|
|
|
|
|
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%) |
3.6 hours
3.6 hours
10,417,000 (35%)
22,247,000 (74%)
|
| Density of Feeder Roads |
No big difference
|
Formation of International
Road Network
|
|
Asian Highway A-1.
Short distance to Benapole Land Port and Mongla
Sea Port
|
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) |
|
Growth centers around
the bridge sites
|
No big difference
|
|
|
Indicative
Cost
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paturia
- Goalundo
|
Mawa
- Janjira
|
|
US$
1,260 million
|
US$
1,074 million
|
|
|
Evaluation of P-G & M-J sites
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluation
Criteria
|
Paturia
- Goalundo
|
Mawa
- Janjira
|
Economic
Feasibility |
EIRR |
9.6%
|
16.9%
|
| B/C
Ratio |
0.71
|
1.81
|
| NPV
(Mil.Taka) |
-9,857
|
23,140
|
Regional
Development |
Increase
of GRDP of Southwest Region |
18%
up
(1.2% per year)
|
35%
up
(2.3% per year)
|
Environmental
Impact |
Result
of IEE |
No
big difference
|
| Social
impact and Resettlement Issues |
Households
requiring relocation |
1,842
|
2,635
|
| Community
structures affected |
18
|
60
|
| Total
population affected (both direct and indirect) |
40,000-45,000
|
70,000-80,000
|
| Preliminary
RAP cost |
23.7
mil. US$
|
38.79
mil. US$
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
RIVER
TRAINING WORKS (RTW)
|
|
| |
|
Types
of RTW: Guide Bund works (GBW),abutment protection
works (APW) and bank protection works (BPW).
|
|
| |
|
GBW: To
guide river flow to the bridge opening and to protect bridge
abutment and approach road from erosion.
|
|
| |
|
APW: To
protect bridge abutment from erosion.
|
|
| |
|
BPW: To
ensure the functions of the GBW and APW by maintaining
present flow conditions around the bridge sites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
ALTERNATIVES
SCHEMES
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
For
RTW on Left Bank: Two alternative measures
(1) GBW facing to Padma river, or
(2) APW behind the less erodible riverbank (1km apart considering possible
erosion during 100 years in future)
|
|
| |
|
For
RTW on Right Bank: GBW facing to Padma River
were proposed, since no reliable stable bank for abutment
could not be found on the right bank according to the
erodibility study.
|
|
| |
|
Alternative
Schemes: In combination with the left and right
RTW mentioned above, two alternative schemes with same
functions were established each for PG-site and MJ-site.
|
|
| |
|
BPW: The
BPW were also planned for each site considering respective
site conditions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
SELECTION
OF OPTIMUM SITE
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW in
combination of GBW(R), APW(L) and BPW are proposed for
both PG- and MJ- sites.
|
|
| |
|
Construction
Cost: According to the preliminary cost estimate,
MJ-site requires less construction cost than PJ-site.
|
|
| |
|
0ptimum
Site: The optimum site will be finally proposed
afterward considering economic, social and environmental
aspects as well as the engineering aspect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Steps
of Environmental Study
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Initial
Environmental Assessment for Padma River eco-system particularly
for four alternative sites
|
|
| |
|
Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE) for two preferred sites
(reporting in Interim Report)
|
|
| |
|
Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) for the selected site
|
|
| |
|
Environmental
Management Plan (EMP)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Objectives
of IEE
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
To
identify the significant environmental impacts |
|
| |
|
Prepare
Scope of EIA |
|
| |
|
Prepare
a preliminary EMP with cost estimates |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Features
of the IEE Study
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Impact
area is considered as 10,000 km2
|
|
| |
|
ROW
is considered as 60m and Bridge landing site requirement
is assumed as 6 km2
|
|
| |
|
Secondary
data was collected on related parameters
|
|
| |
|
Primary
data was collected by questionnaire survey, reconnaissance,
and discussion with local people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Assessment
Procedure
|
< |
