FacilitationFacilitation of Transport of Transport Cooperation among CAREC Cooperation among CAREC

CountriesCountries

Final ReportJanuary 2007

Objective

• Undertake/update pre-feasibility studies– To determine whether there is a potential project

• Three corridors– Bishkek –Tourgart Pass – Kashi

• linking Kyrgyzstan and China

– Angren–Gulistan in Uzbekistan, and– Dushanbe – Tursunzade road in Tajikistan

• (Initially Oybek–Pungan road)

• Identify rural roads for inclusion• Emphasis on economic growth from trade rather

than direct impact on poverty

Project RoadsLocation Map

Afghanistan

K yrgyz Republic

Peoples Republic of China

K azakhstan

Uzbekistan

Tajikistan

Project Road

Legend

Railway

• Review of previous studies

• Survey of current road condition

• Engineering cost estimates

• Economic analysis– Traffic counts /demand forecasts– Benefit estimation

• Social / poverty impact analysis

• Environmental impact analysis

Tasks

Work program

• Project commenced May 2006– Based in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

• Inception Report June • Field visits July – August

– Surveys undertaken by local consultants in each country

• Draft Final Report September– Uzbek component extended to include additional

option on new alignment

• Final Report January 2007

Bishkek-Torugart-Kashi

Option Considered

• “Upgrading option” was based on previous studies– Basically upgrading of the existing route

• Upgrading would involve: – Reconstruction over some sections– Improve geometry in some locations– Sealing of the section south of At Bashi

• Sub-options in some areas – Deviation between km 103 and km 117– Kuvaky Pass– Landslide areas

• Other options not ruled out – Eg retention as a gravel road

Unstable slopes and poor geometry

Existing main road

Railway

Landslide

AlternateAlternate route route

Steep gradients and tight curves over the Kuvaky Pass

Surface in poor condition South of Naryn

Gravel road in very poor condition near Torugart

Cost estimates

• Based on figures supplied by MOTC and Kyrgyzdortransproject

• Central estimate

• Do not allow for full reconstruction

• Geotechnical and topographical surveys will be needed for feasibility/detailed design

Cost Estimate$ million

Length Pavement Structures Other Design Total

Bishkek -Chim Korgon 73 13.4 2.1 2.5 2.2 22.2

Chim Korgon -Kuvaky pass 65 6.3 1.7 15.0 2.9 25.9

Kuvaky Pass 26 1.1 1.0 11.6 2.4 16.1

Kuvaky Pass -Shar Pass 152 13.5 1.0 38.9 4.2 57.7

Shar Pass -Torugart 172 20.6 2.1 14.6 4.2 41.5

Torugart - Kashi 110 0.1 0.7 22.1 2.3 25.3

Total 598 55.0 8.7 104.8 18.2 186.7

Traffic FlowsTraffic Flows

• The benefits are heavily dependent on trafficThe benefits are heavily dependent on traffic

• Traffic counts and origin / destination surveys Traffic counts and origin / destination surveys undertaken by Kyrgyzdortransprojectundertaken by Kyrgyzdortransproject

Adjusted traffic countvehicles per day

Location 1997 2005 2006 2020

Bishkek bypass

2,683

3,874

2,253

5,400

ChimKorgon

5,635

4,808

11,500

Kuvaki pass 944 600

1,400

Kochkor

1,628

1,326 683

1,600

Naryn

2,155

1,062

1,015

2,400

At-bashy 565 167 299

700

Origin Destination

Issyk Kul Kochkor Naryn At-Bashi Torugart China

Russia 101

Almaty 532

Bishkek 1,681 255 283 130 54 69

Chuy 280 112 58 21 6

Issyk Kul 163 97 45

Kochkor 158 16 16

Naryn 29 1

At-Bashi 164

Economic rate of return

Cost $M return

Bishkek -Chim Korgon 20.2 26%

Chim Churgon -Kuvaky pass 25.9 23%

Kuvaky Pass 16.1 1%

Kuvaky Pass -Shar Pass 57.6 11%

Shar Pass -Torugart 41.5 11%

161.2 15%

Torugart - Kashi 25.3 29%

Overall Total 186.7 17%

Social impact

• Existing right of way – Social impact likely to be small

• Reaction to proposal almost entirely positive• Further work is needed on

– Public consultation– Gender analysis– Assessment of poverty impact– HIV /Aids– Involvement of locals in construction work

Environmental impact

• Existing right of way– Impact will be small

• The road passes close to Chatyr-Kul Lake, a Ramsar site– It is recommended that the project be classified “A”

• There are also trans-boundary issues• The pre-feasibility study should be subjected to

a State Environmental Review.

Border issues

Trucks wait for the post to open

Trucks queuing at the Chinese outpost

Border Issues

• Reputation for unpredictability– closed on weekends and holidays– only open limited hours

• Number of vehicles controlled by permits– bilateral agreement on number of crossings

• Not officially open to ‘third parties’• Kyrgyz drivers complain they are prevented from

accessing China– in theory access rights are reciprocal

• Border fees could be used to maintain the road

Conclusions Bishkek-Kashi• There appears to be a viable project

– The project should proceed to the feasibility study stage– Other options should be investigated at that time

• The Bishkek-Issyk Kul road has the highest return– this could be seen as a separate project– Naryn – Torugart is most important for regional trade.

• Current procedures constrain cross border travel– Increasing opening hours would reduce delays– The permit system should be abolished– Transit fees could be used for road maintenance

• There do not appear to be significant social issues• Because of the fragile environment around Chatyr-Kul

Lake, it is recommended that the Project be category “A”– this would require an EIA.

Uzbekistan Angren - Gulistan

Angren – GulistanEastern section

Angren GulistanCentral section

Angren GulistanWestern section

Options Considered

• Two options considered– Upgrading existing route with minor re-alignment and bypasses – New alignment

• Improvement of current road not considered practical• Upgrading would involve:

– Bypasses of main towns and settlements– Duplication of current road– Could be constructed in phases

• New alignment – New alignment south of current route– Avoids inhabited areas– Links to M39 further south

• Other options not ruled out

The route is unsigned and involves 90o turns

Four lanes un-divided carriageway near Angren

Junction of 4P-2 and M-373 near Ahangaren

M373 To Angren

Cost estimates

• Based on figures supplied by I/K/S

• Central estimate

• More geotechnical and topographical surveys will be needed for feasibility/ detailed design

Cost EstimateRe-align and improve current route $ million

Pavement / reconstruction

New construction

Structures Total

Angren - Almalyk 5.9 5.2 11.1

Almalyk bypass 0.2 10.8 0.8 11.8

Almalyk -Buka 3.2 7.7 11.1

Buka bypass 10.8 5.2 16.0

Buka – M-34 17.3 13.8 31.1

Gulistan bypass 23.6 8.8 32.3

Total 26.6 66.8 20.0 113.4

Cost EstimateNew Alignment $ million

New Construction

Structures Total

Angren Almalyk 111.3 20.5 131.8

Almalyk –Sirdarya Bridge

111.0 29.5 140.5

Sirdarya Bridge – M34

44.4 29.6 74.0

M34 – M39 83.2 80.9 164.1

Total 160.4 350.0 510.4

Traffic Flows

• Benefits are heavily traffic- dependent • Traffic counts and origin / destination surveys

were undertaken at:– Beskostina (between Angren and Almalyk)– Buka– Segizbaev (near Sirdarya bridge)

• Easing of border restrictions could result in much greater regional traffic

Adjusted traffic countvehicles per day

Animal/ small car/van bus/mini truck

large truck total

Segizbaev

6

1,083 40

52 163

1,344

Buka

41

1,337 111

75 149

1,713

Beskostina

30

13,960 1,170 393

673

16,226

Traffic via Buka is very small compared with that at Beskostina

Origin Destination(2 way flows by route – vehicles /day)

Total

Fergana valley

Angren Almalyk Tashkent Buka Gulistan Beyond

Direct

Fergana V 537 6,000 0 2,824 2,669

Angren 2,071 909 335 2,849 542

Almalyk 800 225 1,373 304

Buka 481 154

Gulistan 567 52 329 134 481

Beyond519 67 88 117 154

Half the traffic is going between Angren and Gulistan (blue shaded),

But only a small proportion is on the direct route (lower quadrant)

Comparisondaily traffic by route

  Direct Total percent

Car/van 1336 9678 14%

Bus/minibus 59 233 25%

Truck 51 247 21%

Truck – 3 Axle 108 323 33%

Multi-axle 58 80 73%

Total 1,612 10,561 15%

Only 15% of total traffic is using the direct route, but 73% of large vehicles use the direct route

Potential traffic

• Half the traffic between Angren and Almalyk is travelling to Gulistan or beyond

• Most cars currently travel via Tashkent because it is faster (the roads are better)

• Most heavy vehicles use the direct route because it is significantly shorter

• It is likely that most potential traffic would switch to an improved direct route

• International traffic would use the route if border restrictions were eased

Economic rate of return

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Angren to Almalyk 79% 8%

Almalyk bypass 28%

3%

Almalyk to Boka 16%

Boka bypass 18%

Boka to Sirdarya Bridge

17%Sirdara bridge to M34 -1%

Gulistan bypass / M34 – M39 31% 9%

Overall 31% 6%

There is clearly a project worth fundingAlternative 2 may be viable with more international traffic

Social impact

• The social impacts is expected to be minimal• Reaction to the proposal was mostly positive

– Some concern about extra traffic on the existing route

• The new alignment would have less resettlement but greater land loss

• Further work is needed on resettlement and other impacts at the feasibility stage

Environmental impact

• Both options will have land acquisition impacts– Both use land currently in agricultural uses– The project would be classified “A”– All impacts likely to be mitigatable

• The pre-feasibility study should be subjected to a State Environmental Review.

Border Issues

• Currently regional and international traffic is minimal– Some Turkish and Iranian trucks were observed

• The route has potential as an important international route

• The recommendations are based on current traffic, but anticipate regional trade– A phased approach is possible with Alternative 1

• Border fees could be used to maintain the road

Conclusions for Uzbekistan• There is a viable project that ADB or other agencies

could support– Alternative 2 requires more research to justify the additional cost

• Current border procedures constrain regional travel– Regional trade would boost traffic numbers– The design should anticipate future regional traffic

• There do not appear to be significant social issues– Growth of traffic on the existing roads would be undesirable– Resettlement would be less with alternative 2, but there would

be more land acquisition • The Project would be environmental category “A” under

either option– this will require an EIA.

UzbekistanTadjikistan

Duchanbe (km

0)

Gissar Junction (km

14)

Sach rin

av (km 36)

Tursunzade (km

42)

Border (km

60)

L = 14 km

L = 22 kmL = 6 km

L = 18 km

Alternative-2 Route

Alternative-1 Route

L = 60 km

Dushanbe - Tursunzade RoadLocation Map

Alternative-1 Route Alternative-2 Route

TajikistanDushanbe Tursunzade

Alternatives Considered

• Two alternatives were considered– Upgrading the existing route– Upgrade plus new alignment to bypass main towns

• The existing route – Improve geometry– Reconstruction over some sections (20 -40%)– Passing lanes within current right of way.

• The new alignment– New road bypassing Gissar junction and Sachrinav– Elsewhere using existing route– Four lanes

• Other options not ruled out

Gissar turnoff

Much of the right of way is wide and passing lanes could be provided

Open farmland – probable route of Alternative -2

Export grapes go by local roads to Export grapes go by local roads to the railheadthe railhead

Cost estimates

• Rates based on discussion with Tajikgiprotransstroy

• Central estimate

• Do not allow for full reconstruction of existing road

• Geotechnical and topographical surveys will be needed for feasibility/detailed design

Existing Alignmentcost $ million

End pointRepair

cost New work Design Total

Gissar Junction 2.18 2.60 0.80 5.58

Sachrinav 4.40 4.40 1.06 9.88

Tursunzade 1.39 0.60 0.32 2.32

Border 4.18 0.27 0.96 5.41

Total 12.16 7.88 3.14 23.18

New alignmentcost $ million

End PointRepair existing

Widen existing

New Structures

New road Design Total

Gissar Junction 0.14 5.99 2.64 2.48 2.65 13.99

Sachrinav 0.84 4.54 3.96 4.37 3.45 17.70

Tursunzade - 4.41 3.52 1.01 2.44 11.38

Border 1.39 8.89 1.98 6.36 3.92 23.44

Total 2.37 23.82 12.10 14.22 12.46 66.52

Traffic FlowsTraffic Flows

• The benefits are heavily dependent on The benefits are heavily dependent on traffictraffic

• Traffic counts and origin / destination Traffic counts and origin / destination surveys undertaken by Tajikgiprotransstroysurveys undertaken by Tajikgiprotransstroy

• Current traffic is heavy near Dushanbe, but Current traffic is heavy near Dushanbe, but is light beyond the Tursumzade turnoff.is light beyond the Tursumzade turnoff.

• If impediments to cross border traffic are If impediments to cross border traffic are relaxed, much greater flows are likely.relaxed, much greater flows are likely.

Origin Destinationdaily trips (both directions)

Shahrinav Gissar Dushanbeother Tajikistan

Uzbek border - - 140 10

Tursunzade 1,350 510 2,280 70

Shahrinav 150 710 120

Gissar 1,620 60

Dushanbe 30

Economic rate of return

Section

EIRR Option 1

EIRR Option 2

NPV 2 – 1

$ million

Dushanbe to Gissar turn 54% 26% 6

Gissar turn to Shahrinav 56% 36% 8

Shahrinav to Tursumzade 44% 12% -4

Tursumzade to Border 16% -2% -11

Overall 47% 20%

Possible option

• A possible option would be a combination of option 1 and option 2 – New alignment from Dushanbe to Shahrinav – Existing alignment from Shahrinav to border

• Shahrinav by-pass?– to be resolved

• Cost of this option is $40 million with EIRR of 35 percent.

Local Roads

• The Consultant team inspected a number of local roads

• These provide essential access from adjacent agricultural land– Some are also alternatives to the regional

road

• There appears to be a good case for including some local roads in the Project

Social impact

• The social impacts are likely to be minor• Reaction to the proposal was mostly

positive, but concerns were raised about the effect of extra traffic

• Alternative-2 would be preferable as it avoids built up areas but it would require land acquisition

• Further work is needed on resettlement and other impacts at the feasibility stage

Environmental impact

• Work in the existing right of way will have minimal impact

• Alternative 2 may have some impact• Based on ADB environmental guidelines and

those of the Ministry of Nature Protection– option 1 would be category “B”– option 2 category “A”. (requires a full EIA)– the combined option would also be “A”.

• The pre-feasibility study needs to be subjected to a State Environmental Review.

Border issues

Border Issues

• Little traffic crosses the border with Uzbekistan• There are long delays for vehicles

– four hours or more for passenger vehicles– Sometimes days for trucks (TIR not always observed)– and a long walk for people crossing on foot

• Charges are based on country of origin– Uzbekistan charges $400 +$90 insurance for foreign

vehicles – $130 for CIS vehicles– A regional approach is required

• Problem is procedures and costs not infrastructure

Conclusions Tajikistan• There is a viable project that ADB or other development

agencies could support• The preferred option would be

– new alignment/widening between Dushanbe and Shahrinav– Improve existing road between Shahrinav and the border– the option considered would cost about $40 million

• Current border procedures constrain cross border travel– Relaxation could make further road improvements viable– These road improvements could be a later stage

• Repairing local access roads would increase the impact on the local economy and reduce poverty

• There do not appear to be significant social or environmental issues but it will need an EIA.

Overall Conclusions

• There are viable projects for all three roads – The total cost ranges from $355 million to $760 million– A possible subset of projects for funding would cost $220 million

• Border issues are key to increasing traffic– Only on the Torugart pass route is international traffic significant– All routes have potential for increased trade

• Local connector roads in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan would increase benefits to local people.

• Increased international traffic could adversely affect host nations.– Transit fees at borders could help pay for maintaining the roads– This should be a regionally agreed mass-distance charge