STUDY ON MUSIRIVER CROSSING BRIDGE PROJECT IN · PDF fileSTUDY ON MUSIRIVER CROSSING BRIDGE...

STUDY ON ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP PROJECT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN FY 2012

STUDY ON MUSIRIVER CROSSING BRIDGE PROJECT IN THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

FINAL REPORT

【SUMMARY】

February 2013

Prepared for:

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

Ernst & Young Shin Nihon LLC

Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)

Prepared by:

Mitsui Consultants Co., Ltd.

Chodai Co., Ltd.

Infrastructure Development Institute- Japan

1 Background and Necessity of the Project

1.1 Background and Necessity of the Project

Due to the petroleum, gas, palm oil, rubber and other abundant resources and growth of key industries, Palembang City in

the province of South Sumatra in Indonesia is positioned as a priority development area in the Indonesia Economic

Development Corridor (IEDC) concept. Because of this, the population of Palembang City is increasing every year (Rate of

increase in population: 2.07% [Average increase in Indonesia: 1.18%]), with the population exceeding 1.5 million in 2011,

making it the second largest city in Sumatra. Urban functions are expanding from the old urban area in the north part of the

city with the building of residential properties, plants, and commercial areas in the south and east parts of the city.

However, there are only two bridges which cross the Musi River that flows from the west to the east through the center of

Palembang City, the Ampera Bridge and Second Musi River Bridge, with the city divided in a north-south direction.

Therefore, traffic is concentrated on the Ampera Bridge, which is the only bridge in the center of the city, and the resulting

traffic jams are the foremost problem for the city, causing enormous economic losses.

Due to these circumstances, construction of a new bridge crossing the Musi River is a very high priority project for not only

Palembang City but for Indonesia as a whole, and this project has been listed on the “Blue Book 2011 – 2014” by

BAPPENAS. In addition, a ring road with a total length of 25 km that includes this project has been planned by BINA

MARGA, and a FS was conducted for this project with Indonesian funds in 2010, with detailed design started in November

2011. Implementation of this project is of something that is of high necessity for Indonesia.

1.2 Current Status and Issues of Musi River Bridges

Currently, there are two bridges that are in service on the Musi River, the Ampera Bridge in the center of Palembang City

(completed in 1965), and the Second Musi River Bridge in the western part of Palembang City (completed in 1994). The

Ampera Bridge was built 50 years ago, but extentive repair work was performed in 1992, at which time the concrete deck

slabs were replaced and repair and reinforcement were also performed on the bridge piers.

The results of a visual survey of the Ampera Bridge and Second Musi River Bridge indicated that the paint has deteriorated

to a certain extent, but no damage that may require urgent cares was found. In addition, the volume of traffic on both

bridges was found to be high high, and the observation revealed that an alternate bridge is required when repair work is

performed on these bridges in the future.

2 Basic Policy for Determining Project Content

2.1 Location, Topographic Features and Natural Conditions for Project

The geography, geological conditions, climate, weather and river conditions of the target region are shown in Table i.

Table i Geography, Geological Conditions, Climate, Weather and River Conditions in Target Area

Overview

Geography /

Geological

Conditions

The area around Palembang City is flat, and there are many lowland swamps.

According to a boring study that was implemented this time, there is tightly packed ground at a

depth of 20m or more (N value at depth of 20m or more is 30 or higher).

Climate /

Weather

The area has a tropical rainforest climate, with high temperatures and humidity throughout the

year.

(Monthly average temperature ranges from 26C to 28C, monthly average humidity ranges

from 78% to 87% and yearly average rainfall is approximately 2,500mm.)

Rainfall volume is relatively low during the dry season from June to September

(Monthly average rainfall: Approximately 100mm)

Winds are generally mild (Monthly average wind speed of 3 m/s or less).

Musi River

Overview

In the target region for this study, the gradient of the Musi River is flat, the river width is wide,

with a tendency for sand drifts to be deposited.

The water level is influenced by the tides, and periodically fluctuates. However, saltwater

intrusion does not occur.

Since the land in the Palembang City region is low lying, the city is easily inundated with water.

Shipping

Channel

There are petroleum and other plants in the target area on the Musi River for this study, with

tanker and other large ship traffic on the river (Channel width: 240m, Min. height: 50m)

The Musi River bed is dredged to prevent sediment from impeding ship traffic.

Palembang City is in an area that has a comparatively low level of impact from earthquakes.

Source: Prepared by Study Team

2.2 Transport Demand Forecast

2.2.1 Transport Demand Forecasting Methods

After reviewing the traffic volume forecast conditions and the results of the FS for the Musi III Bridge conducted in 2010,

the reduction ratio in traffic volume on the Musi III Bridge due to toll resistance (reluctance to pay toll) was calculated.

2.2.2 Traffic Demand Forecast Results

The traffic volume on the Third Music River Bridge and ring road in each year in which an estimate was made in the traffic

demand forecast results in the FS for the Third Bridge conducted in 2010 are shown in Figure i.

The traffic indicates increases in accordance with the increase in OD traffic volume, and in particular, since six bridges to

cross the Musi River (Total of 9 bridges including two existing bridges and Musi III Bridge) will be built by 2025, traffic

volume will exceed 40,000 vehicles.

Figure i Transition in Traffic Volume on Musi III Bridge

Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on STUDI KELAYAKAN JALAN DAN JEMBATAN MUSI III PALEMBANG

2.2.3 Setting of Traffic Volume Reduction Ratio by Changing into Toll Road

The reduction ratio due to toll resistance that was calculated using the ratio of use calculated for each toll settings and OD

traffic volume that will use the Musi III Bridge is shown in Table ii.

The results of the reduction ratio calculations are shown in Table ii.

Reduction ratio = Toll setting traffic volume ÷ Traffic volume when free (= Case 0)

Toll setting (case) traffic volume = ΣA + (ΣB x Musi III Bridge usage ratio)

ΣA :OD that use MusiIII Bridge regardless of toll ΣB :OD for which Musi III Bridge usage varies depending on toll

Table ii Results of Musi III Bridge Reduction Ratio Calculation Due to Toll Resistance


2.2.4 Change in Traffic Flow with Building of Musi III Bridge

(1) Calculation Method

Due to the fact that the traffic volume crossing the Musi River on each bridge cannot be determined from the traffic

demand forecast results in the FS for the Musi III Bridge conducted in 2010, the change in traffic flow in the event that

the Musi III Bridge is built was predicted based on the OD table from 2010.

(2) Change in Traffic Flow Caused by Building of Musi III Bridge

The results of calculation of the traffic volume using each bridge to cross the Musi River are shown in Figure ii.

Toll Setting

(Rp/Number･km)

Case0 0 100 % 9,197 100.0 %

Case1 300 89 % 8,765 95.3 %

Case2 600 79 % 8,372 91.0 %

Case3 900 61 % 7,665 83.3 %

5,268 3,929

Musi Ⅲ

Traffic VolumeReduction RatioCase

Musi Ⅲ

usage ratioΣA ΣB

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2016 2020 2025

20,723

26,649

40,759(pcu/d)

Figure ii Change in Traffic Flow Caused by Building of Musi III Bridge Route


Without Musi III bridge

With Musi III Bridge

110,000pcu/d

67,000pcu/d

43,000pcu/d

Traffic Shift from Ampera Bridge

to Musi III Bridge

48,000pcu/d

48,000pcu/d

2.2.5 Route Plan

(1) Basic Policy for Route Plan

In the FS for the Musi III Bridge project that was conducted in 2010, the routes shown in Figure iii were planned.

In the route plan that was studied at this time, the route plan used in the FS 2010 was taken into consideration in an effort

to match it with the east ring road plan for the roads other than Musi III Bridge and the approach section. The route used

in the FS 2010 will be adhered to, a comparative review with Musi III Bridge and the roads in the approach section will

be performed, thereafter the route will be selected.

However, since it is necessary to perform project evaluation for the entire east ring road, a comparative review will be

performed for theMusi River crossing bridge and the approach section, with all sections of the east ring road.

Figure iii Route Plan

Source: STUDI KELAYAKAN JALAN DAN JEMBATAN MUSI III PALEMBANG

Proposed Route 1

Proposed Route 2

Proposed Route 3

Proposed Route 4

Proposed Route 5 (Adoption Route)

表4

-5 環境チェックリスト

(2) Comparative Review

The evaluation results of the routes are shown in Table iii.

Table iii Route Selection Comparison

Route BINA MARGA Original

Plan Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3

Overview

Crosses Musi River at

an angle from Northeast

to Southwest

Crosses Musi River at

an angle from Northeast

to Southwest

Crosses Musi River at a

right angle in center of

Kemarau Island

Crosses Musi River at a

right angle at upstream

side of Kemarau Island

Plane View

Main Bridge

Type /

Bridge Length

Cable-Stayed Bridge /

L=3.8km

Cable-Stayed Bridge /

L=3.8km

Extradosed Bridge /

L=3.8km

Extradosed Bridge /

L=3.9km

Traffic Volume Fair Fair Fair

Good

Coloser to center of

Palembang city

Land Usage Good Good Good Good

Social

Considerations Good Good

Fair

Pass near Chinese

temple and industrial

facilities

Fair

Pass near Chinese

temple and industrial

facilities

Cost

24.5 billion yen

(2.8780 trillion Rp)

3

*DD(Detail Design) Plan

(Under Implementation)

24.5 billion yen


26.2 billion yen


24.0 billion yen


30.3 billion yen


Evaluation Fair Good Good Fair Source: Prepared by Study Team

Musi River Existing road

Ex

isting

roa

d

Built-up area

Built-up area

Built-up area

Connection with ring road

Connection with ring road

Kemarau Island

Plant

Under Development

Plant

Plant

Oil terminal

Temple

BINA MARGA plan

Alternative plan ①

Alternative plan ②

Connection with ring road BINA MARGA FS plan

Alternative plan 2

Alternative plan 3

Alternative plan 1

表4


3 Overview of the Project

3.1 Project Content

This project includes construction of a bridge with a total length of 3.3 km. Efforts will be made during the project to match

the Plan for a bridge that crosses the Musi River which is part of the Palembang City east ring road plan, located

approximately 5 km on the downstream side of the road bridge (Ampera Bridge) over the Musi River, in the center of

Palembang City, which shows significant extent of deterioration. Figure iv shows a general plan for the bridge.

[Alternative plan 1]

This bridge type is Cable-Stayed Bridge. The length of 360.0m was selected as the main span in order to provide a

shipping channel width of B=240.0m due to the influence of the bridge crossing the river at an angle. The economic span

on the left bank side of the Musi River is approximately 110m due to the placement of bridge piers in the river since

coffering and pier works are required.


This bridge type is Extradosed Bridge. The length of 270.0m was selected as the main span which satisfies shipping

channel width of B=240.0m. The economic span on the left bank side of the Musi River is approximately 110m due to

the placement of bridge piers in the river since coffering and pier works are required.


This bridge type is Extradosed Bridge. The length of 270.0m was selected as the main span which satisfies the shipping

channel width of B=240.0m. The bridge is positioned at a located where a tributary of the Musi River branches off.

Furthermore, since ships navigate on the tributary, a span length of 270m was selected.

表4


Figure iv General Plan for Bridge


Alternative

Plan 1

Alternative

Plan 3

Alternative

Plan 2

表4


3.2 Total Project Cost

The approximate construction costs at this junction for this project are shown in

Table iv, which amounts to approximately 21.2 billion yen. When it is assumed that fee for consultants and contingency

funds will each amount to 10% of construction costs, the total project costs including these fees and expenses added amount

to approximately 30.8 billion yen.

Table iv Estimated Construction Costs

Item Consultant

Cost

(Million Rp)

Consultant

Cost

(Million Yen)

Remarks

Main Bridge

(PC Cable-Stayed Bridge

+ PC Box Girder Bridge)

Superstructure 1,096,000 9,340 Bridge Length1460m

Max Span 360m

Substructure 917,000 7,810

Subtotal 2,013,000 17,150

Approach bridge

(PCT Girders Bridge

+ PC Box Girder Bridge)

Superstructure 417,000 3,550 Bridge Length 600ｍ

Span 40+70+140+70+7x40m

Bridge Length 1320ｍ

Span 33x40m

Substructure 558,000 4,750

Subtotal 975,000 8,300

Construction of Temporary Structures 235,000 200 material yard ,

Girder Production Yard etc.

Construction Cost (1) Total 3,223,000 25,650

Consultant Cost (2) 322,000 2,570 10% of ①

Contingency Fund(3) 322,000 2,570 10% of ①＋②

Total Construction Cost (1＋2＋3) 3,867,000 30,790 About 30.8 Billion Yen


3.3 Result on Financial and Economic Evaluation

3.3.1 Costs

The costs that were included in the preliminary financial and economic analyses include land acquisition, resettlement

relocation of utilities, construction, and operation and maintenance costs. Out of these costs, the land acquisition cost,

resettlement cost and cost for relocation of utilities were not included in the preliminary financial analysis since it was

assumed that the government would cover these costs. On the other hand, all of the above mentioned costs were included

for the preliminary economic analysis.

表4


(1) Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Relocation Cost

The costs for land acquisition, resident resettlement, relocation of utilities and other items in the area that is influenced

by this project (bridge and road development work) are estimated to be approx. 733.3 billion Rp.

(2) Construction Costs

The costs for construction of the bridge and for a road length of approximately 25 km are included in the construction

costs. Table v shows a comparison of the construction costs for BINA MARGA FS, Alternative plan 1, 2 and 3.

Table v Construction Costs

(Unit: billion Rp, Values in parentheses are 100 million yen)

BINA MARGA FS Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3

Structure (Bridge) 2,878(245) 2.987(254) 2,698(230) 3,379(288)

Road 555(47) 555(47) 555(47) 555(47)

Total 3,433(292) 3,542(302) 3,253(277) 3,934(335)

Note: Converted at Rp = ¥0.008519


(3) Operation, Maintenance and Other Costs

An amount equal to 2% of the construction costs/y is estimated for the daily maintenance and management expenses,

and an amount equal to 2% of the construction estimated per five years is estimated for periodic repair costs. It is

thought that periodic repair costs will be incurred every five years after the bridge is placed in service / operation.

3.3.2 Traffic Volume

Table vi shows the estimated traffic volume used as the basis for the preliminary financial and economic analysis. The

traffic volume in 2014 is 29,885 pcu, 35,595 pcu in 2020, and 49,776 pcu in 2025. The assumption was made that the traffic

volume would increase at a yearly rate of 6.5% from 2025 to 2040, reaching the saturated level of approximately 100,000

pcu in 2038, and assumed to remain constant thereafter.

Table vi Estimated Traffic Volume

2014 2020 2025

Northbound Southbound Total Northbound Southbound Total Northbound Southbound Total

a, Bina Marga

FS(Vehicles/Day) 9,932 9,992 19,924 11,992 11,738 23,730 17,054 16,129 33,184

b, pcu(a X1.5) 14,898 14,988 29,885 17,989 17,607 35,595 25,582 24,194 49,776

Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalandan Jembatan Musi III Palembang, Average/PCU (×1.5)

Prepared by Study Team

表4


3.3.3 Overview of Preliminary Financial Analysis

The financial analysis used 2016 as the base year when the bridge is placed in service for evaluation purposes. Table vii, it

is assumed that the yearly rate of inflation from 2010 when the FS that was conducted by BINA MARGA until 2016 when

construction is scheduled to begin will be 8.5%, and rates were converted to the price level as of 2016, with the financial

internal rate of return calculated for the BINA MARGA FS, alternative plan 1, 2 and 3 at the respective toll settings of 500

Rp (approx. ¥4.3)/km, 1,000 Rp (approx. ¥8.5)/km and 1,500 Rp (approx. ¥12.8)/km.

Due to the fact that a financial rate of return of approximate13 – 15% which is generally expected in Indonesia cannot be

achieved for any of the rates or any of the plans or alternative plans, it means that this project does not qualify itself as a

genuine private sector toll expressway (BOT project). In order to make this project viable, in addition to the government

funding intend for site acquisition, resettlement and facility relocation, financial support for the project such as government

assistance measures that consist of government subsidies, tax incentives or low-interest loans are essential arrangements.

Table vii Financial Internal Rate of Return


500Rp/km 4.1% 3.9% 4.4% 3.3%

1,000Rp/km 9.6% 9.3% 10.0% 8.5%

1,500Rp/km 12.8% 12.5% 13.3% 11.6%


3.3.4 Overview of Preliminary Economic Analysis

The economic analysis consisted of an evaluation based on the year 2010 which was used as the basis for the FS conducted

by BINA MARGA. The vehicle travel costs with different vehicle types and at travel speeds in 2010 are shown in Table viii,

and a list of the time reduction benefits per vehicle in the respective vehicle types is given in Table ix, referring to the BINA

MARGA FS. In this FS, the time reduction benefits were converted into the price level as of 2010, and the economic

feasibility of this project was evaluated.

Table viii Vehicle Travel Cost for Each Vehicle Type and Travel Speed (2010)

(Unit:Yen/Vehicle km, (Rp/vehicle km))

Velocity (km/h) Car Truck Bus

20 21.8(2,557) 72.1(8,469) 55.1(6,472)

30 18.7(2,195) 61.9(7,268) 47.3(5,554)

40 16.2(1,906) 56.4(6,619) 41.8(4,906)

50 14.4(1,693) 52.5(6,160) 37.7(4,428)

60 13.2 (1,554) 50.4(5,918) 35.2(4,134)

70 12.7 (1,490) 50.4(5,921) 34.4(4,033)

80 12.8(1,501) 52.8(6,200) 35.2(4,133)

90 13.5(1,587) 57.7(6,774) 37.8(4,441)

100 14.9(1,747) 65.3(7,665) 42.3(4,967) Note: Converted at Rp = ¥0.008519

Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalandan Jembatan Musi III Palembang, Yen conversion made by Study Team.

表4


Table ix Travel Time Reduction Benefits

(Unit: Yen/Vehicle·Hour,(Rp/Vehicle·Hour))

Study Agency / Study Name Study Year Vehicle Truck Bus

PT JasaMarga 1996 104.7

(12,287)

157.9

(18,534)

117.3

(13,768)

JIUTR northern extension (PCI) 1989 60.2

(7,067)

125.0

(14,670)

31.2

(3,659)


Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalandan Jembatan Musi III Palembang

During the evaluation of economic feasibility, externality (external effects) was taken into consideration. The increase in

land prices in the area surrounding the development sections (bridge, road), expansion of the urban area, stimulation of

economic activity and other benefits are included in externality (external effects).

Table x shows the economic internal rate of return when the said project is implemented as a free road or a toll road (with

toll charges of 300Rp (¥2.6/km), 600Rp (¥5.1/km) and 900Rp (¥7.7/km)) for BINA MARGA FS, alternative plan 1, 2 and 3.

The economic internal rate of return of this project exceeds the opportunity cost of capital in Indonesia (about 13 – 15%) in

all cases, and is at a level that exceeds the hurdle rate of 15-16% that is the general standard requirement of yen loans and

STEP projects as well

Table x Economic Internal Rate of Return


Free 17.2% 17.0% 17.7% 16.1%

300Rp/km 16.7% 16.5% 17.1% 15.6%

600Rp/km 16.2% 16.0% 16.6% 15.2%

900Rp/km 15.3% 15.1% 15.7% 14.3%


Table xi shows the net present value for each route (FS, alternative plans) and each toll setting (including free) when a

discount rate of 12.5% is used, and Table xii shows the cost-benefit ratio.

Table xi Net Present Value

(Unit: 100 million yen, Values in parentheses are 100 million Rp)


Free 19,275(164) 17,968(153) 19,681(168) 14,776(126)

300 Rp./km 16,902(144) 15,596(133) 17,309(147) 12,403(106)

600 Rp./km 14,732(126) 13,425(114) 15,138(129) 10,233(87)

900 Rp./km 10,845(92) 9,539(81) 11,252(96) 6,346(54)



Table xii Cost-Benefit Ratio


Free 1.62 1.58 1.68 1.46

300Rp/km 1.54 1.51 1.60 1.39

600Rp/km 1.47 1.44 1.53 1.33

900Rp/km 1.35 1.32 1.40 1.22

表4



3.3.5 Consideration

Judging from the results of the preliminary financial and economic analyses hereof, materialization of this project as a toll

road project coupled with appropriate participation by the private sector is more realistic solution than doing it as a public

project free road should this project are provided with suitable financial assistance. In addition to reducing the financial

burden on the government by utilizing private sector funds in case the parties agree to implement it as a private sector toll

road, one can expect higher quality services in O&M by utilizing private sector knowhow and experience in maintenance

and management.

Development of the legal system related to utilization of the private sector has shown progress in recent years, and work is

proceeding on quite a few projects that utilize the private sector to develop toll roads. Although there are fewer cases in

which road projects have been developed using PPP compared to cases in which development has been performed using

BOT, many project candidates will be qualified on the PPP project list such as the Palembang – Indralaya Toll Road which

is adjacent to this project. Also, there are cases in which work has already began, such as the Solo – Kertosono Toll Road.

This project therefore can be developed under PPP scheme should suitable support by the government be provided.

3.4 Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts

3.4.1 Analysis of Current Situation (Environmental/Social)

Current situation of the area surrounding the project site is shown in Figure v.

Figure v Current Conditions Surrounding Project Target Site

Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Study Results

2. Pagoda in Kemaro Island1. Center of the City 3. Swamp Area

5. Settlements along the

Musi River4. Residential Area

6. Industrial Facilities

along the Musi River

1

3

2 5

4

64

3

Project Site

表4


(1) Air Quality

The levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and other air pollutants along the roads in the center of

Palembang City satisfy the environmental standards of Indonesia.

(2) Water Quality

The level of organic substances and hazardous substances in the Musi River that flows through the center of Palembang

City all exceed the levels prescribed by environmental standards, and tend to be higher in the downtown and

downstream areas.

(3) Noise / Vibration

Noise along the road in the center of Palembang City exceeds the levels prescribed by the environmental standards of

Indonesia.

(4) Natural Environment

The target area for this plan does not contain protected region and is not the habitat for a precious species that requires

protection as prescribed by the laws of Indonesia, international treaties or other conventions. However, due to the fact

there are swamps (Figure. v) surrounding the access road (northeastern area) for Palembang City, it can be inferred that

there are ecosystems for a diverse range of animals and plants in these swamps. Accordingly, an adequate review of the

impact on these swamps and the ecosystems that are there needs to be performed during project implementation.

(5) Presence of Residences

It has been confirmed that there are squatters along the banks of the Musi River (Figure. v). There are not any ethnic

minorities or indigenous people in the target area for this project.

(6) Historical / Cultural Assets

There are not any historical or cultural assets / heritages that have been designated for conservation by law in the target

area for this project, but certainly there is a Pagoda (Chinese temple) at the west end of Kemarau Island which will be

crossed by the Musi III Bridge (Figure. v). A review needs to be made to ensure the erection construction site so that the

bridge will not have an impact on this Pagoda. In addition, due to the fact that the mosques that are in each village are

precious facilities from historical, cultural and religious view point, appropriate consideration must be paid by the

implementing organizations/authorities concerned the project.

Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Study Results

表4


3.4.2 Environmental Impact Mitigating Effect

(1) Reduction of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases

The capacity of the second bridge that crosses the Musi River which flows through the center of the Palembang City is

inadequate, and this has resulted in heavy road congestion which pose serious constrains. Therefore, the construction of a

new alternate route will alleviate traffic jams in the center of the city, suppress exhaust gas emissions which are caused by

road traffic, and will reduce the volume of fuel consumed, all leading to the enhancement of a low carbon environment.

Here, the reduction in exhaust gases (NOx), greenhouse gases (CO2 (carbon conversion) and fossil fuel usage volume

caused by idling in traffic jams was estimated from the predicted traffic volume (in 2014) on the Musi III Bridge based on

the traffic demand forecast results in the FS for the Musi III Bridge conducted in 2010. Those assumed conditions for

calculation are described below.

・ Emissions volume is increased by traffic jams (idling) on the main arterial road that runs through the center of the city

in a north-south direction.

・ Traffic jams on the main arterial road that runs through the center of the city in a north-south direction will be

alleviated by the traffic volume that is predicted to use the Musi III Bridge in the FS that was conducted in 2010,

eliminating emissions due to idling.

・ The traffic volume obtained from the results of a field study (Ampera Bridge) during this work was used as the traffic

volume on the arterial road.

・ The estimated traffic volume in fiscal 2014 in the FS was used as the traffic volume on the Musi III Bridge.

・ The emissions volume due to idling was calculated using the basic unit prescribed by a study of the Tokyo

Metropolitan Research Institute for Environmental Protection and the formula shown below.

Emissions due to idlind in traffic jams (g

10 min∙ h) = Traffic volume per hour (

vehicles

h) basic unit (g)

)

The above results estimate that the implementation of this project will reduce emissions/fuel usage due to idling per 10

minutes in peak hour traffic by the following respective amounts: 65% for nitrogen oxide emissions, 43% for carbon

dioxide emissions and 43% for fossil fuel usage volume.

(2) Other Environmental Mitigating Effects

The Traffic shifting to the Musi III Bridge from existing bridges will alleviate traffic jams in the center of Palembang City,

and the flow of automobiles at a constant speed is expected to improve the noise emitted by automobiles.

3.4.3 Impact of Project Implementation upon Environmental and Social Aspects

The environmental and social impact involved with the implementation of this project is shown in Table xiii.

表4


Table xiii List of Envisioned Environmental and Social Impacts

Environmental

Items Envisioned Impact, etc. Measures to Avoid/Alleviate Impact

Environmental

Considerations

Air Pollution

・ Exhaust emission by

construction

machinery/ships

・ Concern regarding further

increase in traffic volume

・ Smoothing of work processes / use of good quality

fuel, Implement adequate inspection /

maintenance of construction machinery and ships,

Observe speed regulations for vehicles

transporting materials / Implement idling stop

policy / Provide guidance to construction

companies on prohibition of overloading

・ Promote modal shift and further develop current

public transport organizations (buses)

Water Pollution ・ Muddy water from

construction site

・ Provide settling pond to alleviate discharge of

muddy water

Noise/Vibration

・ Noise due to operation of

construction

equipment/ships

・ Concern about low -

frequency sound from

bridge and further

increase in traffic volume

・ Smoothing of work processes and prohibit

construction at night, Implement adequate

inspection / maintenance of construction

machinery and ships, Observe speed regulations

for vehicles transporting materials / Implement

idling stop policy / Provide guidance to

construction companies on prohibition of

overloading, Placement of noise insulation sheets,

Placement of noise mufflers

・ Provide sound insulating walls and plant trees

along road as necessary, Adopt pavement with

good drainage properties, Use of “no joint” system

on bridge section, improve joints, minimize

pavement level difference

・ Promote modal shift and further develop current

public transport organizations (buses)

Waste ・ Byproduct of construction

process

・ Reuse byproducts of constructions as much

as possible, implement recycling program

Ecosystem ・ Causing change in habitat

・ Implement measures to deal with following issues:

Noise, vibration, muddy water, dust, exhaust

gases. Dispose of waste in appropriate manner

・ Minimize alteration of landscape (select routes

utilizing existing roads, etc.), Create alternative

habitat as necessary

Social

Considerations

Resettlement of

Residents

・ Need for resettlement of

residents

・ Implement measures to deal with following issues:

Noise, vibration, muddy water, dust, exhaust

gases. Dispose of waste in appropriate manner,

Formulate construction plans that reflect traffic

conditions and establish alternative routes

・ Minimize alteration of landscape (select routes

utilizing existing roads, etc.)

Living and

Livelihood

・ Traffic restrictions / traffic

jams in construction area

・ Land usage and means of

livelihood will be changed

Landscape ・ Causing change in view /

landscape


表4


3.4.4 Items to be Achieved by the Government (including implementation agencies and related organizations) for

Implementation of Project (1) Implementation of EIA According to Project Category

The project implementation agency shall implement the KA-ANDAL (Environmental Impact Analysis Implementation

Plan), ANDAL (Environmental Assessment Analysis) and other environmental impact assessment procedures, and obtain

an approval letter from the BLH ([Regional Environmental Management Agency]: Approval agency the government,

province governor or mayor depending upon project content), which is the agency that approves projects. The RPL

(Environment Monitoring Plan) and RPL (Environment Management Plan) shall be prepared and submitted to the BLH.

(2) Review of Alternative Plan

The environmental impact and number of residents that need to be resettled will vary subject to the line form of the

bridge section and access route. Therefore, the project implementation agency shall review these alternative plans from

the standpoint of environmental and social impact at the stage of full-fledged FS that is to be performed in the future.

(3) Implementation of LARAP

The project implementation agency shall comprehend the number of residents that need to be resettled during the

research in the EIA, and at the same time shall formulate a LARAP (Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan).

Then, compensation policy shall be specified.

(4) Consensus Building with Area

When this plan is implemented, tIt is very likely that this project will have environmental and social impact/effect on

the surrounding area, such as the resettlement of residents, interference with existing traffic flow, removal of structures,

generation of noise / vibration and in various dimensions. Therefore, the project implementation agency shall carry out

public consultation at an early stage of project implementation in order to build consensus with the area.

4 Implementation Schedule

The implementation schedule for this project that is programmed at this point is shown in the table below assuming that this

project is developed as a public project and that it is developed as a PPP project. And, should this project be realized under

PPP scheme, a detailed and precise feasibility study must be made on top of the study that has already been completed by

BINA MARGA, the FS that has already been completed by BINA MARGA.( Refer to Table xiv, Table xv )

表4


Table xiv In case of Implemented as Public Project


Table xv In case of Implemented as PPP Project


表4


5 Project Location Map

Figure vi Project Location Map

Source: Map of Indonesia – Prepared by Study Team South Sumatra Province Map –

National Land Survey Institute (BAKOSURTANAL: Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan Nasional) /

Palembang City Map and Planned Site for Construction of Bridge Crossing Musi River –

DINAS PERHUBUNGAN KOTA PALEMBANG

South Sumatra Province

Indonesia

Palembang City

Project Site

Date post:	08-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lelien
View:	215 times
Download:	3 times

STUDY ON MUSIRIVER CROSSING BRIDGE PROJECT IN · PDF fileSTUDY ON MUSIRIVER CROSSING BRIDGE...

Documents