10ArchondoCallaoEvaluationofLowVolumeRoadsJanuary08

7/28/2019 10ArchondoCallaoEvaluationofLowVolumeRoadsJanuary08

1/21

Evaluation of Low Volume

RoadsRodrigo Archondo-Callao

Senior Highway Engineer, ETWTR

January 10, 2008

The World Bank


2/21

World Bank Technical Paper No. 496


3/21

Road Transport

Tracks

Roads

Highways

Type of Network Rural Transport Infrastructure Primary, Secondary and Municipal Roads

Responsibility

Share of Road

Network

10-50 Km. 20-100 Km. 50-200 Km.

Share of Asset

Value

Typical Distance 1-5 Km. 1-10 Km. 5-20 Km.

NMT >100 AADT >1500 AADT

20-200 AADT

Typical Value NMT NMT NMT

0-5 AADT 5-50 AADT

Earth Road/Gravel

Road1-2 lane Gravel /

SD* Road2 lane AC** Road

Typical Transport

Infrastructure Track Path/Track Track/Earth Road

Market Center District

Headquarters

Regional

Headquarters

Capital /

Port

Farm Household Village

Comunidad

Gobierno LocalGobierno Provincial / Central

0%

40%

20%

0%

20%

40%


4/21

Functional Classification

Road Streets &

Primary, Secondary and Municipal Roads Rural Transport Infrastructure Avenues

Road Network Primary Secondary Tertiary Urban

Functional Classification Arterial Collector Access

Responsibility National Regional Municipal Local Government Community Municipal

(Urban)

% of Road Network +- 10% +- 10% +- 10% +- 70% N.A.

Physical Characteristics

2 or more paved

lanes 1.5 to 2 gravel or paved lanes

1 to 2 earth or

gravel lanes tracks

Normally sections

with 50 to 200 kmsNormally sections with 20 to 100 kms

Normally sections

with 5 to 20 kms

Normally sections

with 1 to 5 kms

Traffic Characteristics > 500 AADT 50-500 AADT < 50 AADT + NMT Mostly NMT

Economic Evaluation Yes Yes No No

Social Evaluation No Complimentary Yes Yes

Financial Evaluation Tolls No No No

Technical Evaluation Yes Yes Yes No

Environmental Evaluation Yes Yes Yes No

Safety Evaluation Yes Yes Yes No


5/21

Primary Road Network Roads with 2 or more lanes

Paved roads Traffic greater than 500 AADT

Long distance traffic

Essentially serves an economic function

Focus is the reduction of transport costs

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) using the

HDM-4 model


6/21

Secondary Road Network Road with 1.5 to 2 lanes

Unpaved roads or paved roads Traffic less than 500 AADT

Medium distance traffic

Economic and social function

Focus is the reduction of total transportcosts, measuring also the social impact

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) using RED

model or HDM-4 model


7/21

Tertiary Road Network Roads with 1 to 2 lanes

Unpaved roads and tracks Traffic lower than 50 AADT difficult to

measure

Short distance traffic Essentially serves a social function

Focus is the social impact, measuring theefficiency of the investments and/or a multi-criteria index

Cost Efficiency Analysis (CEA) or Multi-

Criteria Analysis (MCA)


8/21

Analytical Instruments

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Net Present Value

Cost Efficiency Analysis (CEA)

Total Beneficiary Population per Investment

Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)

Priority Index


9/21

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Total Society Costs

Improve Standard

Government Costs

Road User Costs

CBA


10/21

Comparison of Alternatives with CBA

To compare project alternatives, the Net

Present Value is used to select the optimalalternative (the one with higher NPV) and toeliminate project that are not economicallyfeasible (NPV


11/21

Comparison of Projects with CBA To compare the economic priority of projects, it

is recommend the use of the indicator NPV perInvestment or a budget constraint optimization

algorithm, such as EBM-32 contained on the

HDM-4 and RED models.

Projects

Selected Alternative

Overlay

Reseal

Overlay

NPV / Investment

8.4

5.2

2.1

P

R

I

O

RI

T

Y

CBA


12/21

Projects Eligibility with CBA To define if a project is eligible, it is

recommended to utilize the NPV (NPV > 0)or the IRR (IRR > x%), at a given x%

discount rate.

Projects

Eligible

Not Eligible

NPV IRR

42.2 25%

25.4 17%

-5.5 9% CBA


13/21

Cost Efficiency Analysis (CEA)

It compares the cost of interventions with its

predicted impacts and it is used in the situationswhere the benefits cannot be measured in monetary

terms, or where the measurement is difficult.

It includes provisions that (a) the objectives of the

intervention are indicated and are clearly part of a

ampler program of objectives (such as reduction of

the poverty); and (b) the intervention represents the

smaller cost alternative of obtaining the indicatedobjectives.

It produces efficiency indicators such as Total

Beneficiary Population per Investment.

CEA


14/21

Comparison of Alternatives with CEA

To compare project alternatives, the

investment cost is used to select the optimal

alternative

The selected alternative will be the one with

the lowest investment cost that will providethe road all-weather access

Alternatives Investment2.03.71.75.5

Optimal Alternative:Lower Investment

Project

CEA


15/21

Comparison of Projects with CEA To compare the economic priority of

projects, it is recommended the use of theefficiency indicator Total Beneficiary

Population per Investment

Projects

Alternative withLowest Cost

Resurface

Grading

Resurface

Total BeneficiaryPopulation / Investment

20

14

5

P

R

I

O

RI

T

Y

CEA


16/21

Projects Eligibility with CEA To define if a project is eligible it is

recommended to define a minimumacceptable efficiency indicator Total

Beneficiary Population per Investment

Projects

Total BeneficiaryPopulation perInvestment

20

14

5

Eligible

Not EligibleCEA


17/21

Projects Eligibility with CEA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

01.1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.7

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.5

2.9

3.3

4.0

5.0

6.7

10.0

20.0

Frequency

TotalBeneficiaryPopulationperInvestment

Not Eligible Eligible

?

?

CEA


18/21

CEA Indicators

Investment Cost per Total BeneficiaryPopulation

100 US$ per person


Cost 0.01 persons per US$


Cost in thousands of dollars 10 persons per 1,000 US$

CEA


19/21

Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)

It adopts criteria such as traffic, proximity to

educative, health, and economic centers, which

receive weights (points) concerning their

perceived importance.

The added number of the points that each

section receives is computed simply adding the

points assigned for each criterion, or with the

use of a more complex formula.

MCA


20/21

Multi Criteria Analysis Example Inhabitants benefited per km

Percentage of extreme poverty Productive area

Average traffic

Functional classification Location in the optimal network

Number of health centers

Number of schools

Existence of public transport

Environmental feasibility

MCA


21/21

Multi Criteria Analysis Example

Factor = Value / Maximum Value MCA

Health Centers Schools Public Transport

Environment

Feasibility

Yes = 1

No = 0Factor

Yes = 1

No = 0Factor

Yes = 1

No = 0Factor

Yes = 1

No = 0Factor

Priority

Index

0 - 0 - 1 1.00 1 1.00 5.6

0 - 0 - 1 1.00 1 1.00 5.0

0 - 0 - 1 1.00 1 1.00 5.0

0 - 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 7.3

0 - 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 6.8

0 - 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 6.8

Priority Index

Population Poverty Agricultural Area Traffic

Functional

Classification

Location on Basic

Network

BeneficiaryPopulation

per km

FactorPoverty

PercentFactor

Percentof Area of

Influence

FactorDaily

Traffic

(AADT)

FactorA=4 B=3

C=2 D=1Factor

Yes = 1

No = 0Factor

9,889 1.00 99% 1.00 0% - 20 0.25 1 0.33 1 1.00

520 0.05 99% 1.00 0% - 20 0.25 2 0.67 1 1.00

1,237 0.13 99% 1.00 0% - 15 0.19 2 0.67 1 1.00

564 0.06 97% 0.98 14% 0.25 80 1.00 3 1.00 1 1.00

344 0.03 97% 0.9836%

0.6415

0.19 3 1.00 1 1.00

503 0.05 97% 0.98 18% 0.32 35 0.44 3 1.00 1 1.00

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jared-makori
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

10ArchondoCallaoEvaluationofLowVolumeRoadsJanuary08

Documents