126+779
12.50
Retained
156
130/1
129+062
8.5
1x1000
HP
21.00
LSW
127+150
126+969
12.5
0.00
Retained
157
130/2
129+232
10.8
1x1000
HP
23.30
RSW
127+320
127+139
12.50
Retained
158
130/3
129+437
18.5
1x1000
HP
31.00
LSW
127+520
127+339
12.5
0.00
Retained
159
130/4
129+560
14.8
1x1000
HP
27.30
BSW
127+625
127+444
7.5
5.00
Retained
160
130/5
129+725
12.1
1x1000
HP
24.60
BSW
127+790
127+609
7.5
5.00
Retained
161
130/6
129+800
13
1x1000
HP
25.50
RSW
127+870
127+689
12.50
Retained
162
130/7
129+975
11.7
1x1000
HP
24.20
RSW
128+040
127+859
12.50
Retained
163
131/1
130+060
11.4
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
128+140
127+959
12.5
12.50
Abendoned
164
131/3
130+255
11.2
1x1000
HP
26.20
RSW
128+250
128+069
15.00
Retained
165
131/4
130+405
11
1x1000
HP
23.50
LSW
128+540
128+359
12.50
0.00
Retained
166
131/6
130+932
12
1x1000
HP
24.50
BSW
128+905
128+724
7.5
Retained
167
132/1
131+085
13.4
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
129+000
128+819
12.5
12.5
HP
25.00
New
Construction
129+480
129+299
12.5
12.5
HP
25.00
New
Construction
129+720
129+539
12.5
12.5
168
1x1200
169
1x1200
Proposal
LW
RW
Remark's
Page 27
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
HP
25.00
New
Construction
129+790
129+609
HP
25.00
New
Construction
129+900
129+719
HP
25.00
New
Construction
129+985
129+804
HP
25.00
New
Construction
130+100
129+919
HP
25.00
New
Construction
130+900
130+719
HP
25.00
New
Construction
131+020
130+839
HP
25.00
New
Construction
131+150
130+969
1x3000
RCC
SLAB
24.00
New
Construction
131+500
131+319
178
1x2000
RCC
SLAB
24.00
New
Construction
131+560
131+379
179
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
131+710
131+529
180
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
132+160
131+980
181
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
132+600
132+420
170
1x1200
171
1x1200
172
1x1200
173
1x1200
174
1x1200
175
1x1200
176
1x1200
177
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12
12
12
12
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Page 28
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Construction
182
1x1200
183
1x1200
184
1x1200
185
1x1200
186
1x1200
187
1x1200
188
1x1200
189
1x1200
190
1x1200
191
1x1200
192
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
133+780
133+600
HP
25.00
New
Construction
134+180
134+000
HP
25.00
New
Construction
134+570
134+390
HP
25.00
New
Construction
134+870
134+690
HP
25.00
New
Construction
135+150
134+970
HP
25.00
New
Construction
135+350
135+170
HP
25.00
New
Construction
135+810
135+630
HP
25.00
New
Construction
135+810
135+630
HP
25.00
New
Construction
137+365
137+186
HP
25.00
New
Construction
137+940
137+761
HP
25.00
New
Construction
138+200
138+021
Page 29
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
193
1x1200
194
1x1200
195
2x1200
196
1x1200
197
1x1200
198
1x1200
199
1x1200
200
1x1200
201
1x3000
202
1x1200
203
1x1200
204
1x1200
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
HP
25.00
New
Construction
138+350
138+171
HP
25.00
New
Construction
138+490
138+311
HP
25.00
New
Construction
139+310
139+131
HP
25.00
New
Construction
139+475
139+296
HP
25.00
New
Construction
139+695
139+516
HP
25.00
New
Construction
140+080
139+901
HP
25.00
New
Construction
140+415
140+236
HP
25.00
New
Construction
140+635
140+456
RCC
Slab
24.00
New
Construction
140+870
140+691
HP
25.00
New
Construction
141+370
141+191
HP
25.00
New
Construction
141+455
141+276
HP
25.00
New
141+635
141+456
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12
12
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Page 30
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Construction
205
1x1200
206
1x1200
207
1x1200
208
1x1200
209
1x1200
210
1x1200
211
1x1200
212
1x1200
213
1x1200
214
1x1200
215
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
141+970
141+791
HP
25.00
New
Construction
142+040
141+861
HP
25.00
New
Construction
142+115
141+936
HP
25.00
New
Construction
142+270
142+091
HP
25.00
New
Construction
142+310
142+131
HP
25.00
New
Construction
142+470
142+291
HP
25.00
New
Construction
142+560
142+381
HP
25.00
New
Construction
142+720
142+540
HP
25.00
New
Construction
143+380
143+200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
143+565
143+385
HP
25.00
New
Construction
143+640
143+460
Page 31
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
216
1x1200
217
1x1200
218
1x1200
219
1x1200
220
1x1200
221
1x1200
222
1x1200
223
1x1200
224
1x1200
225
1x1200
226
1x1200
227
1x1200
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
HP
25.00
New
Construction
143+760
143+580
HP
25.00
New
Construction
143+810
143+630
HP
25.00
New
Construction
143+870
143+690
HP
25.00
New
Construction
144+155
143+975
HP
25.00
New
Construction
144+510
144+330
HP
25.00
New
Construction
144+600
144+419
HP
25.00
New
Construction
144+710
144+529
HP
25.00
New
Construction
144+840
144+659
HP
25.00
New
Construction
145+110
144+929
HP
25.00
New
Construction
145+275
145+094
HP
25.00
New
Construction
145+575
145+394
HP
25.00
New
145+720
145+539
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Page 32
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12
12
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Construction
228
1x1200
229
1x1200
230
1x1200
231
1x1200
232
1x1200
233
1x1200
234
1x1200
235
1x3000
236
1x1200
237
1x1200
238
1x1200
HP
25.00
New
Construction
145+890
145+709
HP
25.00
New
Construction
145+975
145+794
HP
25.00
New
Construction
146+070
145+889
HP
25.00
New
Construction
146+190
146+009
HP
25.00
New
Construction
146+420
146+239
HP
25.00
New
Construction
146+840
146+659
HP
25.00
New
Construction
147+990
147+810
RCC
Slab
24.00
New
Construction
148+200
148+020
HP
25.00
New
Construction
148+490
148+310
HP
25.00
New
Construction
148+835
148+655
HP
25.00
New
Construction
148+980
148+800
Page 33
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
239
1x1200
240
1x1200
241
1x1200
242
1x1200
243
1x1200
244
1x1200
245
1x1200
246
1x1200
247
1x1200
248
1x1200
249
1x1200
250
1x1200
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
HP
25.00
New
Construction
149+180
149+000
HP
25.00
New
Construction
150+000
149+820
HP
25.00
New
Construction
150+310
150+130
HP
25.00
New
Construction
150+475
150+295
HP
25.00
New
Construction
150+600
150+420
HP
25.00
New
Construction
150+725
150+545
HP
25.00
New
Construction
150+910
150+730
HP
25.00
New
Construction
151+080
150+900
HP
25.00
New
Construction
151+275
151+095
HP
25.00
New
Construction
151+500
151+321
HP
25.00
New
Construction
151+995
151+816
HP
25.00
New
152+350
152+171
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Page 34
S.no
Existing
Culvert ID Chainage
Existing Width
of Culvert(m)
Span
arangement
Type
Proposed
Width of
Culvert
Proposal
Proposed Proposed
Chainage Chainage
LHS
RHS
Proposed
Details
LW
RW
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Remark's
Construction
251
1x1200
252
1x1200
253
1x1200
254
1x1200
255
1x1200
256
1x1200
LSW- Left Side
Widening
RSW- Right Side Widening
HP
25.00
New
Construction
152+525
152+346
HP
25.00
New
Construction
152+635
152+456
HP
25.00
New
Construction
153+790
153+611
HP
25.00
New
Construction
154+810
154+631
HP
25.00
New
Construction
155+380
155+201
HP
25.00
New
Construction
155+510
155+331
BSW- Both Side

Widening
Page 35
1.7.7
Retaining Wall
At Deep cut location 2 to 3 m high Brest walls are proposed and at fill locations 2 to 20m high retaining
walls are proposed. Retaining walls upto height of 8m shall be constructed with stone masonry above
that shall be constructed in RCC
1.8
Miscellaneous Facilities
1.8.1
Rest Area
Highway users who travel long distances upto a few hundred kilometers a day during a single journey
need amenities along the highway. This section of project road has several eating places at the builtup areas. Thus amenities are available at these two locations separated by only 48km. Further
provision of a Rest Area will require additional acquisition of land along with provision of
infrastructures in it. Keeping this in view no additional Rest Area is contemplated and thus not
provided in this section. However, this requires concurrence of NHAI
1.8.2
Bus-bays
Since regular bus service operates along the project road, there a few bus stops along it. In order that
the through traffic can move unhindered, these bus stops are proposed to be converted into bus-bays
with proper separator islands.In addition to this ,Bus Bay have been proposed at Starting and End of
Bypasses, major habitations and at major road crossings of Bypasses. The locations are as follows:
Table 1.8.2: Details of Bus-bays
S. No.
1.8.3
Design Chainage
S. No.
Design Chainage
106+200
126+300
107+740
10
128+600
108+890
11
132+200
113+945
12
136+400
116+365
13
145+700
123+135
14
151+150
121+500
15
153+312
124+450
Truck Lay-byes
During site reconnaissance it was observed that there are several small roadside dhabas, where
trucks drivers park their vehicle for eating, resting or even minor maintenance of vehicles. But due to
lack of parking, they park their vehicles beside road. For the point of safety and smooth flow of traffic
two truck lay byes are proposed at the following locations:
118+830-112+060
138+150-138+300
Thus it is proposed to develop these locations as truck lay byes with safety barrier at the shoulder
edges of the main carriageway.
1.8.4
Toll Plaza Location

The project road is proposed to be developed as Tolled Road. The project road is being only 47.312
km long, only one toll plaza will be feasible to be provided. During traffic survey it was observed that
Km. 112 is suitable for development of Toll Plaza System.
Page 36
1.9
Project Cost
Total cost of Civil works for the project is estimated at Rs 1,425.79 Cr.
Total project cost based on financial analysis workout to be Rs. 1,658.53 Cr.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Bill.
No.
Description
Amount in
Rupees
SITE CLEARANCE
24,70,477
EARTH WORK
1,15,54,52,903
SUB-BASE AND BASE COURSES
28,47,08,276
BITUMINOUS / CEMENT CONCRETE COURSES
60,02,04,715
5A
NEW BRIDGES,VAIDUCT,AND ELEVATED ROAD
6,22,28,66,400
5B
TUNNEL
3,22,40,00,000
5C
PIPE CULVERT AND RCC BOX CULVERT
7,14,49,500
5D
RETAINING WALL AND BREST WALL
2,20,97,02,567
DRAINAGE AND PROTECTIVE WORKS
17,19,58,710
ELECTRICAL ITEMS
60,60,000
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
30,90,62,900
TOTAL COST OF CIVIL WORKS
14,25,79,36,447
Say
1,425.79 Cr.
TOTAL PROJECT COST (including cost of ,civil works,

contingencies, IC charges, escalation, Financing cost,
interest during construction ) based on financial analysis
16,58,53,18,302
Say
1,658.53 Cr.
Page 37
1.10
Economic Viability
1.10.1
ECONOMIC INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN

The EIRR is calculated as the rate of discount for which the present value of the net benefit stream
becomes zero, or at which the present value of the benefit stream is equal to the present value of the
cost stream. For a project to be acceptable the EIRR should be greater than the economic opportunity
cost of capital. The results obtained from HDM4 are derived from the benefit associated with the
introduction of new facility.
Following table gives the results derived from the above analysis of the project.
HDM-4
Base Case
NPV Discounted (in million

Rs.)
EIRR (in %)
300.25
12.6%
Shimla to Solan
1.10.2
SENSITVITY ANALYSIS
Two critical factors could affect the viability of the project and these are the Capital Cost and traffic
level. The capital cost can increase or the expected traffic growth could not materialise or both factors
could occur simultaneously sensitivity check using the following parameters has been carried out:
Sensitivity Option S1
Base Costs plus 15% and Base Benefits
Base Costs and Base Benefits minus 15%
Base Costs plus 15% and Base Benefits minus 15%
Sensitivity
NPV(Millions)
EIRR
S1
6494.11
11.40%
S2
5861.21
9.20%
S3
6494.11
8.70%
1.10.3
CONCLUSION OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The project road is found to be economically viable with EIRR more than the resource cost of capital
@ 12% for base case but is not viable for sensitivities.
1.11
Financial Analysis and Viability

To assess whether the project is commercially viable, the returns to investors, in terms of the pre-tax
project IRR and the Equity IRR, are compared with the target IRRs. The target IRR for the present
investment proposal is considered as 15% on equity investment.
Since the investment proposal without any government proposal does not yield any result, a 40%
grant is considered in the analysis. The entire grant amount is proposed during the construction
phase.
Result of the financial analysis is presented in the following tables.
Year
2029
2034
2039
2044
2049
Year of Operation
IRR on Project Cost (Post
Tax)
15
20
25
30
35
1.9%
6.5%
8.9%
10.2%
10.9%
Page 38
IRR on Project Cost (Pre Tax)
6.2%
10.0%
12.1%
13.2%
13.8%
IRR on Equity Investment
1.6%
8.5%
11.6%
13.0%
13.8%
The results indicate that the project comes close to being financially viable in BOT format with 40%
grant for a minimum concession period of 35 years.
1.11.1
Conclusion
The project may be implemented on BOT basis with the following considerations:
1.11.2
4 Laning of the entire section in a Single Phase with construction from 2012 to 2014.
Entire 40% Grant should be provided during the construction.
Minimum concession period should be 35 years
Suggestions
It has also been suggested that for more effective toll collection and easing the toll burden on a
section of the traffic that uses only a part of the toll road, two separate toll plazas be used at either
end of the sections.
Page 39
CHAPTER - 2: Economic Analysis
Page 40
2.0
2.1
CHAPTER - 2: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

APPROACH
Any infrastructure project, which is in terms of improving the existing facility, is subjected to economic
analysis to establish its viability and ensure that the investment proposed would yield appropriate
return either to the national economy. The economic appraisal has been carried out for the four laning
of present two lane road including realignment and bypasses and without any change in the project
road. HDM 4 has been used for carrying out the economic analysis.
2.2
DEFENITION of WITHOUT PROJECT AND WITH PROJECT SITUATION

The appraisal has been carried out within the framework of with and without the project situations.
Without the project situation is the one in which the projected traffic would continue to move on the
existing two lane road which will require certain minimum routine and periodic maintenance for upkeep
of the facility. In the case of with project situation, the traffic would use the improved facility, which is
a four-lane carriageway configuration without paved shoulders facility.
The benefits due to improvements are the saving in vehicle operation cost, saving in time and other
caused benefits. The cost of the project is subtracted from benefits accruing year wise and discounted
to work out the Economic Internal Rate of Return. In the economic appraisal all the financial estimates
of costs and benefits are converted to economic costs by applying necessary factors.
Without Project Scenario
This scenario is the present state of the road which is no improvement has been involved with the
road except required routine maintenance.
With Project Scenario
This scenario is the improved facility of the road, where the stretch of the roads will have 4 Lane
carriageway configuration.
2.3
PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULING

The cost stream comprises of:
Capital cost of construction of the project road and related works
Annual repair and maintenance cost
Operating cost of vehicles
Project costs based on engineering design have been worked out and given in costing chapter. A
conversion factor of 0.85 has been used to convert financial costs to economic costs. For economic
evaluation, base costs have been taken as factor costs of civil works and other costs related to social,
environmental and utility relocations. Unlike other components of project costs, land to be acquired for
the project does not depreciate over time. Although, there would be certain loss to the economy due to
acquisition of land (predominantly barren and agricultural) during construction stage, it is expected that
enhanced economic activities caused by the project in the adjoining area would well compensate the
same. No provision as such is available in HDM-4 to account for such benefits.
Unit costs of various maintenance operations are derived from the rates of individual item of works,
discussed in the section dealing with project costs. Maintenance Standards for the existing road and
Page 41
routine maintenance costs are worked out based on Report of the Committee on Norms for
Maintenance of Roads in India, MORTH, 2001. For the proposed 2-lane carriageway with gravely
shoulders facility, periodic renewal has been made condition responsive.
Phase wise construction has been applied for the current project and 30 % , 40% and 30% of the
project cost has been distributed for the analysis during 1st, 2nd and 3rd year of construction period.
2.3.1
Capital Cost and Phasing
The following table describes the various component of capital cost, and the phasing of the
cost has been done according to the distribution given in the previous paragraph.
Capital Cost of the Project in (Rupees)
Cost Elements
Cost .
14,256,548,052
Total Financial Cost

Total Economic Cost
12118065844
The phasing of cost will be done as per the ratio of allocation for phasing as given in previous
section of this report.
2.3.2
Maintenance Cost
The Maintenance Standards proposed for the project road is discussed below:
Maintenance Standard Followed for the Project Road
Periodic Maintenance
Without Project
With Project
Maintenance Strategy
Economic (Rs)
Financial (Rs)
Economic
(Rs)
Financial
(Rs)
119/ m2
140 / m2
178.5 / m2
210 / m2
Overlay with 25mm BC

(Scheduled for every fifth
year)
Overlay with 40mm BC
BC (Responsive when
Roughness>=4.5IRI)
Routine Maintenance
Responsive Potholing >= 5

no/km
Responsive Wide
Structural Cracking >= 5 %
Responsive Edge
Repair>= 50 <= 500
m2/Km
Scheduled (Applied only in
With Project Case)
Patching
Crack
Sealing
Edge Repair
Shoulder
Repair
107 /
m2
34 /
m2
126 / m2
107 / m2
126 / m2
40 / m2
34 / m2
40 / m2
170 /
m2
200 / m2
170 / m2
200 / m2
8500/km/yr
10000/km/yr
----
Page 42
2.4
PROJECT BENEFITS
2.4.1
VOC Saving
The Vehicle operating cost (VOC) is a function of Speed, Road roughness, Carriageway
Width/Capacity, Rise and Fall. Per unit VOCs are calculated from the sum of distance related and time
related VOCs, which include the following:
Distance Related VOCs:
Fuel Costs
Maintenance Costs including spare parts and labour
Tyre Cost
Oil Consumption cost
Time-related VOCs
Opportunity Cost of capital
Depreciation Cost
Cost of Crew
The VOCs is estimated using the equations inbuilt in the model.
Page 43
Vehicle Fleet Data (Motorised Traffic-MT)

Two
Wheelers
Two
Wheelers
Three
Wheelers
Car
Standard
Bus
Mini Bus
LCV
Truck
Light
2Axle
Truck
Truck
Medium
3Axle
Truck
Truck
Heavy
Autos
Car
medium
Bus medium
Std. Mini Bus
PCSE
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
1.50
1.50
No. of Wheels;
2.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
No. of Axles:
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Tyre Type:
Bias-Ply
Bias-Ply
Redial ply
Bias-Ply
Base number of
Recaps:
1.30
1.30
1.30
Retread Cost (%):
15.00
15.00
Annual kilometer
(km)
10787
Working Hours (hrs):
Vehicle Type:
MAV
Tractor
Truck Heavy
Tractor:
1.50
1.50
1.00
6.00
10.00
8.00
8.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
4.00
Bias-Ply
Bias-Ply
Bias-Ply
Bias-Ply
Bias-Ply
Bias-Ply
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
15.00
20.00
15.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
25.00
15.00
45000
32077
90000
60000
41831
66900
66900
99000
15000
300
2000
1200
2250
2000
1800
2200
2200
2200
2000
Average Life
(Years):
10.00
6.00
10.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
8.00
Private Use (%)
100.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40
20
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.78
0.02
0.02
1.9
3.8
6.77
0.02
Base Type:
Passengers
(persons):
Work related
passenger trips (%):
ESALF:
Page 44
Vehicle Type:
Two
Wheelers
Three
Wheelers
Car
Standard
Bus
Mini Bus
LCV
2Axle
Truck
3Axle
Truck
MAV
Tractor
Operating weight
(tons):
0.2
0.6
1.35
9.2
7.0
7.0
12.0
24.0
32.0
7.0
Economic Unit Costs

New Vehicle (Rs):
35435
78470
279674
722276
427626
427626
748070
843757
843757
350000
Replacement Tyre
(Rs):
377
377
1315
5440
2332
2332
11000
11000
6632
2332
Fuel (Rs per litre):
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
105
67
27
54
54
54
27
Annual over head:
175500
135500
91500
267000
300000
320000
91500
Annual interest (%):
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
19.0
24.0
39.0
24.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
6.0
Lubricating oil (per

liters):
Maintenance labors
(Rs per hr)
Crew Wages (Rs per
hr):
Passenger working
time (Rs per
passenger hr):
Passenger non
wokking time(Rs per
passenger hr):
Cargo (Rs per vehicl
hr):
Page 45
Vehicle Fleet Data (Non Motorised Traffic-NMT)

NMT
Animal Carts
Bicycles
Cycle Rickshaw
Wheel Type
wooden
Pneumatic
Pneumatic
No. of wheels
2.00
2.00
3.00
Wheel diameter
1.00
0.07
0.70
Operating Weight
1200.00
100.00
300.00
Payload
900.00
35.00
235.00
Average life
3.00
10.00
6.00
Working hours
1300.00
150.00
500.00
Annual Km
4000.00
2500.00
7200.00
Passengers
1.00
1.00
3.00
Purchase cost
6000.00
1500.00
6000.00
crew wages
12.00
12.00
12.00
passenger time
0.00
5.30
5.30
Cargo holding time
1.50
0.00
0.00
Energy used
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual interest
12.00
12.00
12.00
2.4.2
Time Saving
Savings in time results as reduction in congestion and higher travel speeds as a result of improved
roads - both in terms of capacity as well as riding quality. The reduction in time saving in terms of
capacity is achieved by widening the existing two lane and providing bypasses.
2.5
ECONOMIC INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN

The EIRR is calculated as the rate of discount for which the present value of the net benefit stream
becomes zero, or at which the present value of the benefit stream is equal to the present value of the
cost stream. For a project to be acceptable the EIRR should be greater than the economic opportunity
cost of capital. The results obtained from HDM4 are derived from the benefit associated with the
introduction of new facility.
Following table gives the results derived from the above analysis of the project.
Page 46
Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR)

HDM-4
Base Case
NPV Discounted (in million

Rs.)
EIRR (in %)
300.25
12.6%
Shimla to Solan
2.6
SENSITVITY ANALYSIS
Two critical factors could affect the viability of the project and these are the Capital Cost and traffic
level. The capital cost can increase or the expected traffic growth could not materialise or both factors
could occur simultaneously sensitivity check using the following parameters has been carried out:
Base Costs plus 15% and Base Benefits
Base Costs and Base Benefits minus 15%
Base Costs plus 15% and Base Benefits minus 15%
Sensitivity
2.7
NPV (Millions)
EIRR
S1
- 6494.11
11.40%
S2
- 5861.21
9.20%
S3
- 6494.11
8.70%
CONCLUSION
The project road is found to be economically viable with EIRR more than the resource cost of capital
@ 12% for base case but is not viable for sensitivities.
Page 47
Page 48
Chapter 3: Financial Analysis
Page 49
3.0
CHAPTER - 3: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
3.1
General
Under the TOR of the project, the cost of 4 laning of the Solan Shimla section of NH-22 is to be
estimated and recovery of the cost by assessing toll on the vehicular traffic is to be considered. The
Project is to be appraised as a PPP model where the private concessionaire will undertake the project
and be given the concession to recover its cost by charging and collecting toll from all vehicular traffic
for a specified number of years on the BOT format.
The Project is to be funded using Equity and Debt, and if needed, a government grant (max 40%) can
be considered.
Toll Rates and policy has been considered and applied as per the recommendations of the Review of
the Toll Policy Report of the Committee of Secretaries.
The viability has been assessed using Project Internal Rate of Return and Equity Internal Rate of
Return using discounted Cash Flows.
3.2
Tollable Traffic
As per the NHAIs Toll Policy, except for a few exempted categories, all motorized vehicles would be
liable to pay toll. Details of toll-able traffic is given in Annexure 1.
The leakage in toll collection has been estimated to be negligible, since, being a hill road, there are no
alternative roads for the traffic to take. Consideration has been given for leakage due to graft, theft
and pilferage. This has been estimated at 15% of the total toll able traffic.
3.3
Capital Cost and Funding

The project is conceived as per Ministry of Corporate Affairs guidelines. Ensuring optimum return
stage construction is adopted maintaining the prescribed service quality.
3.3.1
Phasing
The entire project is to be completed in one phase with construction commencing mid 2012 and
completion by 2014. The tolling will commence in 2015.
3.3.2
Capital Cost
The capital cost of the Project relates to construction cost and includes civil works cost for roads,
bridges, culverts, toll plaza, etc., land acquisition, R&R and environment cost. However, land
acquisition, R&R and environment costs are excluded from financial analysis, as the government has
to provide land free of encumbrances to the concessionaire.
3.3.3
Base Cost
The Base cost forms the basis for the toll collection and period of the concession. It includes all costs
of the proposed project (excluding land acquisition, R&R and environment costs) including the cost of
toll plaza. As per NHAI guidelines and project norms, the costs have been calculated on current prices
and escalated to arrive at the final cost in the year of the expenditure.
3.3.4
Financial Overheads
Financial overheads have been considered at 1% of Cost of Civil Works for Independent Consultants
and Engineers, 3% of Cost of Civil Works for Contingencies. Financing cost of 1% on debt is
considered towards the base cost of the project.
Page 50
3.3.5
Cost Escalation
With a view to account for inflation, the base costs have been escalated at a rate of 5 percent per
annum to obtain the actual costs in the year of expenditure. This is in line with the long-term inflation
rate generally considered for financial analysis.
3.3.6
Interest during Construction (IDC)

The interest during construction, which is the cost of funding incurred on the project, has been
calculated on the basis of an interest rate of 11.5 percent per annum on the debt portion.
3.3.7
Landed Project Cost

The total landed cost of the project is considered and calculated at the time of commissioning and
includes costs of civil works, contingencies, financial overheads, escalation costs and interest during
construction. Administrative Overheads have also been considered as a part of Total Project Costs.
The landed costs for the Project are as follows:
Total Project Cost
No.
1
2
3
4
5A
5B
5C
5D
6
7
8
Description
Site clearance
Earth work
Sub-base and base courses
Bituminous / cement concrete courses
New bridges, vaiduct, and elevated road
Tunnel
Pipe culvert and RCC box culvert
Retaining wall and brest wall
Drainage and protective works
Electrical items
Miscellaneous items
TOTAL COST OF CIVIL WORKS
Administrative Overheads & Contingencies
Independent's Consultants Costs
Financing Costs
Interest during Construction
TOTAL PROJECT COST (including cost
of civil works, contingencies, IC charges,
escalation, Financing cost, interest
during construction)
Say (in Rs. crores)
3.3.8
Amount in Rs
24,70,477
1,15,54,52,903
28,47,08,276
59,88,16,319
6,22,28,66,400
3,22,50,70,830
7,14,49,500
2,20,97,02,567
17,19,58,710
60,60,000
30,90,62,900
14,25,76,18,881
57,03,04,755
14,25,76,189
6,28,76,099
1,55,19,42,377
16,58,53,18,302
1,658.53
Project Financing
In order to make the project viable and attract concessionaires, the entire 40% grant component will
have to be made available. The following project financing has been considered for the project.
Page 51
Project Funding
PROJECT FUNDING (as per 2011 prices)
Grant
Loan Funds
Equity
TOTAL
3.4
Rs. Crores
663.41
696.58
298.54
1,658.53
Operations and Maintenance Cost

Operation and Maintenance costs have been considered in the financial analysis based on the
following norms:
3.5
Annual Maintenance has been calculated as a % of TPC escalated @5% from COD. While there
will be no maintenance for the first year, a maintenance cost of 0.5% for the second year, 1% for
the third year and 2% from the fourth year onwards have been considered for purposes of
calculating feasibility.
Periodic Maintenance of the road surface will have to be performed every 5 years. For every km
of road surface Rs 30 lacs / km / year escalated @ 5% (every 5 years from COD) has been
considered for purposes of calculating feasibility.
No such periodic maintenance has been considered for the bridges and tunnels.
Operation Costs of the Toll Plaza have been calculated at 2% of the Toll Funds collected.
Insurance expenses have been amalgamated into the Administrative Overheads.
Basic Assumptions of Financial Model

Financial Feasibility has been done using a financial model developed by the Consultants. The model
projects the key financial statements of the private investor over the concession period. The
concession period will be decided by the NHAI based on the acceptable IRR of the Cash Flows as
projected by the Financial Projections. IRR has been estimated on various concession periods.
No Depreciation has been calculated. Instead, the project costs are to be amortized over the useful
life of the Project (useful in terms of the Concessionaire). For purposes of calculating annual
amortization, the TPC has been amortized over a concession period of 30 years. The reasoning of
using amortization over depreciation is that the concessionaire never owns the assets built under the
project, he is only the operator.
As per the Governments latest policy on private investment in the infrastructure sector, no tax has
been calculated for the first 10 years (except for the provisions of the Minimum Alternative Tax - MAT).
Apart from the tax provisions under the Income Tax act, MAT rate of 11.33% on the book profit has
been considered.
While calculating cash flows and Rates of Return, Grants given by the State and Central governments
have not been considered.
Page 52
3.6
Project Revenue
3.6.1
Toll Revenue
Toll Revenue is affected by the following main factors:
Growth in traffic
Toll rates
Toll leakage
Growth in traffic has been projected in Section 4.15 of the Main Report.
Toll Rates have ben calculated based on NHAI Toll Policy obtained from the Report of the Committee
of Secretaries of the Governments of India titled Review of Toll Policy on National Highways which
has given detailed procedures for calculating the toll rates.
These policies have been applied on the project as a whole (Aggregated Costs) and also on taking
each bridges and tunnels costs individually to arrive at the applicable rate (Individual Costs).
Toll rates are estimates as per guidelines of new MCA. The toll rates calculated both methods are
given below in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found..
Toll Rates based on Aggregated Costs
Vehicle Type
Toll
2015
Base Rate
2011
Car, Jeep, Van or LMV
138.50
155.88
LCV, LGV or Mini Bus
210.75
237.20
Bus or Truck
425.50
478.90
HCM, Earth Moving Vehicle. Multi Axle (36 axles)

Over sized (7 or more axles)
645.75
726.80
842.00
947.68
Toll Rates based on Individual Costs of Bridges and Tunnels
Vehicle Type
Base Rate
2011
Toll
2015
Car, Jeep, Van or LMV
212.50
239.17
LCV, LGV or Mini Bus
321.40
361.74
Bus or Truck
647.50
728.77
HCM, Earth Moving Vehicle. Multi Axle (3-6 axles)
969.40
1,091.07
1,286.00
1,447.40
Over sized (7 or more axles)
For the purpose of Financial Feasibility calculations, Toll Rates based on Aggregated Costs have
been considered.
Page 53
3.6.2
Toll Plaza
Owing to the hilly terrain, at present, only one toll plaza has been constructed at KM 112. This will
recover the toll that will be applicable for the costs incurred on the entire section of the road to be built
under this project.
It has been suggested that the possibility of constructing an additional Toll Plaza at a point further up
in the road be considered for the following reasons:
3.7
To lower the cost for those travelers who will be using only a portion of the entire length, and
For more effective coverage of the tolling as now a section of the travelers who were not passing
KM 112 will also be covered and raise toll collection and IRR.
Financial Viability
To assess whether the project is commercially viable, the returns to investors, in terms of the pre-tax
project IRR and the Equity IRR, are compared with the target IRRs. The target IRR for the present
investment proposal is considered as 15% on equity investment.
Since the investment proposal without any government proposal does not yield any result, a 40%
grant is considered in the analysis. The entire grant amount is proposed during the construction
phase.
Result of the financial analysis is presented in the following tables.
Select Financial Data
Year
2029
Year of Operation
15
2034
20
2039
2044
25
30
2049
35
IRR on Project Cost (Post

Tax)
IRR on Project Cost (Pre Tax)
1.9%
6.5%
8.9%
10.2%
10.9%
6.2%
10.0%
12.1%
13.2%
13.8%
IRR on Equity Investment
1.6%
8.5%
11.6%
13.0%
13.8%
The results indicate that the project comes close to being financially viable in BOT format with 40%
grant for a minimum concession period of 35 years. The details of financial analysis is presented in
the Annexure 2.
3.8
Conclusion
The project may be implemented on BOT basis with the following considerations:
3.8.1
4 Laning of the entire section in a Single Phase with construction from 2012 to 2014.
Entire 40% Grant should be provided during the construction.
Minimum concession period should be 35 years
Suggestions
It has also been suggested that for more effective toll collection and easing the toll burden on a
section of the traffic that uses only a part of the toll road, two separate toll plazas be used at either
end of the sections.
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56

Final NH22 Main Report Part 2

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Final NH22 Main Report Part 2

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport &

VOLUME - I : MAIN REPORT

Meinhardt Singapore Pte. Ltd. (India Branch)

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT

National Highways Authority Of India

ECONOMIC INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN ....................................................................... 46

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

CHAPTER - 1: Executive Summary

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

Route Length along Old NH from Km 105+910 to Km 154+894+1km overlap on account of

Route Length along Existing NH 22 from Km 105+910 to Km 145+100 +1 Km overlap on account

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

Clearance from Archeological Survey of India.

Salient Features of Existing Road

Land Use & Roadside Development and Villages

Name of Town/ Village

Small semi pucca settlement on both

Small semi pucca settlement on both

Small semi pucca settlement on both

Road is congested with development of

Small semi pucca settlement on both

Road is congested with development of

Road is congested with development of

Shimla Bypass : Khalini

Road is heavily congested with

Small settlement. No interference to

Shimla Bypass : Vikas

Road is heavily congested with

Road is heavily congested with

Shimla Bypass : Mehli

Road is heavily congested with

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

Name of Town/ Village

Shimla Bypass : Malyana

Road is heavily congested with

Shimla Bypass : Shanan,

Road is heavily congested with

Shimla Bypass : Jawhar

Road is heavily congested with

Road is heavily congested with

Existing and Proposed Right of Way (ROW)

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

Minimum speed (40 Kmph)

Existing Bridges and Culverts

The Proposed Alignment

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

At grade Widening will require

Railway line is too close on left side

Left Side (Hill

10 No of built up structure saved on

Railway line is too close on left side

Four-laning along Existing Road will

Left widening will mean that the

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

Right widening involve construction

Four-laning along Existing Road will

Left Side (Hill

Right widening involve construction

Left widening will mean that the

Document No. : 1085.01/RH/REP/301 A_R0

Improvement along existing road

Railway line is too close on left side

Left widening involve construction of