|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
A
tailor project specific 6 step template was developed
and applied
|
|
| |
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Impact
Assessment
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
40
parameters used for screening
|
|
| |
|
|
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) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Impact
Comparison
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Scoping
of EIA
|
|
| |
|
|
(as
Identified in IEE)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Preliminary
EMP
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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$) |
|
| |
|
|
However
the cost requirement variation between the two sites is
insignificant
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
SIA & Resettlement
Issues
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Objectives
of the SIA
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
SIA
Methodology
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
SIA – Survey
Results
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
• |
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
SIA – Survey
Results
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
SIA – Observations
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Awareness
and Response to the Project
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Resettlement
and Preferred Options
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Review
and analysis of the Findings
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Criteria
for Final Site Selection
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Traffic
Demand Forecast of
the Padma Bridge
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Traffic
Volumes across Padma River
(both ways 2003: From Traffic Survey)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Paturia-Goalundo |
Mawa-Charjanjat |
Cross-Padma
Total |
| Light
Vehicle |
572 |
128 |
700
|
| Bus |
687 |
227 |
914
|
| Truck |
1,217 |
78 |
1,295
|
| Total |
2,476 |
433 |
2,909
|
| Launch
Passenger |
15,559 |
9,126 |
24,685
|
|
| |
|
|
Present
Traffic Movement Pattern
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Quantification
of Benefits
|
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Preliminary
Economic Evaluation
|
|
| |
|
|
-
Evaluation period : 30 years |
|
| |
|
|
-
Opportunity Cost of Capital : 12 % |
|
| |
|
|
Tentative
results: 1) EIRR: Paturia = 9.6% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Mawa
= 16.9% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Relationship
Between GRDP and Travel Time to / from Dhaka
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
[Model]
|
|
| |
|
|
Ln
(G)=3.0453-0.5482 Ln (T)+Q.4926 Ln (F)
|
|
| |
|
|
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)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Estimated
Impact on Economic Growth
in
Southwest Region (Growth of GRDP)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Paturia |
Mawa |
| SW
region |
18%
up
(1.2%/year) |
35%
up
(2.3%/year) |
| Bangladesh |
4%
up |
7%
up |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
From
the result of the engineering studies, the economic feasibility
including costs for social and resettlement issues and
future effect on GRDP growth in Southwest Region, the best
bridge site is concluded at Maws - Janjira .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Findings
of Progress report - 2
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
This
report mainly deals with
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
-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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Design
Criteria & standards
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Parameters
related to River Engineering
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Reasons
for review on bridge types, span-cost relation of Interim
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
-
|
Bridge
width was changed from 17.2m in the interim report to 21.5m
in this report
|
|
| |
|
-
|
In
the interim report foundation stability was examined based
on the ship collision force 23.3 MN, which is slightly
refined 23.7 MN in this report.
|
|
| |
|
-
|
In
the interim report current market prices in Japan were
used for estimating the indicative cost of steel girder
bridge (US$5,000/ton including materials, fabrication,
transport, erection). It would have to be re-estimating
taking into consideration the possible case of internationally
prevailing market prices (US$3,800/ton including materials,
fabrication, transport, erection).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
PC
extradosed girder Type Bridge has been selected for the
main bridge structure of the Padma Bridge from the view
points of less construction cost, aesthetics and river
aspect. In addition Bangladesh side requested the study
team to include alternative options that has cable stayed
girder at the center portion of approximately 800m in length.
As a result the following five alternatives will be examined
in the preliminary design of the study:
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Approach & service
Roads
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
-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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
