E. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYenvironmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Online/TOR/30...Tirupattur - Karaikudi...

CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY FROM MELURTO KARAIKUDI UNDER BHARATMALA PARIYOJANA, PHASE I, ON EPCMODE IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Final Detailed ProjectReport

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.1 INTRODUCTION

Aarvee associates were awarded the work of preparation of DPR for development of

Economic Corridors, Inter Corridors, Feeder Routes, Coastal Routes to improve the efficiency

of freight movement in India under Bharatmala Pariyojana (Lot – 4 Tamil Nadu - Package –

8) vide agreement signed on 21.02.2018. The details of stretches included in the said

package are given hereunder:

Table-E.1: List of Project Stretches

S.No Classification Corridor Name Stretch Name

Road Category Length(km)Old New

1 Feeder Route Chennai-Puduchery Mahabalipuram - Pondicherry

SH-49 NH-332A 99

2 Inter Corridor Melur-Thanjavur-Kumbakonam-Sirkazhi

Kumbakonam - Sirkazhi

SH-64 NH-136B 59

3 Inter Corridor Coimbatore – Trichy - Tanjavur

Karur - Trichy NH-81/67 NH-81/67 77

4 Inter Corridor Dindigal – Coimbatore-TN/Karnataka Border

Mettupalayam – Gudalur (NH-181)

NH-181 NH-181 98

5 Inter Corridor Melur - Thanjavur Tirupattur - Tanjavur

NH-36/226

NH-36/226 102

6 Inter Corridor Melur – Thanjavur (Branch to Karaikudi)

Kotampatti – Tirupattur - Karaikudi

SH-35 NH-383Ext.

52

7 Inter Corridor Melur - Thanjavur Melur - Tirupattur SH-191 NH-338 35

8 Feeder Route Chennai-Puduchery Chennai - Mahabalipuram

SH-49 NH-332A 50

9 Coastal Route Nagapatinam - Kanyakumari

Tuticorin – Kanyakumari

SH-176 - 115

Total Length in km 687

The alignment for the Inter Corridor branch to Karaikudi connecting the Melur to Thanjavur

section was finalized with a combination of greenfield and brownfield alignment as detailed

in the alignment report submitted vide letter No. AA/HW/NHAI/2145/2017-18/1889 dated

28.03.2018. The Draft Detailed Project Report for the project road was submitted vide letter

No. AA/HW/NHAI/2145/2018-19/2763 dated 25.07.2018.

This section is the Executive Summary for the Final Detailed Project Report for the project

corridor prepared based on the findings and up-gradation proposals submitted during the

Final Feasibility report submitted to the Authority.

AA/HD/2145 E – 1

E. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The existing project corridor starts on SH-191(New NH-338) at the intersection with

National Highway – 45B at Melur in the district of Madurai and ends at the intersection with

SH-29 at Karaikudi in the district of Siva Gangai.

The proposed project highway which consists of Green and Brown field alignments starts

near Melur at Km 99.920 of NH-45B (Madurai-Trichy road) and ends at the intersection with

NH-210(new NH-536) near Karaikudi. The length of the proposed alignment is 45.855 Km.

The proposed project corridor passes through villages Vatakkuvalayapatty, Pillayarpatti,

Kundrakudi, Patharaikudi and Koviloor (Karaikudi).

Location map is shown in Figure 1.

AA/HD/2145 E – 2

CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY FROM MELUR TO KARAIKUDI UNDER BHARATMALAPARIYOJANA, PHASE I, ON EPC MODE IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Final Detailed Project Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure 1: Location Map

AA/HD/2145 E – 3



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

2.1 KEY FEATURES OF ALONG EXISTING PROJECT ROAD

Table 1: Key features of Existing Project road

Attributes Details

SH/NH No.• Km 0.000 to Km 32.000 – SH 191 (NH-338)• Km 82.200 to Km 85.800 – SH 35 (NH-383 Extn.)• Km 0.000 to Km 14.000 – SH – 191A (NH-383 Extn.)

Origin - Destination

Melur (209639.00m E, 1110863.00m N) – Tirupattur(238507.18 m E,1118647.66 m N)

Tirupattur (237283.21m E,1118679.71 m N) – Pillayarpatti –Karaikudi (252624.65 m E,1114960.88 m N)

Via towns

Melur, Navinipatty, Keeliyur, Malampatti, Erumaipatti,S.S.Kottai, Kottaipatti, M.Krishnapuram, Karuppur,Thiruvudaiyarpatti, Tirupattur, Pillayarpatti, Kundrakudi,Patharaikudi and Karaikudi.

Existing Carraigeway The existing carriageway width varies from 7.0 m to 15.5m with mostly 2Lane and 4L in some urban locations.

Service lanes and slip roads Nil

Shoulder• Paved Shoulder of 0 – 1.5m width• Earthen Shoulder of 0 – 0.5m width

Condition of existing pavement

Good to Poor

Right of Way Varies in between 10m to 30m along the project stretch

Land use along project road

Predominant land use along the Melur – Tirupattur stretch isbarren land (56% on LHS, 50% on RHS), with rest being builtup (24% on LHS, 20% on RHS), agricultural (8% on LHS,11% on RHS), water bodies (3% on LHS, 2% on RHS),granite quarry(9% on LHS, 13% on RHS) and forest area (0%on LHS, 4% on RHS)

Predominant land use along the Tirupattur – Pillayarapatty –Karaikudi stretch is barren land (60% on LHS, 61% on RHS),with rest being built up (31% on LHS, 34% on RHS),agricultural (2% on LHS, 3% on RHS) and water bodies (7%on LHS, 2% on RHS)

Traffic on the stretch Predominatly passenger vehicles

Toll infrastructure There are no toll plaza in the current stretch

Terrain• Primarily plain(91%) and rolling(9%) terrain in Melur-

Tirupattur stretch.• 100% plain terrain in Tirupattur-Karaikudi stretch.

Structures along stretch 32 structures – 1 major bridge, 2 minor bridges, 1 VOP, 28 culverts

Key utilities in the existing ROW

3 HT towers and 1 HT crossing

Forest Stretches along existing ROW

Vettangudi Bird Sanctuary is situated adjacent to the existing road from Km 20.300 to Km 21.600 for a length of 1.300Kms.

AA/HD/2145 E – 4



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Attributes Details

Rail crossings along existing ROW

Nil

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT ROAD

As already stated, mostly greenfield alignment is adopted for project corridor and

the details of the green field alignment are given in section 5.

AA/HD/2145 E – 5



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.2 KEY PLAN OF EXISTING PROJECT STRETCH

Figure 2: Key Plan

AA/HD/2145 E – 6



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E 3. TRAFFIC DEMANDS ON PROJECT ROAD

3.1. TRAFFIC VOLUME SURVEYS

Based on the reconnaissance surveys, Mid block sections and major Intersections were

identified to capture the traffic flow pattern. Classified traffic volume count, Turning

movement survey, Origin & Destination surveys, Axle load surveys were conducted.

Locations of the traffic surveys conducted are tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2: Location and schedule of the Traffic surveys

S.No

Type ofSurvey

LocationChainage

(km)Highway

Durationof Survey

Date ofSurvey

1

ClassifiedTrafficVolumeCounts

Malampatti 11.900 SH-191

3 Days

22.03.2018,23.03.2018

and26.03.2018Patharaikudi 11.100 SH-191A

Thuvakudi Toll Plaza(Tanjore – Trichy Road) 115.000 NH-67

1 Day

02.04.2018

Bothukudi Toll Plaza(Kotampatty – Trichy

Road)18.000 NH-45B 03.04.2018

2Turning

Movements

Kummankudi85.800/0.000

SH-35 / SH-191A

24 Hours

27.03.2018

Karaikudi 12.900SH-191A &

NH-21027.03.2018

3 OD Survey


24 Hours

22.03.2018

Patharaikudi 11.100 SH-191A 26.03.2018


24 Hours

02.04.2018


Road)18.000 NH-45B 03.04.2018

4 Axle LoadSurvey Malampatti 11.900 SH-191

24 Hours22.03.2018


AA/HD/2145 E – 7



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

S.No

Type ofSurvey

LocationChainage

(km)Highway

Durationof Survey

Date ofSurvey


24 Hours

02.04.2018


Road)18.000 NH-45B 03.04.2018

5Number

plate Survey


24 Hours

26.03.2018


Automatic classified traffic volume count (ATCC) was done at four locations i.e., at Km

11.900 (Malampatti) on SH-191, at Km 11.100 (Patharaikudi) on SH-191A for 3 days and

additional TVC surveys were conducted at Km 115.000 (at Thuvakudi Toll Plaza) on NH-67 of

Tanjore – Trichy Section and at Km 18.000 (at Bothukudi Toll Plaza) on NH-45B of

Kotampatty – Trichy Section for 1 day by using pneumatic tubes and video graphic method.

The average daily traffic (ADT) was computed by using three day traffic data. By using

secondary data (fuel data), Seasonal correction factor was derived which can be used as

multiplication factor for converting average daily traffic (ADT) into Annual average daily

traffic (AADT). The annual average daily traffic (AADT) for each location is mentioned in the

Tables 3 & 4.

Table 3: AADTof the two Traffic survey locations along the project stretch

Vehicle Type

Melur – Karaikudi Section

Km. 11.900 (SH-191) Km. 11.100 (SH-191A)

Two Wheelers 2270 3267

Three Wheelers (Passenger) 42 119

Car 1888 1405

Tata Magic 2 4

RTC Bus 442 348

Private Bus 112 114

Mini Bus 78 56

School/ College Bus 34 46

Two Axle 160 97

AA/HD/2145 E – 8



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Vehicle Type

Melur – Karaikudi Section

Km. 11.900 (SH-191) Km. 11.100 (SH-191A)

Three Axle 29 43

Multi Axle 18 11

Heavy Earth Moving 1 2

Light Commercial Vehicle 169 61

Mini LCV 413 247

Tractor 0 8

Tractor with Trailer 3 8

Three Wheeler (Goods) 9 10

Bicycle 13 44

Cycle Rickshaw 1 1

Animal Drawn 1 0

Government Exempted 0 3

Vehicles

Motorised 5685 5848

Non Motorised 2 45

Total Traffic 5687 5893

Tollable Traffic 3348 2433

PCU

Motorised 6301 5649

Non Motorised 10 24



Table 4: AADT of the two additional Traffic survey locations

Vehicle Type

Madurai - Trichy Section Thanjavur - Trichy Section

Km. 18.000 (NH-45B) Km. 115.000 (NH-67)



Car 5006 7707

Tata Magic 2 7

AA/HD/2145 E – 9



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Vehicle Type

Madurai - Trichy Section Thanjavur - Trichy Section

Km. 18.000 (NH-45B) Km. 115.000 (NH-67)

RTC Bus 728 898

Private Bus 1006 471

Mini Bus 172 237


Two Axle 438 895

Three Axle 701 538

Multi Axle 512 329



Mini LCV 674 948

Tractor 8 20



Bicycle 60 42

Cycle Rickshaw 0 0

Animal Drawn 0 0


Vehicles

Motorised 15211 18810

Non Motorised 60 42



PCU


Non Motorised 31 21



AA/HD/2145 E – 10



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Additional traffic is added to the AADT for Homogeneous sections-I & II. The detail

description is given in Chapter-6 of Main Report. Final AADT of HS-I & II are mentioned in

Table-5.

Table 5: Final AADT adopted in Homogeneous Sections

Vehicle Type

HS-I HS-II

Km. 11.900 (SH-191) Km. 11.100 (SH-191A)



Car 3402 2359

Tata Magic 2 40

RTC Bus 442 348

Private Bus 651 140

Mini Bus 148 70


Two Axle 394 697

Three Axle 404 154

Multi Axle 217 34



Mini LCV 745 412

Tractor 0 8



Bicycle 13 44

Cycle Rickshaw 1 1

Animal Drawn 1 0


Vehicles Motorised 9366 7813

Non Motorised 15 45


AA/HD/2145 E – 11



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Vehicle Type

HS-I HS-II

Km. 11.900 (SH-191) Km. 11.100 (SH-191A)


PCU


Non Motorised 17 24



3.2. AXLE LOAD SURVEY

Axle load surveys were conducted at two locations i.e., at Km 11.900 (Malampatti) on SH-

191, at Km 11.100 (Patharaikudi) on SH-191A, along the project stretch to understand the

actual load spectrum of commercial vehicles plying on the project road. The results of the

load survey, were converted to Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) using equivalency factors from

IRC 37-2012 for the purpose of MSA calculations.

Table 6: Vehicle Damage Factor

Type ofVehicle

VDF Near Malampatti @ Km 11.900(SH-191)

VDF Near Patharaikudi @ 11.1000 (SH-191A)

TowardsMelur

TowardsKaraikudi

Adopted TowardsKaraikudi

TowardsMelur

Adopted

2 Axle 1.92 2.13 2.13 2.58 2.40 2.58

3 Axle 1.34 5.07 5.07 3.21 1.50 3.21

M Axle 4.04 5.23 5.23 5.05 1.49 5.05

LCV 1.69 1.77 1.77 1.74 1.31 1.74

3.3. HOMOGENEOUS SECTIONS

Considering the various AADT values along the stretch, as observed in various traffic survey

locations, the total project road is divided into two homogeneous road sections for the

purpose of traffic analysis and forecast so as to examine the strategies for tolling and also

for pavement design purpose. Table below gives the details of the homogeneous sections

identified for the project road.

AA/HD/2145 E – 12



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Table 7: Homogeneous Sections along the project corridor

Section

Starting EndLength ofHS (km)Design

Chainage (Km)Location

DesignChainage (Km)

Location

HS-1 0.000 Melur 38.000 Pillayarpatty 38.000

HS-2 38.000 Pillayarpatty 45.855 Karaikudi 7.855

3.4. TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST

Traffic was projected by using estimated growth rates. A minimum growth rate of 5% has

been considered for capacity analysis. The growth rates adopted are given in the Table-8.

Table 8: Adopted traffic growth rate

Year 2w 3w Car (W) Bus Goods TractorTractor with

trailor

Upto 2020 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 7.5% 6.5% 9.0% 6.0%

2021-2025 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 7.00% 6.00% 8.50% 5.50%

2026-2030 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 6.50% 5.50% 8.00% 5.00%

2031-2035 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 6.00% 5.00% 7.50% 5.00%

2036-2040 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 5.50% 5.00% 7.00% 5.00%

2040-2045 7.50% 7.50% 7.50% 5.00% 5.00% 6.50% 5.00%

Beyond 2045 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 5.00% 5.00% 6.00% 5.00%

Traffic was projected by using growth rates represented in Table-8.

National and State Highways in rural areas are normally designed for LOS B as per IRC:64.

The maximum capacities per day for different types of carriageway for LOS B are:

• 15,000 PCUs for 2 lane carriageway with earthen shoulders

• 18,000 PCUs for 2 lane carriageway with paved shoulders

• 40,000 PCUs for 4 lane divided carriageway

• 60,000 PCUs for 6 lane divided carriageway

The recommended Design Service Volume per day for up-gradation of highway sections as

per Indian Highway Capacity Manual (Indo-HCM) are:

• 22,500 PCUs for conversion from four lane to six lane divided road

• 34,000 PCUs for conversion from six lane to eight lane divided road

Projected traffic for the project stretch is represented in Tables-9 & 10.

AA/HD/2145 E – 13



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Table-9: Projected Traffic for Homogeneous Section-I

YearVolume (In PCU)

Capacity CriteriaRecommended Lane

ConfigurationCapacity(PCU/day)

V/C Ratio LOS

2018 13282 36000 0.37 B 4 lane

2019 14225 36000 0.40 B 4 lane

2020 15364 36000 0.43 B 4 lane

2021 16520 36000 0.46 B 4 lane

2022 17768 36000 0.49 B 4 lane

2023 19113 80000 0.24 A 4 lane

2024 20565 80000 0.26 A 4 lane

2025 22131 80000 0.28 A 4 lane

2026 23711 80000 0.30 A 4 lane

2027 25410 80000 0.32 B 4 lane

2028 27235 80000 0.34 B 4 lane

2029 29198 80000 0.36 B 4 lane

2030 31310 80000 0.39 B 4 lane

2031 33424 80000 0.42 B 4 lane

2032 35689 80000 0.45 B 4 lane

2033 38116 80000 0.48 B 4 lane

2034 40717 120000 0.34 B 6 lane

2035 43504 120000 0.36 B 6 lane

2036 46338 120000 0.39 B 6 lane

2037 49364 120000 0.41 B 6 lane

2038 52598 120000 0.44 B 6 lane

2039 56053 120000 0.47 B 6 lane

2040 59745 120000 0.50 B 6 lane

2041 63473 120000 0.53 C -

2042 67443 120000 0.56 C -

2043 71671 120000 0.60 C -

2044 76175 120000 0.63 C -

2045 80973 120000 0.67 C -

2046 85873 120000 0.72 D -

2047 91077 120000 0.76 D -

AA/HD/2145 E – 14



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

YearVolume (In PCU)



V/C Ratio LOS

2048 96605 120000 0.81 D -

Table-10: Projected Traffic for Homogeneous Section II

Year Volume (In PCU)



V/C Ratio LOS

2018 9219 36000 0.26 A 2 lane paved shoulder

2019 9966 36000 0.28 A 2 lane paved shoulder

2020 10776 36000 0.30 A 4 lane

2021 11616 36000 0.32 B 4 lane

2022 12513 36000 0.35 B 4 lane

2023 13482 36000 0.37 B 4 lane

2024 14530 36000 0.40 B 4 lane

2025 15663 36000 0.44 B 4 lane

2026 16827 36000 0.47 B 4 lane

2027 18082 80000 0.23 A 4 lane

2028 19435 80000 0.24 A 4 lane

2029 20894 80000 0.26 A 4 lane

2030 22468 80000 0.28 A 4 lane

2031 24053 80000 0.30 B 4 lane

2032 25745 80000 0.32 B 4 lane

2033 27563 80000 0.34 B 4 lane

2034 29515 80000 0.37 B 4 lane

2035 31614 80000 0.40 B 4 lane

2036 33768 80000 0.42 B 4 lane

2037 36074 80000 0.45 B 4 lane

2038 38546 80000 0.48 B 4 lane

2039 41193 120000 0.34 B 6 lane

2040 44030 120000 0.37 B 6 lane

2041 46904 120000 0.39 B 6 lane

2042 49972 120000 0.42 B 6 lane

AA/HD/2145 E – 15



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

YearVolume (In PCU)



V/C Ratio LOS

2043 53247 120000 0.44 B 6 lane

2044 56745 120000 0.47 B 6 lane

2045 60480 120000 0.50 C -

2046 64276 120000 0.54 C -

2047 68316 120000 0.57 C -

2048 72616 120000 0.61 C -

Ministry has recently revised the norms to take up 4 laning if traffic is more than 10,000

PCUs per day.

Reference: Policy matters – Quality Assurance

(Decision taken on File No NHAI/CGM/QA/DPRs/2017, in January 2017.)

As per the traffic survey data, there is an immediate requirement for 4 lane configuration.

3.5. TURNING MOVEMENT SURVEYS

Classified direction wise turning movement count surveys were conducted at two major

intersections i.e., Kummankudi Intersection and Karaikudi Intersection to determine the

need for re-design and addition of structure at the intersection.

Table-11: Turning movement survey results

S.No. Ex.Chainage

LocationTotal

Volume(PCU)

PeakHour

Volume(PCU)

PeakHour

Intersection type

Gradeseparatorproposed

1 85.800 (SH-35)

Kummankudi 15841 1109 06:45 –07:45

3 arm No

212.900

(SH-191A)Karaikudi 15246 901

17:00 –18:00

4 arm No

AA/HD/2145 E – 16



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E 4. PAVEMENT AND CORRIDOR SURVEYS

4.1. PAVEMENT CONDITION AND DISTRESS SEEN

The overall pavement condition varies from good to poor with high percentage of alligator

cracking and significant presence of potholes and raveling.

Table-12: Condition survey of existing pavement

Type of distress

Percentage of Severity (%)

Melur - TirupatturTirupattur – Pillayarpatti -

Karaikudi

Raveling(%) 24.30 22.58

Pot holes (%) 11.35 8.16

Edge Fretting(m) 10.00 0.00

Rut Depth(mm) 0.00 0.00

Block

cracking (%)

Wide >

3 mm0.000 0.000

Narrow <

3 mm0.00 0.00

Alligator

cracking (%)

Wide > 3

mm15.91 1.236

Narrow <

3 mm8.75 0.090

Transverse

cracking (%)

Wide > 3

mm0.000 0.000

Narrow <

3 mm0.000 0.000

Longitudinal

cracking (%)

Wide > 3

mm8.312 0.000

Narrow <

3 mm0.625 0.028

4.2. PAVEMENT COMPOSITION

The existing pavement structure is a flexible pavement consisting of sub-grade, sub-base,

granular base and bituminous top. The summary of pavement composition seen is as follows

AA/HD/2145 E – 17



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Table-13: Composition of existing pavement

S. No. Chainage(Km)

SideBitumen

(BC+DBM)Granular

BaseGranularSub-base

Total

Melur to Pillayarpatty

01 Km 27.000 RHS 150 420 180 750

02 Km 27.500 LHS 130 410 160 700

03 Km 28.000 LHS 120 390 110 620

04 Km 28.500 RHS 140 380 130 650

05 Km 29.000 RHS 120 390 200 710

06 Km 29.500 LHS 120 370 210 700

Pillayarpatty to Karaikudi

01 0.00 RHS 110 130 200 440

02 0.500 RHS 120 140 210 470

03 1.000 LHS 160 140 330 630

04 1.500 LHS 150 130 310 590

05 3.000 RHS 90 160 310 560

06 3.500 RHS 100 150 320 570

07 4.000 LHS 130 200 180 510

08 4.500 LHS 140 180 210 530

09 5.000 RHS 130 100 230 460

10 5.500 RHS 150 120 240 510

11 6.000 LHS 140 230 190 560

12 6.500 LHS 150 220 180 550

13 7.000 LHS 160 240 200 600

14 7.500 RHS 190 320 290 800

4.3. PAVEMENT STRENGTH

FWD was carried out to test strength of the existing pavement, and the 15th percentile of

moduli of subgrade, granular and bituminous layers have been calculated for project road to

enable design of overlay for the road.

AA/HD/2145 E – 18



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Table-14: 15th Percentile Back calculated Modulus Values

Section & Side 15th Percentile of Moduli for the design

Bituminous (Mpa) Granular (Mpa) Subgrade (Mpa)

Melur to Karaikudi (Km 5.000 to Km 12.500) LHS

2333 228 77

Melur to Karaikudi (Km 5.000 to Km 12.500) RHS

4307 199 77

4.4. SUB-GRADE SOIL SURVEY

Extensive review of available soil information and testing was done to understand the sub-

grade characteristics. Summary of soil investigation surveys is as follows:

Table-15: Soil Investigation Survey results

Table-16: Soil types observed

Soil Type % of length Plasticity Index Comments

Clayey Sand (SC) 80% 8 to 63 -

Silty Sand (SM) 20% Non-plastic -

AA/HD/2145 E – 19

S.no Chainage & side

Grain Size Analysis

IS Cla

ssific

ation

Atterberg Limits

FSI(%

)

Core cutter

FDD

(g/cc

)

NMC (

%)

SECTION : km. 0+000 (Melur) to km. 37+500 (Pillaiyarpatti)1 km. 27+000, RHS 7.0 6.1 26.0 27.6 33.3 SC 63 17 46 82 1.80 12.21 52 km. 28+000, LHS 15.4 13.4 22.4 20.3 28.5 SC 70 18 52 90 1.71 19.54 43 km. 29+000, RHS 10.1 10.7 26.4 16.8 36.0 SC 80 17 63 60 1.78 15.96 6

SECTION : km. 0+000 (Pillaiyarpatt) to km. 7+750 (Koviloor)1 km. 0+000, RHS 5.8 6.1 22.2 41.8 24.1 SM NP NP NP 0 1.88 3.11 72 km. 1+000, LHS 14.8 13.7 25.8 29.4 16.3 SM NP NP NP 0 1.90 3.58 93 km. 3+000, RHS 16.8 20.5 15.9 18.3 28.5 SC 32 15 17 10 1.69 10.86 64 km. 4+000, LHS 16.2 9.6 19.0 31.7 23.5 SC 21 12 09 0 1.78 3.97 95 km. 5+000, RHS 6.5 5.9 24.1 41.0 22.5 SC 19 13 06 0 1.71 2.62 76 km. 6+000, LHS 29.5 9.5 14.6 19.7 26.7 SC 33 14 19 10 1.73 10.17 87 km. 7+700, RHS 7.0 6.1 22.4 39.4 25.1 SC 19 11 08 0 1.81 3.60 10

Soak

ed CB

R at

FD

D (%

)

Gravel%

Coarse Sand

%

Medium Sand

%

Fine Sand

%

Fines%

Liquid Limit

%

Plastic Limit

%

Plasticity Index

%



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.5 IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS

5.1 PROPOSED ALIGNMENTThe proposed Project Highway starts with design chainage Km 0.000 near Melur, at the

intersection with NH-45B (Madurai - Trichy road) and ends at design chainage Km 45.855 at

the intersection with NH-210 (new NH-536) near Karaikudi. The project stretch passes through the districts of Madurai and Siva-Gangai in the state of

Tamil Nadu.

Figure 3: Map showing proposed alignment of project road

5.2 GREENFIELD ALIGNMENTS

Considering built up locations along the existing road, granite quarry near Keelayur,

Vettangudi Bird Sanctuary and poor geometry, a Greenfield Alignment is proposed from

Melur to Pillayarpatty.

Table 17: Greenfield Alignment

AA/HD/2145 E – 20



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

GreenField AlignmentDesign Chainage (Km) Design Length

(Km)From To

Melur to Tirupattur 0.000 27.100 27.100

Tirupattur to Pillayarpatty 29.700 37.970 8.270

5.3 ROAD GEOMETRY

The project road has been designed to accommodate speeds of 100kmph, adopted as per

IRC SP: 84-2014.

5.4 WIDENING SCHEME

80% of the proposed alignment is passing through greenfield. Four lane configuration is

proposed throughout the project stretch.

Based on availability of ROW and the land acquisition constraints, greenfield alignment is

proposed and summary of widening scheme is given in below table.

Table 18: Summary of widening type proposed

S.No Type of widening Length (Km)

1 Concentric 1.185

2 Eccentric, Left 1.170

3 Eccentric, Right 2.440

4 Greenfield 23.650

5 VUP/LVUP/FO Approaches 16.750

5.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN

5.5.1 Design period, loading and pavement type

Using the projected traffic, VDF values, lane and directional distribution factors, the design

traffic loading used for the project is 20 MSA.

Through preliminary design and life cycle comparisons, the flexible type of pavement was

chosen for construction with a design life of 15 years as per IRC: 37-2012 has been

considered for design.

5.5.2 Design sub-grade strength

Considering the soil investigations conducted in the project road area and the availability of

suitable soil in the region, the following sub-grade strength has been assumed to vary from

5% to 10% for various sections of the highway.

AA/HD/2145 E – 21



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

5.5.3 PAVEMENT COMPOSITION FOR NEW CARRIAGEWAY

5.5.3.1 Flexible Pavement

The proposed pavement composition for the project corridor according to IRC:37-2012 is as

given below:

Table 19: Proposed pavement composition

SectionDesign Chainage Design MSA

(15 yrs)CBR(%)

Crust Composition in mm

Start End BC DBM WBM GSB Total1 0.000 38.000 20.0 10 40 80 250 200 570

2 38.000 45.855 20.0 10 40 80 250 200 570

5.5.3.2 Rigid Pavement

Rigid pavement for entire project corridor including toll plaza is designed in accordance with

IRC:58-2015.

Table 20: Rigid Pavement Crust Composition

S.No ItemRigid pavement with Tied concrete shoulders

HS-1 HS-2

1 PQC of M40 grade, mm 260 280

2 DLC of M10 grade, mm 150 150

3 GSB, mm 150 150

4 Dia. of Dowel bar, mm 40 40

5 Length of Dowel bar, mm 500 500

6 Spacing of Dowel bar, mm 300 300

7 Dia. of Tie bar, mm (Plain bars)

12 12

8 Length of tie bar, mm 580 580

9 Spacing of tie bar, mm 465 400

5.5.4 Strengthening of existing pavement

The strengthening requirements for the existing pavement have been estimated by Falling

Weight Deflectometer survey. The design overlay proposed is as below:

Table 21: Overlay thickness required

AA/HD/2145 E – 22



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Section & SideLife of Pavement after Overlay Proposed Overlay

thicknessFatigue Rutting

Melur to Karaikudi (Km. 5.000to Km. 12.500) LHS

49.53 msa 272.09 msa 50 mm

Melur to Karaikudi (Km. 5.000to Km. 12.500) RHS

85.90 msa 397.37 msa 50 mm

5.5.5 Pavement design for service lanes

Pavement for service lanes is designed for MSA of 10 with a design CBR of 10%. The

composition for the flexible service lane pavement along the project corridor is as follows:

Table-22: Pavement Composition for Service Road

S.No Pavement composition Design thickness(mm)

Total thickness(mm)

1 Bituminous Concrete (BC) 40

5402 Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) 50

3 Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) 250

4 Granular Sub-Base (GSB) 200

5.6 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

Along the project stretch, there are several bridges, culverts, under/overpasses and

flyovers. A summary of the total number and proposed additions is given in the table below

Table-23: Proposed improvement to structures along project road

S.No.

Structure Dismantle &Reconstruction

Retain &Widen

NewConstruction

Total

1 Major Bridge - - 9 9

2 Minor Bridge - 1 18 19

3 Box Culvert 11 6 55 72

4 Trumpet - - 1 1

5 Flyover - - 1 1

6 Vehicle overpass - - 1 1

7 Vehicle underpass - - 9 9

8 Vehicle underpass (SVUP) - - 12 12

9 Vehicle underpass (LVUP) - - 1 1

AA/HD/2145 E – 23



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

5.7 INTERSECTIONS AND GRADE SEPARATORS

The details of major junctions and grade separated structures are represented in below

tables:

Table-24: List of Major Junctions

S.NoExisting

Chainage(Km)

DesignChainage

(Km)

Type ofIntersection

Leads to Village

Left Right

1 - 29.816 +Tirupattur,Pudukkottai

Panayampatti

2 12.900 45.855 + Trichy Madurai

Table-25: List of Grade separated structures

S. NoDesign Chainage

(Km)Span (m)

Type ofStructure

Name of IntersectingRoad

1 0.433 2 X 30 X 5.5 Trumpet NH 38 (old NH 45B)

2 0.760 1 X 20 X 5.5 VUP -

3 2.157 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUP Filed Track

4 4.598 1 x 15 x 5.5 VUP Keeliyur toThaniyamangalam

5 7.115 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUPKeeliyur to

Thaniyamangalam Road

6 8.978 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUP Kongampatti to AriyurpattiRoad

7 10.331 1 x 20 x 5.5 VUPKongampatti to

Jeyankondanilai Road

8 11.622 1 X 7 X 4.0 SVUP E.Malampatti tojeyankondanilai Road

9 14.325 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUPErumaipatti to Nainappatti

Road

10 15.700 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUP Mampatti Road

11 16.080 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUPErumaipatti to Mampatti

Road

12 17.063 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUP Erumaipatti to MampattiRoad

AA/HD/2145 E – 24



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

S. NoDesign Chainage

(Km) Span (m)Type of

StructureName of Intersecting

Road

13 19.160 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUP Sevalpatti to MampattiRoad

14 19.914 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUPSevalpatti to Mampatti

Road

15 20.540 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUP Kundenthalpatti toTirukostiyur Road

16 26.110 2 x 30 x 5.5 FOThirupattur to Tirukostiyur

Road

17 27.508 1 x 7 x 4.0 SVUP RanasingapuramKattambur Road

18 29.816 1 x 30 x 5.5 VUPThirupattur to

Themmapatti Road

19 33.744 2 x 30 x 5.5 VOP Thirupattur to ThalakavurRoad

20 36.900 1 x 12 x 4.0 LVUPPillayarpatty Kilamadam

Road

21 40.582 1 X 15 X 5.5 VUP Kundrakudi Road

22 44.400 1 X 15 X 5.5 VUP Patharaikudi Road

5.8 TOLL PLAZAS

Based on the traffic surveys, O-D surveys and layout of project road, One toll plaza has

been proposed along the project road. and the same mentioned in the table

Table 26: Location of Toll Plaza

Location

Location of Toll Plaza Minimum number of Toll lanes

Existingchainage (Km)

Designchainage (Km)

Entry Exit

Brahmanapatti - 22.000 7+1 7+1

5.9 WAYSIDE AMENITIES PROPOSED

A summary of the improvements proposed is given below.

AA/HD/2145 E – 25



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Table 27: Proposed user amenities along project stretch

S.No Amenity type Proposed

1 Rest Areas 1

2 Truck lay-byes 4

3 Bus bays 2

4 Bus shelters 16

AA/HD/2145 E – 26



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 IMPACT AND CLEARANCES NEEDED

An environmental impact study was undertaken during the process of creating the detailed

project report to understand impact of the project road on the surrounding ecology and

environment. The proposed project stretch neither falls under Category-A nor Category-B.

Hence, Environmental Clearance is not required for this project.

A summary of the environmental impact and clearances required is provided below

Table 28: Environmental impact and clearances required

S.No Impact Type Description

1Environmental Clearances

Not required as project stretch neither falls under Category-A nor Category-B.

2 Wildlife Clearances

As per the MoEF vide its OM No.Z-11012/5/2012-IA.II (T)

dated 02.07.2012 has clarified that project falling in Eco-

sensitive zones around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries,

which are not covered under EIA Notification, 2006 and which

do not require environmental clearance, would also not require

prior approval of the Standing Committee of National Board of

Wildlife. Hence, Wild Life clearance is not required for this

project.

6.2 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION

The design and construction of the project involves a number of items such as erosion

prevention, rehabilitation of borrow areas, safety signage, etc., which are included in the

contract cost. Only those items that are not covered under the budget for construction are

shown in the EMP implementation budget. The Budget for Environmental Management Plan for

Items to be covered in BoQs works out to Rs. 46.78 Crores.

AA/HD/2145 E – 27



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.7 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND LAND ACQUISITION

The proposed project highway consists of Green and Brown field alignments. As most of the

alignment is of greenfield, there is requirement for land acquisition.

Preliminary interactions have been held with locals to understand their issues and concerns

and help communicate the project plan and its impact on them.

Table 29: Village wise Project Impact & Requirement of Land in Hectares

Sl.No.

Village Taluk DistrictLand to beacquired inHectares

Percentage(%)

Mellur-Pillayarpatti Section

1 Navinipatti Melur Madurai 19.983 8.018

2 Sathamangalam Melur Madurai 1.837 0.737

3 Thaniyamangalam Melur Madurai 0.581 0.233

4 Suruguvalaiyapatti Melur Madurai 8.990 3.607

5 Keelaiyur Melur Madurai 14.174 5.687

6 Keelavalavu Melur Madurai 15.025 6.028

7 Melur Melur Madurai 1.305 0.524

8 E.Mallampatti Melur Madurai 20.753 8.327

9 Mampatti North Singampunari Sivaganga 22.437 9.002

10 Mampatti South Singampunari Sivaganga 1.884 0.756

11 Nainapatti Singampunari Sivaganga 9.221 3.700

12 Vaniyankadu Melur Madurai 12.811 5.140

13 Sirukudalpatti Tirupattur Sivaganga 19.348 7.763

14 Tenkarai Tirupattur Sivaganga 13.237 5.311

15 Thenmapattu Tirupattur Sivaganga 6.281 2.520

16 Brahmanapatti Tirupattur Sivaganga 22.248 8.927

17 Kattambur Tirupattur Sivaganga 4.993 2.003

18 Pattakurichi Tirupattur Sivaganga 7.183 2.882

19 Tevarambur Tirupattur Sivaganga 8.495 3.408

20 Thanipatti Tirupattur Sivaganga 2.4877 0.998

Pillayarpatti- Karaikudi Section

21 Managirisukkanendal Karaikudi Madurai 6.627 2.659

22 Kunnakuddi Tirupattur Sivaganga 19.521 7.832

23 Siravayal Tirupattur Sivaganga 9.697 3.891

24 Thattati Tirupattur Sivaganga 0.118 0.047

Total Land in Hectares 249.237 100.000

AA/HD/2145 E – 28



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.8 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES

The cost estimates for the project have been prepared based on detail designs, bill of

quantities and the schedule of rates for Tamil Nadu state for the year 2018-19.

Table 29: Summary of project cost

BILLNo

BILL NAMETotal cost in

crores % of

total cost

Civil Construction cost

1 SITE CLEARANCE AND DISMANTLING 3.25 0.43%

2 EARTH WORKS 151.47 20.18%

3 BASE COURSES 124.03 16.53%

4 PAVING COURSES 102.86 13.71%

5a REPAIR AND REHABILATION OF STRUCTURES 0.21 0.03%

5b BRIDGES 134.20 17.88%

5c CULVERTS 27.91 3.72%

5d VUP AND PUP 23.87 3.18%

5eROB, RUB, FLYOVER, VIADUCT AND OVERPASS, INTERCHANGE

18.90 2.52%

5f DRAINAGE, PROTECTIVE WORKS AND OTHER SERVICES

45.85 6.11%

5g REINFORCED EARTH AND TOE WALLS 65.34 8.71%

6 JUNCTIONS AND INTERCHANGES 0.52 0.07%

7 TOLL PLAZA 7.96 1.06%

8 USER AMENITIES 3.87 0.52%

9 TRAFFIC SIGNS, MARKINGS AND APPURTENANCES 10.82 1.44%

10 MISCELLANEOUS 29.20 3.89%

11 MAINTENANCE OF ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION 0.27 0.04%

A Total Civil Cost 750.52

12 Add contingencies @ 2.8% on civil construction cost 21.01

B Estimated project cost 771.54

13Construction supervision @ 1% on civil construction cost

7.51

AA/HD/2145 E – 29



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

BILLNo

BILL NAMETotal cost in

crores % of

total cost

14 Agency charges @ 2% on civil construction cost 15.01

15 Quality control changes @ 1% on civil construction cost

7.51

16Road safety cell audit charges @ 0.5% on civil construction cost

3.75

17 Maintenance costs @ 5% on civil construction cost 37.53

18 Escalation @ 5% per annum for 2 years i.e., 10% on civil construction cost

75.05

C Total Project Cost 917.89

19 Environment Cost 46.78

20 Cost of shifting utilities 16

21 LA compensation cost 200

D Total capital cost 1180.67

AA/HD/2145 E – 30



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E.9 MATERIAL INVESTIGATION

Material investigations were carried out to explore the availability and identify sources of suitable material for the construction of the road.

10.1 BORROW PITS FOR SOIL

Total six borrow areas in Melur-Pillayarpatty section and two in Pillayarapatty-Karaikudi section were identified in the vicinity of the project road

and representative samples have been collected and tested in the laboratory.

Along the corridor, most of the soils fall under the category of Clayey sand and clayey gravel. For these soils, MDD ranges from 1.93 g/cc to 2.27

g/cc, soaked CBR value ranges from 5.0% to 25.0%. These soils are good for embankment fill as well as for sub-grade construction.

Table-30: Test results of Borrow Area

S.N

o.

Ch

ain

ag

e

Sid

e

Grain Size Analysis

IS C

lass

ific

ati

on Atterberg Limits

FS

I (%

)

Proctor test

So

aked

CB

R (

%)

Gra

vel

Co

ars

e S

an

d

Med

ium

San

d

Fin

e s

an

d

Fin

es

LL %

PL %

PI

%

MD

D (

g/c

c)

OM

C (

%)

Km 0.000(Melur) to Km 37.500 (Pillayarapatty)

1 0+000 RHS 0.7 2.6 28.1 46.7 21.9 SC 20 14 6 0 2.10 7.50 15 2 8+700 LHS 4.4 8.7 18.6 23.3 45.0 SC 37 18 19 30 1.96 12.10 13

3 15+800 RHS 52.3 10.2 11.7 15.7 10.1 GW-GM NP NP NP 0 2.27 5.40 25

4 20+000 RHS 10.3 16.0 43.6 14.7 15.4 SC 43 21 22 60 2.08 8.45 85 27+000 RHS 8.6 9.0 20.2 28.1 34.1 SC 42 15 27 80 2.04 10.15 5

AA/HD/2145 E – 31



EXECUTIVE SUMMARYS

.No.

Ch

ain

ag

e

Sid

e

Grain Size Analysis

IS C

lass

ific

ati

on Atterberg Limits

FS

I (%

)

Proctor test

So

aked

CB

R (

%)

Gra

vel

Co

ars

e S

an

d

Med

ium

San

d

Fin

e s

an

d

Fin

es

LL %

PL %

PI

%

MD

D (

g/c

c)

OM

C (

%)

6 33+500 LHS 0.0 0.6 27.9 39.8 31.7 SC 31 14 17 10 2.03 9.20 13Km 0.000 (Pillayarapatty) to Km 7.750 (Koviloor)

1 1+000 RHS 9.6 21.3 30.1 7.7 31.3 SC 48 24 24 20 1.94 12.35 12 2 6+500 RHS 4.6 7.0 21.3 23.4 43.7 SC 36 19 17 0 1.93 11.50 12

10.2 FLYASH

One flyash sample was identified in the vicinity of the project road and representative samples have been collected and tested in the laboratory.

Test results of the flyash sample is represented in the below table.

AA/HD/2145 E – 32



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table-31: Test results of Flyash sample

S.N

o.

Ch

ain

ag

e

Sid

e

Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits

FS

I (%

)

Proctor test

So

aked

CB

R (

%)

Gra

vel

Co

ars

e S

an

d

Med

ium

San

d

Fin

e s

an

d

Fin

es

LL %

PL %

PI

%

MD

D (

g/c

c)

OM

C (

%)


1 0+000 RHS 0.00 0.30 14.22 57.80 27.70 NP NP NP 0 1.21 26.00 4Km 0.000 (Pillayarapatty) to Km 7.750 (Koviloor)

2 7+750 RHS 0.00 0.30 14.22 57.80 27.70 NP NP NP 0 1.21 26.00 4

AA/HD/2145 E – 33



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

10.3 GRAVEL

Two sources for coarse aggregate materials were identified in the vicinity of the project road.

Summary of test results of aggregates is represented in the below table.

Table-32: Summary of Test results of Aggregates

S.No. Chainage SideSpecificgravity

WaterAbsorption

(%)AIV (%) Suitability


137+500(MQ 1)

LHS 2.85 0.20 30.46 Suitable only for GSB

237+500(MQ 2)

LHS 2.85 0.11 23.84Suitable for all

bituminous non-bituminous works

Km 0.000 (Pillayarapatty) to Km 7.750 (Koviloor)

1 0+000(MQ 1)

LHS 2.85 0.20 30.46 Suitable only for GSB

20+000(MQ 2) LHS 2.85 0.11 23.84

Suitable for allbituminous non-bituminous works

From the test results in can be concluded that the crushed aggregates obatined from MQ 1 is

suitable only for GSB where as that from MQ 2 satisfy the limits specified in MORT&H for all

bituminous, non-bituminous works such as BM, BC, WMM, GSB and Structural Concrete.

10.4 SAND

Two sand sources were identified in the vicinity of the project road. These sources are located

on the riverside and satisfies the requirement of zone-II & III. Summary of test results of

aggregates is represented in the below table.

Table-33: Summary of Test results of Sand

S.No Chainage Side ZoneFinenessModulus

SpecificGravity

WaterAbsorption

(%)


1 0+000 (SQ 1) RHS II 3.16 2.62 0.29

Km 0.000 (Pillayarapatty) to Km 7.750 (Koviloor)

1 0+000 (SQ 1) LHS III 2.07 2.61 0.32

AA/HD/2145 E – 34



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

10.5 LOCATION OF MATERIAL SOURCES

Figure 4: Masshaul diagram for Melur-Pillayarpatty section

AA/HD/2145 E – 35



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Figure 5: Masshaul diagram for Pillayarpatty-Koviloor (Karaikudi) section

AA/HD/2145 E – 36



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.10 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

11.1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT

The EIRR and NPV of the project has been carried out using discounted cash flow

technique under multiple scenarios.

The various sensitivity scenarios considered were as follows:

Case-I Base Cost and Base Benefits

Case-II Base Cost plus 15 % and Base Benefits

Case-III Base Cost and Base Benefits minus 15%

Case-IV Base cost plus 15% and Base Benefits minus 15%

Summary for the Sensitivity analysis for the three sections are given below:

Table-34: Sensitivity Analysis (20 years)

Case HS-1 HS-2 Total Package

Case-I 20.5 17.2 20.0

Case-II 17.6 15.3 18.3

Case-III 17.2 15.1 18.0

Case-IV 14.4 13.3 16.6

The results for the improvement scheme are presented below:

Table-35: EIRR & NPV

Total PackageEIRR (%) NPV (Cr.)

20 Year 30 Years 20 Year 30 Years

HS-1 20.5 21.6 411.5 632.6

HS-2 17.2 18.7 49.1 86.4

Total Package 20.0 21.2 461.9 720.4

From the results of the Economic Analysis, it can be seen that the improvement scheme, the

EIRR is getting higher than minimum threshold value of 12%.

So it can be concluded that the project of four lane with paved shoulder option is economically

viable and recommended for implementation.

AA/HD/2145 E – 37



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

11.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

11.2.1 Potential for toll revenue

The classified traffic volume count data collected has been analyzed to assess the traffic

intensity at the proposed toll plaza location. The summary of Annual Average Daily Traffic

(AADT in number of vehicles) at the proposed toll plaza location is given below.

Table-36:Tollable Traffic at Toll plaza location

At Toll PlazaLocation

Tollable Traffic

Cars M. Bus Bus LCV 2 AT 3 AT M AT M. LCV Total

Design chainage Km 22.000

2619 102 673 235 307 82 79 536 4635

11.2.2 Results of Financial analysis

Table-37:Financial Analysis results

Tolling Lengths(km) Grant

(%)Concession

PeriodCivil Cost in

Cr. Year 2018Project FIRR

(%)Equity

FIRR (%)From To Length

0.000 45.855 45.855 40 20 750.52 0.46% -

AA/HD/2145 E – 38



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.11 EXECUTION PLAN

In consultation with NHAI, it is proposed to complete the proposed project road in a period of

24 months. Planning for the project packaging, bidding process and construction was

conducted as a part of this project.

12.1 PACKAGING

Given the length of the project, the entire project is planned to be bid out in single package.

12.2 BIDDING MODE AND TIMELINES

The authority has proposed to initiate bidding of the project under EPC mode. The tentative

timelines for this are

• Submission of bid documents to authority Submitted

• Review and finalization of documents Completed

• Launch of tender Tenders were called

• Tender close date Not Known

• Tentative date for award of project December, 2018

12.3 CONSTRUCTION TIME AND PLANNING

Upon reviewing the improvements planned and in consultation with NHAI, the design and

construction period for this project has been arrived at 24 months from the date of

appointment of the contractor/concessionaire. To enable this construction schedule, a detailed

construction plan and timeline has been included in the detailed project report. This also

includes a traffic management and lane closure plan for the period of construction.

AA/HD/2145 E – 39



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

E.12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Construction of Four Lane Divided Highway From Melur To Karaikudi Under Bharatmala

Pariyojana, Phase I, in The State of Tamil Nadu is recommended for implementation on EPC

Mode as the project is likely to provide enhanced connectivity and reduce the travel time

between Madurai-Thanjavur and Madurai-Karaikudi with improved level of service.

A minimum return on equity of around 15% could be considered satisfying the requirement of

prospective concessionaire. The project is not yielding any return on equity even with 40%

grant and 20 years concession period. In view of this, it can be concluded that the option with

BOT (Toll) is not viable for taking up the project on BOT -Toll basis.

In view of the above it is recommended to taken up the project on one EPC Mode.

Table 38: Salient features and key financial aspects of the project road

Project road lengthProject road length 45.855 Km

Connecting Melur – Karaikudi

on National Highway• NH-338 (0.000 to 37.970) • NH-383 Extn. (37.970 to 45.855)

Project Features Current road Proposed roadLanes 2 4

Realignments proposed - 4

Major junctions 1 2

Minor junctions 3 6

Trumpets - 1

Flyovers - 1

Major bridges 1 9

Minor bridges 2 19

ROBs - -

Culverts 28 72

Vehicle Underpasses including LVUP &SVUP

- 19

Vehicle overpasses 1 1

Service roads(Kms) - 6.180

Slip roads(Kms) - 21.440

Toll plazas(No.) - 1

Bus bays(No.) - 2

Bus shelters(No.) - 16

AA/HD/2145 E – 40



EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Truck lay-byes(No.) - 4

Rest Areas(No.) - 1

Financial Implications INR cr.Total capital cost 1180.67

Total project cost 917.89

Civil construction cost (Incl. Contingency) 771.54

Pre-construction expensesLand Acquisition 200

Utilities shifting 16

Environment Cost 46.78

Implementation mode proposed EPC

Total project cost 917.89

Concession period 20

Authority Support(Grant/Premium) -

Estimated NPV 461.9

Project IRR 0.46%

Equity IRR -

AA/HD/2145 E – 41

E. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYenvironmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Online/TOR/30...Tirupattur - Karaikudi...

Documents

Transcript of E. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYenvironmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Online/TOR/30...Tirupattur - Karaikudi...