Decision on Padma funding after talks with Japan govt: Jaica

Japan International Cooperation Agency (Jaica), another co-financer of Padma bridge project, in a statement on Monday said it would take decision on the project after having a discussion with Japan government.

Jaica’s formal statement came two days after the leading financer of the project World Bank cancelled its $1.2 billion credit for the project claiming to have proof of a corruption conspiracy involving Bangladeshi officials, executives of a Canadian firm and private individuals.

Jaica was committed to funding $400 million for the Padma bridge project.

As Finance Minister AMA Muhith was telling Parliament on Monday the government will sit with the World Bank any time to end the impasse over Padma bridge funding, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) said that it will continue with funding the project.

The announcement came hours after Asian Development Bank (ADB) hinted its withdrawal from the coveted project following World Bank s withdrawal.

“Our position has not been changed. We hope that the government of Bangladesh will deal with the current issues in a constructive way,” JICA’s Public Relations Office in Dhaka said in a statement.

The Finance Minister told Parliament that the government was determined to start construction of $ 2.9 billion Padma bridge in the current fiscal and it will engage the top leadership of the World Bank any time to break the impasse.

The minister made the remarks while delivering speech on Padma bridge after the bank on June 30 cancelled the loan agreement, which makes Bangladesh’s biggest infrastructure project yet uncertain.

“We are also continuously negotiating with the influential members of the World Bank,” he said.

“Our Executive Director in the World Bank is holding talks with the (top officials).”

Earlier in the morning, ADB issued a statement saying, “ADB understands and respects the reasons that have led the World Bank to its decision.”

“ADB and the World Bank follow similar policies, rules and procedures on governance and fiduciary oversight,” said the statement indicating ADB’s stance in favour of the WB.

ADB pledged US$ 610 million for the project and JICA US$ 400 million.

THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PADMA BRIDGE

---

Study team : Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Start : May 2003, END : March 2005

    Timing of SubmissionMain Contents

Inception Report

Progress Report 1

Interim Report

Progress Report 2

Draft Final Report

Final Report

  

    

Site-1	:	Paturia-Goalundo
Site-2	:	Dohar-Charbhadrasan
Site-3	:	Mawa-Janjira
Site-4	:	Chandpur-Bhedarganj

  

  

  

 

	Findings of the Interim report Basic Policy of the Feasible Study:
			Main Function of Padma Bridge
			Location of Padma Bridge
			Socio-Economic Impacts of Padma Bridge
			Associated Road Development Project
			Associated Road Development Project
			Impact of Macro Balance of the Country
			Private Sector Participation
	Study Items completed by Progress Report (1)
			Collection & Review of Existing Data, Information and Reports related to the Study
			Identification of Conceivable Bridge Crossing Sites
			Traffic Survey & Traffic Demand Forecast
			Preliminary River Study
			Preliminary Technical Consideration of Highway & Bridge Planning
			Preliminary Environment & Social Condition
			Screening of Alternatives
	The Study Items completed by Interim Report
			Engineering Survey
			Preliminary River Facility Design
			Preparatory Preliminary Study for Bridge & Highway
			IEE
			SIA & Resettlement Issue
			Economic Effect & Preliminary Feasibility
	Findings from Geotechnical Investigation
		Difference of Subsoil Conditions between 2 Sites
			N-values of SPT at Mawa-Janjira site are higher than those at Paturia-Goalundo site.
		Horizontal Ground Reaction
			As the coefficients of horizontal ground reaction in the bored holes showed relatively smaller values, such characteristics would have to be considered in the preliminary design of foundations.
		Liquefaction
			Paturia-Goalundo site has high potential risks of liquefaction when sever earthquake takes place. On the other hand, Mawa – Janjira site has lesser potential risks of the same.
Finding (1 )
			N -values of SPT at Mawa-Janjira site are higher than those at Paturia-Goalundo. Main reason of this result might come from the subsoil composition at Paturia – Goalund that consists of relatively singular particle size distribution of fine sand.
Finding (2)
			Below maximum scour levels El -40m PWD, N-values of SPT at Mawa-Janjira are higher than those at Paturia-Goalundo.
Finding (3)
			From the pressure – meter tests in situ bored holes, the following relation was obtained:
				Em=4.52N
			Where, N:N-value of SPT
				Em: Coefficient of horizontal ground reaction
			Ref.: Em+7N…..Design specification of Highway Bridges adopted by JRA.
			Em=7n
Finding (4)
			As a result of liquefaction analysis, there is no potential risk of liquefaction at Mawa-Janjira site.
			On the other hand , there is some protential risks of liquefaction at Paturia-Goalundo site in some depts either before or after scour.
	Preparatory Study for Preliminary Design on Bridge
		Bridge Length, which was decided by the river study
			Paturia-Goalundo= 6.5 km Mawa-Janjira =6.2 km
		Applicable Bridge Types over 100m Span Length
			Concrete Bridge: PC Continuous Box, Extradosed, Cable-stayed
			Steel Bridge: Steel Continuous Box, Cable-stayed
		Foundation Types
			Steel Tubular Driven Piles, Cast-in-situ RC Piles, RC Caissons
		Cost-Span Relation
			Minimum cost would be at approx. 200m span length.
		Favorable Bridge Types and Span Length
			PC extradosed girder bridge or PC cable-stayed girder bridge would be the most favorable bridge type from the view points of construction cost, maintenance cost, etc. Favorable span lengths will be further examined in a rage of 150m to 250m.
Initial Environmental Examinations (IEE)
			Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) was conducted for the two preferred sites to identify the significant environmental impacts
			A tailor made project specific 6 step template was developed exclusively for this project and applied for two sites
			For the two sites, most of the impacts are found to be similar
			There is no significant advantage of one site over other
SIA and Resettlement Issues
		SIA was conducted for two alternative sites to ascertain the likely impacts of :
		1.	Land acquisition
		2.	Local response to the project
		3.	Resettlement needs of the potentially affected persons
Survey Results
			Estimated amount of land to be acquired is almost same (about 1,250 ha ) in both cases
			The number of affected households / structure varies due to differences in population density
			Current estimate suggests:-
			Mawa – Janjira		70,000 to 80,000
			Paturia – Goalundo		40,000 to 45,000
			Estimated LA and resettlement cost for M-J site is $39 million, and G-P is $24 million
			The Study Team found strong support to the project at both locations
Traffic Study and Economic Analysis (Main Work Items)
		1)	Traffic Surveys (Traffic counts, OD Survey)
		2)	Establishment of Future Socioeconomic Framework (Population, GDP, GRDP)
		3)	Traffic Demand Forecast (Target year 2025)
		4)	Confirmation of Economic Feasibility
		5)	Economic Impacts of the Padma Bridge
			1)	Improvement of Accessibility
			2)	Regional Economic Development
			3)	Formation of International Road Network
Summary of Comparisons of Two Sites from traffic and Economic Point of View
Evaluation Criteria Paturia-Goalundo Mawa-Janjira Traffic Demand (2025) 19,850 vehicles/day 41,550 vehicles/day Economic Feasibility EIRR=9.6% EIRR=16.9% Financial Project Cost (Million US$) 1,260 1,074 Improvement of Accessibility (Travel time) Dhaka – Mongla Dhaka – Benapole

(Beneficiary Population)
Within 3 hours from Dhaka
Within 4 hours from Dhaka
4.5 hours
4.6 hours

2,791,000 (9%)
12,738,000 (42%)

 

10,417,000 (35%)
22,247,000 (74%)Density of Feeder Roads

Formation of International Road Network

Regional Economic Development
GDP of Southwest region will increase by 18% (1.2% /year)GDP of Southwest region will increase by 35% (2.3% /year)

      

   

      

          

 

 

 

 

           

      

 

 

 

           

      

 

 

           

      

 

 

 

           

      To identify the significant environmental impacts    Prepare Scope of EIA    Prepare a preliminary EMP with cost estimates             

      

 

 

 

           

       

 Environmental parameters are identified with rational   Numerical weightage values are decided with justification   Project specific mitigation guidelines are prepared    Impact analysis template is used   An impact rating template is employed (screening)   A Leopold graded impact matrix is applied             

      

  There are 8 positive impacts    No impacts for 8 parameters    There are 24 negative impacts (befort mitigation)    There are 14 negative impacts after mitigation (however, impact will be reduced much)             

       For two sites, most of the impacts are similar         More erosion/siltation at Paturia site    More water bodies loss at Paturia site    More fisheries loss at Paturia site    More homestead loss at Mawa site    More Income loss at Mawa site    More split of communities at Mawa site    There is no significant advantage of one site over other               

  

       Erosion and siltation (including regional hydrology and drainage congestion)    Agricultural / vegetation loss (including plant cutting)    Fisheries (including water bodies)    Wildlife    Land acquisition (including split of communities)    Resettlement (including Income loss)     Navigation    Road accident    Air, noise and vibration pollution              

       A rough cost estimates show that the EMP requirement will be between 2 and 3 million US$ (the EMP cost for the Jamuna Bridge was about 3 million US$)    

            

            

       SIA was conducted for two alternative sites –
(I) Mawa / janjira and (II) Paturia / Goalundo
    Planned and carried out to ascertain the likely impacts of     -Land acquisition
-Local response to the project
-Resettlement needs of the potential APs
         Primary objectives were to     -Develop comparative SIA of the two alternatives
-Preliminary Cost estimates
– Develop social/ resettlement criteria for site selection
    SIA was not designed for a full scale resettlement study              

      Conducted over two months (Nov / Dec 2003)   Similar ecological and socioeconomic features    Methodology adopted include   

Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA)
Focus Group Discussion (FGD)   

Meetings with local govt. officials/community leaders   

Sample survey using structured questionnaire   200 heads of households were interviewed               

      •Impacts of Land Acquisition   •Estimated amount of LA is same in both sites    Mawa / janjira  1272 ha    Paturia / Daulatdia 1239 ha    impact on households/ population varies     –M/J 2,635 hhs (13,204 APs)    –P/G 1,842 hhs (8,732 APs)    These numbers limited to affected hhs requiring relocation    Those affected by loss of land are not Included    Jamuna experience – three times higher than those requiring relocation        

            

       Loss of residential /commercial structure
Mawa /Janjira – 2635 units
Paturia / Goalundo – 1842 units     Close to 80% of the units are made of    straw / bamboo, Cl sheet/tile roof – can easily be dismantled and moved    Community structures /facilities will also be affected – (I) M/J – 60, and (ii) P/G – 18              

       Total population affected (directly and indirectly) may run into:     Mawa – 70,000-80,000
Paturia – 40,000-45,000    Impacts surely will be greater than currently understood    More accurate assessment will be possible only after the site is selected and preliminary design available              

       Local people are fairly aware of the impacts of LA & Resettlement Impacts    Also Informed about donor policies due to the Jamuna and Southwest Road Projects    Association and lobby groups have been established at both crossings for selection of their favored sites    Strong support to the project     – Improved transportation
– Business and new income opportunities
– Control of riverbank erosion
– Opportunities for regional industrial development              

       Survey included questions with regard to choices and preferred options     (i) Mawa / Janjira – 75% of those Interviewed prefer
relocation on their own (self -relocation)
(ii) Paturia / Goalundo – 96% indicated their preferences for self-relocation
Over all, there will be limited demand for resettlement site development         Cost estimate – too early for an accurate cost estimate: M-j $39 million; P-G $24 million              

       SIA data should be treated as indicative of the potential impacts    The data is generally in line with the pre-feasibility study    A more extensive survey to be carried out for the selected site    The detailed information would be crucial for preparing the RAP              

       Preliminary results shows greater impacts In Mawa-Janjira over
Paturia site    Site selection should be more on technical – engineering grounds-future safety of the bridge infrastructure    Major Impacts of the project – Irrespective of sites    Selection of Final site Is critical to set the next agenda preparation of RAP    Task would be to minimize Impact, develop Improved policy for mitigation of adverse Impacts, management and capacity building for resettlement management    Experience of the Jamuna and other donor-funded projects will be used In the planning and Implementation of RAP for Padma              

       

      

  

      At present, traffic at Mawa is lower than Paturia due to the following reasons:    1) Road condition of NH 8 is now very poor.     2) A narrow approach road to the Mawa ghat.     3) Quality of ferry services at Mawa is lower than Paturia in general.    4) No sufficient parking space for trucks.     5) Two hour river crossing time at Mawa is significantly longer than 35 minutes of Paturia.         

       Future traffic movement pattern will be drastically changed if the Padma Bridge is constructed at Mawa with following reasons:     1) Improvement of NH 8 (Dhaka – Khulna Road Project by ADB) will be completed by the end of 2004.      2) Direct road link from Dhaka for the largest traffic demands to Khulna and Jcssore.     3) Elimination of two hour crossing time.         

  1) Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) Savings    2) Travel Time Cost (TTC) Savings     3) Freight Value Deterioration Savings    4) Ferry Operation Cost Savings    5) Traffic Accident Savings     6) Air Pollution (C02,NOx) Reduction     7) Benefits from Utility Facilities    8) Land Enhancement Benefits         

  – Evaluation period : 30 years    – Opportunity Cost of Capital : 12 %    Tentative results: 1) EIRR: Paturia = 9.6%      Mawa = 16.9%         

       

  

  where: (R=0.902)
G=Gross Regional Domestic Product/kM2
T=Time to Dhaka from districts in Southwest region (hours)
F=Density of feeder roads (km/kM2)
         

       

    Conclusion       

       

       

       -Natural condition survey such as topographic survey, geotechnical investigation, river
Morphology & mathematical modeling
    -Preliminary design of Padma Bridge, approach roads, toll plaza, service area, minor Bridges, underpass, riverbank protection works public utilities etc.    -Operation & Maintenance plan of Padma Bridge    -Construction plan & procedure of preliminary cost estimate    -Environmental study & social impact & resettlement study         

       The preliminary design in the study would be conducted on the basis of Asian Highway (AH) standards and Roads & Highways Department (RHD) standards. RHD standards are similar to AASHTO standards. Standards adopted by Japan Road Association (JRA), BSI and Indian Road Congress (IRC) would be used as supplementary ones.         

       

Water levels:
Design High Water Level( 100 year return period)	:	DHWL=+7.35m PWD
Standard High Water Level	:	SHWL=+5.81m PWD
Mean Water Level	:	MWL=+3.02m PWD
Standard Low Water Level	:	SLWL=+1.43m PWD
Water Discharge and velocity:
Design Discharge( 100 year return period)	:	Qd=134,400m3/sec
Design Water velocity( 100 year return period)	:	Vd=4.6m/sec
Scour Levels:
Adjacent to Riverbank ( 100 year return period) 300m from riverbank	:	Zs=-37.56m PWD
In middle of river( 100 year return period)	:	Zs=-23.63m PWD

       

      

 

 

       

Girder Depths and Bridge lengths
Bridge Type	Girder Depth at mid span	Aprox. Bridge length
PC Box Girder(Span 160m)	4.8m	5,680m
PC Extradosed(Span 180m)	3.3m	5,580m
PC Cable Stayed(Span 200m)	1.8	5,480m
Indicative cost by Bridge type without Railway
Bridge Type	Unit cost/m	Bridge length	Indicative cost
PC Box Girder(Span 160m)	US$99,010	5,680m	562 million US$
PC Extradoses(Span 180m)	US$91,620	5,580m	511 million US$
PC Cable Stayed(Span 200m)	US$109,640	5,480m	601 million US$
Reduced river widths by bridge type
Bridge Type	Number of Piers in the river	Pier width per each	Reduced river width	% Reduced river width
PC Box Girder(Span 160m)	34	15.0m	510m	9.6%
PC Extradoses(Span 180m)	31	15.0m	465m	8.8%
PC Cable Stayed(Span 200m)	28	16.20m	454m	8.6%
Present river width in 2004=approx. 5,300m
Total Bridge length
Padma main bridge	: 5,400m
Left(North) bank Viaduct	: 60m
Right(South) bank Viaduct	: 120m
Total tength	: 5,580m

  Specific bridge type and alternatives for preliminary design         

  

Alternative-1(Base case)	:	PC extradosed girder bridge without railway provision
Alternative-2	:	PC extradosed girder bridge with cable stayed girder at bridge center portion without railway provision
Alternative-3	:	PC extradosed girder bridge with railway provision
Alternative-4	:	PC extradosed girder bridge with cable stayed girder at bridge center portion with railway provision
Alternative-5	:	PC extradosed girder bridge with minimum investment case

            

       -12,163 m long approach roads on the both river banks (213 m at left & 11,950 m at right banks)    – 6 m width service road on both sides along the approach road & 2m lower than that of the approach road    -No of minor bridges on approach roads-6nos (total length=1000m)    -No of culverts (for underpasses for crossing RHD/LGED road) on approach roads-13nos