Download
1 / 64
640 likes | 783 Views
Facilitation of Transport Cooperation among CAREC Countries. Final Report January 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
E N D
Facilitationof Transport Cooperation among CAREC Countries 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
Tasks • 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
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
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 Landslide Railway Existing main road Alternateroute
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
Traffic Flows • The benefits are heavily dependent on traffic • Traffic counts and origin / destination surveys undertaken by Kyrgyzdortransproject
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 • 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.
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
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
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 Traffic via Buka is very small compared with that at Beskostina
Origin Destination(2 way flows by route – vehicles /day) 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 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 There is clearly a project worth funding Alternative 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.
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
Much of the right of way is wide and passing lanes could be provided
