Developing a Computer-aided Methodology for District Road Network Planning and Prioritization in Nepal Shrestha, C.B.

1 Abstract Contemporary methodologies are not conducive to requirements of the district level transportation planning. Therefore this paper proposes a computer-aided methodology for planning and prioritizing district transportation networks. The methodology has two versions, one for developed areas and another for underdeveloped areas. Establishing interactive relationships among transport networks, costs and benefits are unique features of the methodology designed for developed areas. A simplified version of the methodology is introduced for underdeveloped areas. The GIS supported and spreadsheet based methodology is useful for planning the district level road networks in Nepal and other developing countries. Introduction Nepal has a rugged topography dissected by a number of streams and rivers. Therefore, a large part of the country is inaccessible. The major highway networks connect only few national level cities and towns located mainly in the southern plain areas. A considerable portion of the population lives in the hilly and mountainous settlements where commodities are transported either by porters or by pack animals. Transporting goods even in the plain area is not efficient due to lack of all weather road connections from road heads to hinterlands. Development professionals argue that inaccessibility is one of the main reasons for underdevelopment in Nepal. Since the state has limited financial resources, it is necessary to mobilize local resources for construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure. Therefore His Majestys Government of Nepal (HMGN) has handed over the responsibility for local level transport infrastructure to the District Development Committees (DDCs) with the assumption that the DDCs can effectively mobilize local resources and acquire peoples participation. The DDCs have limited skills with which to plan and prioritize transport networks. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a methodology and other supporting tools and techniques that facilitate the development of sustainable road networks. Due to difficult topographic conditions, the transport infrastructure needs a high level of investment. In view of this and the meagre financial resources within the DDCs, it is necessary to devise a methodology and construction technology that provides a minimum level of accessibility with available resources. In other words, it is essential to establish a balanced relationship between the investment and the benefits for a rational allocation of the scarce resources. Different agencies and individuals have developed road planning methodologies. Adler (1967), Roy and Patil (1977), United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) (1985), Beenhakker (1987), the International Labour Organization (ILO) (Dixon-Fyle, 1998)
1

Professor of Transportation Engineering and Management at the Nepal Engineering College, Bhaktapur, Nepal

and Department of Local Infrastructure and Agricultural Roads (DOLIDAR, 1998) developed rural and regional transportation planning methodologies. The Geschllschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbait (GTZ, 1993), Wilber Smith Associates Inc. and Snowy Mountain Engineering Cooperation International (WSA and SMEC, 1996) and Pilot Labour Based District Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project (Shrestha, 1997) prepared transport plans in the rural and regional context of Nepal. However, all of these methodologies suffer from one or other weaknesses including no networking concept, orientation towards the supply side, lack of participatory approach and absence of the economic indicators in prioritization. Similarly a number of computer packages for planning and appraising the regional and rural road networks are also developed. One of the earlier computerized versions for planning and appraisal of rural road projects was the producers surplus approach based Feeder Road Analysis Package (FR75) (Carnemark et al. 1984). The outputs of the package are the Economic Rate of Return (ERR), Net Present Value (NPV), First Year Benefit (FYB), Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Cost Parametric Analysis (CPA) of a rate of return computation and Risk Analysis. As mentioned by the TRRL (1988), the agricultural production approach has a poor result and the FR75 relies on the producers surplus for assessing the benefits of a road project. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) in UK developed the Road Transport Investment Model for Developing Countries (RTIM) (Petersen et al. 1996). Petersen et al. mention that this model was initially based on a comprehensive data collection in Kenya during the 1970s and was, during the 1980s, supplemented with a study in the Caribbean in order to extend the applicability of the Kenya road user cost relationship. The World Bank developed the Highway Design and Maintenance Model (HDM) in 1966. Petersen et al. (1996) mentioned that the original version of HDM was not suitable for reflecting pavement performance in tropical developing countries. The HDM-III was introduced in early 1980s incorporating the issue of maintenance. In addition to other limitations, this model relied upon the vehicle operating cost, which is not applicable in the rural areas of developing countries like Nepal. Therefore, the International Study of Highway Development and Management (ISOHDM, 2001) has extended the scope of HDM-III model to provide a harmonized system approach to road management, with adaptable and userfriendly software tools (ISOHDM, 2001). The HDM-4 can be used for many different road investment planning questions including broad questions of road system management policy, strategies for upkeep or improvement of road networks, the programming of road maintenance or improvement works across budget periods when the needs for investment exceed the available budget. The World Banks HDM- 4 presents a very good framework for low-volume unpaved roads, but it does not capture all benefits associated with low volume road investments, and requires inputs which are impractical to collect for vast networks with low traffic levels, such as surface layers, materials properties and refined traffic data (Archondo-Callao, 1999). In order to address the needs of low volume roads, the World Bank (Archondo-Callo, 1999) developed the Roads Economic Decision Model (RED). The RED performs economic evaluation of improvements and maintenance projects adopting the consumers surplus approach instead of producers surplus approach, which is the major policy shift of the Bank for evaluating the rural roads. Although it is simpler and useful for evaluating the rural roads, it uses the vehicle operating cost reductions a sole criterion for the evaluation. That makes the model unusable for the areas, which are only connected by the trails and mule-tracks like most part of Nepal.

Tracey-White and Vaidya (1998) have also developed an economic model for screening and selection of the rural roads. Conceptually, it is similar to the RED approach by taking VOC savings and suffers from the same weaknesses. Crossley (1999) developed an Expert System for the Prediction of Total Vehicle and Road Operating Cost (RANE) in developing countries. The main concern of the RANE is to assess the maintenance cost of the infrastructure and the vehicle. Therefore, it helps to develop the alternative maintenance strategies. Since its focus is not to plan and appraise regional roads, its applicability in this context is limited. Against such a backdrop, the objective of this study is to develop a computer-aided methodology for planning and prioritizing the district level road networks that minimizes the limitations of the available methodologies. Methodology and scope of appraisal in Nawalparasi district The proposed methodology for planning the district road networks was developed based on a policy maker and engineer survey conducted in 46 sample districts of Nepal. Twenty-eight experts and practitioners were selected from the judgmental sampling. The experts consisted of the past and present Project Managers and Chief Technical Advisers of rural road projects, academicians, central level government officials and consultants. Opinions of the engineers, policy makers and other experts were analyzed and synthesized. In the second stage, a test district was selected. Three criteria were used for selecting the test district. The first criterion was that the district should have partly plain and partly hilly area so that both versions of methodology could be tested. The second criterion was that the selected district should be representative in terms of population size and land area. District revenue was also considered. The third criterion was that the study district should have a transportation study conducted recently. The Nawalparasi district satisfied all stipulated criteria. Therefore it was considered as a most representative district for study. The first author worked in this district as a transport planner for more than three years. His familiarity with the district was another phenomenal reason. After districts selection and nationwide survey of policy makers, different types of primary surveys were conducted. All major transport infrastructures were observed and the observation was recorded. After identifying the district level market centres, cordon surveys were conducted in all major corridors connecting hinterlands. Such surveys conducted twice a month (one market and one non-market day) during four consecutive months. Besides quite a few road side surveys were conducted. Representative sample of passenger vehicle survey, freight carrier survey and passenger survey in all district roads was conducted. The methodology has two versions, one for developed areas and another for underdeveloped areas. An area is defined as the developed area, which has road density greater than 0.17 km/km2 and if the area has road density less than 0.17 km/km2 it is defined as an underdeveloped area. The average road density of 0.17 km/km2 is taken from the national average omitting the Kathmandu valley districts, which have exceptionally higher road density. The road density of all other districts ranges between 0 to 0.34 km/km2. According to this definition, the developed and underdeveloped areas are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Developed and Underdeveloped Area in the Nawalparasi District

The methodology was translated into a computer-aided model with two versions. After developing the structure and algorithms, the model was tested in the Nawalparasi district of Nepal. The test runs were conducted in two stages. During the pre-testing phase, the methodology was presented to the DDC meeting including Engineer, Planning Officer, DDC Secretary and DDC Members. After presentation, the Engineer and Planning Officer were asked to operate the model. The feedback received from the exercise was incorporated in the model. In the second stage, the participants were informed about the background, objectives and scope of the study. That was followed by an extensive discussion. After that one questionnaire survey was conducted for getting feedback on the methodology. Methodology for Planning and Prioritizing the District Road Networks Based on different types of surveys and state of the art, two versions of a methodology for planning and prioritizing the district road networks for the developed and underdeveloped areas are outlined and presented in Figure 2 and 3. Figure 2 Methodology for the Developed Areas Figure 3 Methodology for the Underdeveloped Areas District Road Planning and Prioritization Model for the Developed Areas The District Road Network Planning and Prioritization Model for the Developed Area (DRPMD) is divided into five modules. The model does not consider issues such as the need of the transport planning, strengthening the technical and planning branch of the DDC and setting goals and objectives. Such analysis should be conducted outside the model environment. Similarly, the activity of matching available resources with the priority list is not directly integrated in the model, because it involves several policy decisions, availability of the resources and the DDC policies and strategies for the construction, rehabilitation of the regional road projects. The model is shown in Figure 4. Other activities like approving the transport plan by the District Council and endorsement by the National Planning Commission (NPC) and DOLIDAR are the formal activities, which are part of the methodology but not part of the model. Figure 4 District Road Network Planning and Prioritization Model for the Developed Areas (DNPMD) Network Module The network development of the district level roads involves identification of the nodes and that governs the structure of links. Both nodes and links constitute the network of a region. There are quite a few techniques to determine hierarchy of the nodal points. Among them the Scalogram and Centrality Index are popular among the regional planners. The Scalogram is the graphical technique and the Centrality Index is a quantitative technique for determining the hierarchy of settlements. As a quantitative technique, the Centrality Index facilitates computation of the hierarchy more precisely in comparison to the Scalogram technique. Therefore, this study has adopted the Centrality Index for determining the hierarchy of the nodal points. The Centrality Index was calculated as (Sarma, Routray and Singh, 1984):

CJ =

(W X
i, i=1

ij

where,

C j = Centrality Index of the jth market center X ij = Value of the i th function (number of establishments or shops at the jth market center) Wi = Weightage of the jth function
The weight of each function was calculated by adopting the Median Threshold Population Technique (Sarma, Routray and Singh, 1984). The Median Threshold Population Technique calculates the weight as:

Wi =

Median Population of the i th function Lowest median population of the market centers where a function exists

The forecast growth of the centrality index was based on historical trend and opinion survey of knowledgeable persons. An open ended discussion was conducted with the informants on development of market centres. Why do they feel that certain facilities will appear in certain market centres and why will they vanish from certain market centres? Given historical trend of urbanization pattern and evolving road networks, the prediction seems to be pretty accurate. Nonetheless sometimes government institutions do not respond the market dynamics fast enough. For instance relocation decision of administrative offices entails serious political and social repercussions. The prediction of knowledgeable people with respect to the private sector facilities is reasonable. It appeared that the historical towns close to Indian border like Tribeni were declining whereas the National Highway intersection towns like Bardhaghat are flourishing. Based on this scenario, the knowledgeable people predicted what facilities in the flourishing towns will be appearing like new schools, colleges, banks and other facilities. On the other hand, they also predicted that the public and private sector facilities in declining towns should be closed down within a few years. The present and future centrality index of each market centre is shown in Table 1. The present functions and their respective weights are shown in Table 2. Education, health related, commercial and industrial functions are included in Table 2. Only those functions should be selected that attract trips from the hinterland settlements. In terms of trip generating capacity, the government institutions like the administrative offices, district level court and police station play an insignificant role in comparison to the functions that included in Table 2. As the private sector is providing services increasingly and taking over the responsibilities of the public sector, public sector offices do not attract considerable volume of trips. However, if the planners consider that in certain region certain types of facilities can attract trips, such facilities can be included for calculation of the centrality index. The illustrated methodology can be applied for such functions as well. Table 1 Present and Future Centrality Index of Market Centres in Developed Areas Table 2 Present Functions and their Weight in Each Market Centre

The identified nodal points and present road network are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Existing District Level Inventory of Roads and Trails After locating nodal points and road network on a map, a matrix of shortest routes for connecting different nodes are identified in Table 3. Table 4 presents the actual origin and destination matrix of the travel time for the shortest routes identified in Table 3. After identifying the shortest routes and locating the existing transport infrastructures on the map, the missing linkages were located which are the candidate roads for new construction and rehabilitation. Table 3 Identification of the Shortest Route with the Present Road Network Table 4 Origin-Destination Road Distance Matrix among Market Centres (in Km) Those routes which have possibility to decrease road length or travelling distance are defined as the settlements with missing links. From Table 3 and Figure 5, it can be deduced that the Bardhaghat Maheshpur, Triveni Maheshpur (Thutibari) and Maheshpur (Thutibari) Gopigunj are the missing links in the network. The Bardhaghat Maheshpur section also includes Gopigunj Maheshpur section. At present, Triveni- Maheshpur is the foot-trail section which needs to be upgraded as the district level road. Since it involves only upgrading, the road length will not be decreased. The present length of Bardhaghat Maheshpur route of 48 km can be decreased to 23 km after constructing GopigunjMaheshpur section. The present route between Gopigunj Maheshpur can be decreased to 13 km. Transport Demand Estimation Module After developing the district level transport networks, the transport demand of each link is estimated for upgrading, rehabilitation or new construction. In the context of a lack of time series data and as an effort to avoid the rigorous five step model (land use, trip generation, trip distribution, modal split and traffic assignment), this relationship between the intensity of interaction with that of volume of traffic in a given link is established. The intensity of interaction was calculated as:
Iij = (Ci . Pi ). (C j .Pj )
b d ij

where, Iij = Interaction between two nodal points Ci = Centrality Index of node i C j = Centrality Index of node j Pi = Population of node i Pj = Population of node j d = Distance between i and j
b

= deterrence function (b = 2 for this study)

In order to establish a relationship between the present volume of traffic and intensity of interaction, only seven links are considered. Among ten links in the developed area of the district, three links are discarded. The National Highway (Link No. 1, Fig. 5) and Canal Road (Link No. 7, Fig. 5) are not within the jurisdiction of the DDC, though they play an important role in the district transport. The Gopigunj- Maheshpur section (Link No. 10, Fig. 5) is excluded because there is no all weather motorable road. The present volume of traffic in Link No. 10 is not a reliable basis for traffic projection. The future volume of traffic for a new link will be determined by generated and diverted traffic. Reliable information could not be collected for Link No. 8. If reliable traffic data could not be generated for certain link of the networks, it is better idea not to incorporate in the data series to calculate interaction coefficient which can be considered as a limit to this approach. With six samples, the relationship between the intensity of interaction and volume of passengers is found y = 458704x.3015, where y is the annual volume of passengers and x is the intensity of interaction. A similar relationship is established for freight, which is y = 367683x.6044, where y is the annual volume of freight in quintal and x is the intensity of interaction. Figure 6 and 7 show the relationship between the intensity of interaction and volume of passenger and freight respectively.

Figure 6 Relationship between Intensity of Interaction and Volume of Passenger Figure 7 Relationship between Intensity of Interaction and Volume of Freight
After establishing the relationship between intensity of interaction and volume of traffic (passenger and freight), the future intensity of interaction and the established relationship, the future volume of passenger and freight is estimated. Table 5 shows the shortest routes after constructing the proposed roads.

Table 5 Identification of the Shortest Routes after Constructing the Proposed Roads (Distance in Km)
The intensities of interaction of all nodes are assigned to a link through which the nodes are connected. For instance, since there are linkages between Parasi with Bardhaghat, Butwal and Sunwal, the intensities of interaction between Parasi with all other destinations are aggregated for Link 2 which is common for all destinations. Therefore although Sunwal is relatively a small market centre, the volume of traffic between Parasi and Sunwal is high because the traffic having a destination in other market centres passed via Sunwal. Table 6 shows such aggregation process and future intensity of interaction of each market centre.

Table 6 Assignment of Future Intensity of Interaction on Present and Proposed Links

The regression equation of Figure 6 and 7 and the link with future intensity of interaction are used for estimating the future transport demand. For instance, the equation we have is: y = 458704x 0.3015. The future intensity of interaction is 84.53 for Route 2. Substituting the value of x in the equation, the future volume of passengers can be calculated as 1,747,870. That is the volume of passenger after twenty years. Similarly the volume of passengers for other routes and volume of freight is also calculated. The projected volume of passenger and freight is shown in Table 7. The planning period is twenty years. The volume of traffic of the Link No. 10 could not be estimated because there is no base year volume of traffic. Therefore this link should be opened up as a fair weather road. According to the principle of staged construction, a road should be constructed in different stages. Such practice allows road designers to respond the volume and characteristics of traffic that optimizes the road

investment. Link No. 10 is recommended to be upgraded to fair weather road now because of its characteristics of a district level road connecting two market centres. Nonetheless its further development will depend upon the volume of traffic it will be able to generate in future which will determine its geometric standards and surface type. After opening up the road, the vehicles start to ply on the road which gives clue for the volume of traffic. If it justifies, the link should be upgraded. If the volume of traffic is low, no upgrading is viable. Therefore the methodology has a built in mechanism for the phased construction of a transport infrastructure depending on actual demand.

Table 7 Projected Volume of Passenger and Freight Cost Estimation Module

Construction cost depends upon the construction norms and design standards of a road. Construction norms differ with respect to the construction technology. Transportation demand determines not only the design standards but also the construction technology. Volume of traffic plays a major role for the routine and periodic maintenance of a road. The cost estimation module calls for an intricate balance among those variables and it is directly related with the financial capacity of a district. According to a global estimate (WSA and SMEC, 1996) such cost would be NRs. 468 thousand for one Kilometre of road. If such road is to be upgraded to an all weather gravel road, it costs nearly NRs. 2.4 million per km. If local participation could be secured for rehabilitation of the road, the cost for upgrading from an earth track to a fair weather earthen road would not be required. The local people can contribute only unskilled labour. Since the further upgrading requires the skilled labour force and capital investment, the local contribution is not possible.

Figure 8 Consequence of Technology on the Construction Cost in the Developed Areas

In Figure 8, the construction technology of the Department of Roads (DOR) and DOLIDAR are considered as the labour-based technology because both agencies use mainly labour in addition to the small equipment. All agencies that use the labour-intensive technology are categorized into one group. The Malekhu-Dhadhing Road Project (MDRP) and contractor survey (con.sur.) are typical capital-intensive construction technology. Using simple equipment like a tractor-towed leveller, low loading trailer and water-bowser, the DOLIDAR has the cheapest per km construction cost in the plain area. ,

Benefit Estimation Module

One of the special features of this model is to aggregate the consumers surplus and producers surplus. Based on anecdotal evidences, only 50 percent of the saved time is considered as the productive time and such time is multiplied with the prevailing unskilled labour wages. A light truck normally carries around 5 Tonne of goods and a Mini Bus carries around 50 people. Both mode of transport involve similar transport cost. Therefore one hundred kilogram of freight is considered equivalent to a person and savings in the travelling time is calculated accordingly. In order to simplify the calculation, the mid-year transport demand of the planning period is considered for calculating the benefits. Ideally, one could use the benefit for the respective year according to the forecasted volume of traffic. Because of its predominance in the economy, only agricultural producers surplus is considered for calculating the volume of traffic. However, it is possible to include the

industrial producers surplus if it is expected that industrialization could be induced by the improved access. Transportation cost was calculated in with and without road situation. The transportation cost decreases in with road situation because cost of same mode of transport decreases by road upgrading and new mode of transport is also introduced which further reduces the volume of transport. The savings in transportation cost is NRs. 2,877 thousand and the benefits generated from the savings in travelling time is NRs. 1,990 thousand. In order to calculate the producers surplus, the cultivated area is measured from the GIS maps and databases. Only five major crops are taken for calculating the producers surplus. They are paddy, sugarcane, legume, vegetables and fruits. The crops can be changed according to the requirement and additional crops can be included. With improved access, it is assumed that productivity of existing crops will be increased. However, direct impact of improved access is to increase the farm-gate price in response to decreased transport cost. Additionally new profitable crops can be produced. The producers surplus occupies greater portion of the benefits, which is nearly NRs. 2.3 million. With an increase in the producers surplus, the cost of production also increases. New agricultural inputs are required for getting higher productivity. The land area under crop cultivation also increases leading to increased requirement of production cost. The increased cost of production will be nearly NRs 6 million.

Prioritization of Roads
Based on the costs and benefits, the Economic Net Present Value (ENPV), Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and the Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio) is calculated. The economic performance of the Triveni-Maheshpur Road (Road 9) in the developed area is satisfactory with having more than NRs. 9 million ENPV at 12 percent discount rate, 17 percent EIRR and 1.27 times Economic Benefit Cost Ratio. The rate of return indicates that the project is viable.

District Road Planning and Prioritization Model for the Underdeveloped Areas
Hilly and mountainous regions are normally the underdeveloped areas. Due to rugged topographic condition, most of the settlements are not accessible. Cultivable land is also scarce. Only subsistence agriculture is practiced. Settlements are sparsely distributed. A state has a moral obligation to provide a minimum accessibility, which is considered as a basic need. However, transport infrastructure in such area is rarely economically viable. It needs a different approach for networking and prioritization. Therefore the proposed methodology prioritizes the projects based on the socio-economic criteria. However, the feedback received during the pre-testing of model suggested that the economic analysis is required for the road projects in the underdeveloped areas as well. Therefore, both types of prioritization are included. The framework for prioritizing the roads with economic indicators is identical to the model for the developed areas. The model for prioritizing roads by socio-economic criteria is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 District Road Network Planning and Prioritization Model for Underdeveloped Areas (DRPMU) Networking in the Underdeveloped Areas

For developing the district road networks, the accessible areas were delineated from the inaccessible areas. After delineating the accessible areas from the inaccessible areas, the gateway and hinterland nodal points were identified. The procedure of categorizing the nodal-points is similar to the developed areas. However, the characteristics of the hinterland nodal points change drastically after constructing the proposed road that needs an educated judgment. Despite educated judgment, it is difficult to forecast the precise development trend that calls for an incremental approach in road design. In the second stage, the gateway nodal points are connected with the nearest hinterland points. Therefore, the issue of shortest path is not important in the underdeveloped areas because there are no other alternative options. The selection of the appropriate alignment is important in the underdeveloped areas from the engineering perspective rather than the networking viewpoint. The networking procedure for the underdeveloped areas is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Procedure for Network Development in the Underdeveloped Areas

Based on proposed networking procedure, a road network in the underdeveloped area is proposed and presented in Table 8.

Table 8 District Level Roads in Underdeveloped Areas Prioritization Module

The prioritization criteria were identified based on expert survey. The weights for individual criteria were assigned by the members of Nawalparasi DDC. Since the criteria and their respective weights are subjective and relative, the policy makers can identify criteria and assign weight. The agricultural potential, intensity of interaction, accessibility, construction cost and environmental impact are the prioritization criteria for the underdeveloped areas. The prioritization of the proposed roads based on the socio-economic criteria is presented in Table 9. Since only standardized per km construction cost could be calculated, it has no meaning unless that the actual field based cost data are available. Therefore it is not included in the prioritization. Based on the total score, the road links are ranked. The Kawasoti Bulintar Road obtained the highest score (0.93) followed by the Kawasoti Dedgaon Road. (0.87). The score of other roads is less than 0.50.

Table 9 Prioritization of Proposed Roads by Socio-Economic Parameters in Underdeveloped Areas

The prioritization technique as shown in Table 9 does not mention clearly whether the candidate roads are viable. Is it necessary to downgrade the standard of such roads or not? How such score can be compared with other development initiatives? Such questions can not be answered by the socio-economic criteria based prioritization technique. Therefore as suggested by some experts and practitioners, the proposed roads in the underdeveloped areas were also evaluated by using the economic indicators. The result of the economic evaluation is presented in Table 10.

Table 10 Prioritization of Road Links by Economic Indicators in Underdeveloped Areas

The order of ranking by socio-economic criteria and economic indicators is slightly different. Kawaswoti Dedgaon has secured the first ranking road by economic method, which was the second ranking road by socio-economic criteria. Similarly, the rank of other roads is changed.

10

The comparative results on prioritization based on socio-economic criteria and economic analysis is shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Comparative Results of Prioritization Based on Socio-Economic Criteria and Economic Analysis
Since results from both methods are not similar, the question arises which method should be adopted. To answer this question, one should examine the level of complexity in computation, compatibility with the model for the developed areas, transparency and required data for computation and facilitation for the further analysis. The economic ranking is more compatible to the approaches for the developed areas. Besides that, it not only facilitates intra-road comparison but also inter-sectoral comparison. Therefore ranking by economic analysis is superior to prioritization based on the socio-economic criteria. Nonetheless, it is difficult to accommodate concern of equity in the economic prioritization. Therefore, first the road in the underdeveloped areas should be prioritized based on socio-economic criteria that should be followed by the economic evaluation. The exercise allows adjusting the design standards of a given road according to the traffic demand while serving the concern for equity.

Overall Output of the Planning Exercise

The overall district level road network for developed as well as underdeveloped areas is presented in Figure 11. The Zone of Influence of present and proposed road networks is presented in Figure 12. Figure 12 shows that almost entire district settlements are served with the district level road network with the definition of accessibility within 3 km from the road head. The unserved areas are mainly covered by forest. Few uncovered settlements should be served by the Village Roads.

Figure 11 District Level Present and Proposed Road Networks Figure 12 Zone of Influence of Present and Proposed Road Network Conclusions
Identification of the missing linkages based on present and potential nodal points and existing links and estimation of the transport demand by establishing relationship with the intensity of interaction are the main contributions of this study. In addition to that, the methodology allows comparing cost of different construction technologies. In order to assess the total benefit of a rural road project, the methodology has proposed to aggregate the producers surplus and consumers surplus. For the underdeveloped areas, the transport infrastructures were prioritized by socio-economic criteria but it was supplemented with the economic analysis for fixing the geometric and pavement standards. The spreadsheet based computer model supported by the GIS software packages is found demand driven, useful and cheaper solution in comparison to the manual methods and specialized models that are designed for solving the urban transportation problems. The test result of the model that was conducted in Nawalparasi district of Nepal revealed that the model is appropriate for the requirements of the districts in Nepal and other developing countries.

11

Nonetheless this methodology requires fairly accurate data which might be difficult to collect in the rural districts of the developing countries. It might be difficult to use GIS software at the district level. Similarly selection of rural road for new construction and upgrading is normally a political decision rather than technical. Nonetheless having not making rationale decision, the districts are paying very high price in terms of transport inefficiencies and broadly underdevelopment. The realization of consequence of ad-hoc decision is also rapidly increasing. Cost of the GIS software is decreasing and it is getting widely available. Therefore it can be expected that the local governments of developing countries will be largely benefited with this methodology.

Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the doctoral dissertation of the first author. The doctoral program was sponsored by the Government of Japan. The fieldworks was jointly supported by the International Labour Organization (ASIST-AP) and International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). All of the donors are gratefully acknowledged. Nonetheless, the donors bear no responsibility for the ideas expressed in this paper.

12

References
Adler, H.A. Sector and Project Planning in Transportation. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, U.S.A., 1967. Archondo-Callo, R. Road Economic Decision Model: User Manual. The World Bank, 1999. Beenhakker, H. L. Rural Transport Services, A Guide to their Planning and Implementation. Intermediate Technology Publications, London U.K, 1987. Carnemark, C.; Biderman, J., and Bovet, D., 1984. The Economic Analysis of Rural Road Projects. Staff Working Papers, No. 241, Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Crossley, P. An expert system for the prediction of total vehicle and road operating costs in developing countries. Silsoe College, Carnfield University, Silsoe, Bedford, UK, 1999. Dixon-Fyle, K. Accessibility Planning and Local Development: The application possibilities of the IRAP methodology. Development Policy Department, International Labour Organization, Geneva, 1998. DOLIDAR (Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads). Approach for the Development of Agricultural and Rural Roads, Kutikhel, Lalitpur, Nepal, 1999. GTZ (Gescellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit). Transportation Infrastructure Master Plan for Dhadhing District. Dhadhing Development Project, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1993. ISOHDM (International Study of Highway Development and Management). Features of HDM-4 Software. October, 2001. http:/hdm4.piarc.org/info/HDMfeatures-e.htm, Accessed November 5, 2001. Petersen, M.S., T.A. Poulsen, A. and C. Bro. The World Bank HDM Model, In (Thagesen, B. (Ed.). 1996, pp. 45 64. Roy, P., and Patil, B.R., 1977. Manual for Block Level Planning. Meerut, India: The Macmillan Company of India Limited. Sarma, P. K.; Routray, J. K., and Singh, D. K., 1984. Spatial Analysis of Hierarchy of Market Centres and Domestic Market Potential Surface of Central Assam (India). The Indian Journal of Marketing Geography 2(1): 45-64. Shrestha, C. B. Manual for the Preparation of a District Transportation Master Plan, Pilot Labour Based District Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project, Butwal, Nepal, 1997. Thagesen, B. (Ed.). Highway and Traffic Engineering in Developing Countries. E. and FN Spon, London, U.K. 1996. Tracey-White, J. K. Vaidya. Planning Framework for Sub-Project Screening and Selection. I.T. Transport Ltd., Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 1998.

13

TRRL (Transport and Road Research Laboratory). A Guide to Road Project Appraisal. Crowthrone Berkshire, U.K., 1988. UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements). Guidelines for the Planning of Rural Settlements and Infrastructure: Road Networks. Nairobi, Kenya, 1985. WSA and SMEC (Wilber Smith Associates Inc. and Snowy Mountains Engineering Cooperation International, Ltd.). Master Plan for Strategies Road Network and Rural Transport, Vol. III Rural Transport. Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project, Department of Roads, Nepal, 1996.

14

DDC should prepare the District Transport Master Plan (DTMP) under the Local Governance Act - 2055

No District realizes the need for transport planning Yes Strengthening of technical and planning branch for the preparation of the District Transport Master Plan (DTMP) Stop

Formulation of goals and objectives Analysis of the existing situation (Mainly origin/destination of trips) Forecasting of demographic structure, urbanization trend, land use pattern and O/D of trips

Development of the district level transport network

Estimation of transport demand per link

Design each link according to the transport demand

Benefit

estimation
Cost estimation of each link for rehabilitation and new construction

Calculation of economic indicators and prioritization of road links

Matching available resources with the priority list No Approval of the transport plan by the District Council

Yes Endorsement by the NPC and DOLIDAR End of planning stage

Legend
Decision Process Terminator

15

Figure 2 Flow Chart of the Methodology for the Developed Areas DDC should prepare the
District Transport Master Plan (DTMP) under the Local Governance Act - 2055 District realizes the need for transport planning

No Stop

Yes
Strengthening of technical and planning branch for the preparation of the DTMP Formulation of goals and objectives

Analysis of the existing situation (Mainly origin/destination of trips)

Forecasting of demographic structure, urbanization trend, land use pattern and o/d of trips Development of the district level transport network

Parameters for Prioritization Intensity of Interaction Cost Agricultural Potential Accessibility Environmental Impact

Matching available resources with the priority list No Approval of the transport plan by the District Council

Yes Endorsement by the NPC and DOLIDAR

End of planning stage

Legend
Decision Terminator Process

Figure 3 Methodology for the Underdeveloped Areas

16

17

18

19

Figure 8 Consequence of Technology on the Construction Cost in the Developed Areas

1800

1600

1400 Per Km Construction Cost in NRs. ,000

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 DOR DOLIDAR Lab._Inte Constructing Agencies MDRP Con.Sur

20

21

(1) Preparation of the district road inventory (database and map)

(2) Identification of gateway nodal points along the existing road corridor and potential nodal points in the hinterland (4)Hierarchy of present and potential nodal points

(3) Distinguish inaccessible areas from accessible areas

(5)Identify the traffic volume in all routes (6)Connection of the gateway nodal point and the nodal points in the hinterlands which has highest volume of traffic (7)Drawing Buffer Zone (as agreed by the DDC) around the first road (8)Anticipate impact of the first road on the movement of traffic (9) Continue activity 6 until all settlements are within the accessible zone according to their priority order

District Road Network Legend Process Manual Input Terminator Document

END

Figure 10 Procedure for Network Development in the Underdeveloped Areas

22

23

24

Table 1 Present and Future Centrality Index of Market Centres in Developed Areas No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Market Centres Present Parasi Bardhaghat Sunwal Tribeni Maheshpur Gopigunj Butwal* Bhairahawa* 71 34 26 38 41 14 200 150 Centrality Index Future 183 128 106 76 71 65 350 300

* Centrality Index of the market centres located outside the Nawalparasi district is estimated by the executive judgment of the DDC members, Secretary and Planning Officer.

25

26

Table 3 Identification of the Shortest Routes (Distance in Km)

Origin Destination Route Options* 1 5, 6 (24) 2 (9) 5, 8 (32) 3 (12) 5 (15) 2, 1 (30) 4 (21) 6(9) 1 (17) 6, 8 (26) 6, 5, 3 (48) 1 (38) 1 (62) 1, 6 (43) 2, 3 (21) 1, 6 (26) 1 (21) 1 (45) 9 (21) Shortest 2 Route Distance (Km) 2,1(26) 5,6 (24) 2 (9) 5, 8 (32) 3 (12) 5 (15) 2, 1 (30) Shortest Possibility Length Remarks Time after of Route (in Shortening Shortening Minute) 2,1 (36) No NA 2 (14) No NA 5, 8 (64) No NA 3 (18) No NA 5 (30) No NA 2, 1 No NA (41.5) 4 (21) 4 (42) No NA 6(9) 6(18) No NA 1 (17) 1(23) No NA 6, 8 (26) 6, 8 (52) No NA 6, 5, 3 (48) 6, 5, 3 Yes 23 New (66) Construction 1 (38) 1(51) No NA 6, 5, 4 (45) 1(90) No NA 2, 5, 8 (41) 1, 6 (75) No NA 2, 3 (21) 2, 3 (32) No NA 2, 5 (24) 1, 6 (41) No NA 1 (21) 1(28) No NA 2, 4 (30) 1(40) No NA 9 (21) 9 No 21 Needs Upgrading 8 (17) 8 (34) No NA 8, 5, 2, 8, 6, No NA 1(62) 1(103) 8,5,4 (53) 8,5,4 No NA (106) 5, 3 (27) 5, 3 (48) Yes 13 New Construction 3, 2,1(42) 3, 2, No NA 1(60) 3, 4 (30) 3, 4(60) No NA 5,2,1 (45) 6, 1(69) No NA 5, 4 (36) 5, 4(72) No NA 1 (24) 1(32) No NA

Parasi Parasi Parasi Parasi Parasi Parasi Parasi Bardhaghat Bardhaghat Bardhaghat Bardhaghat Bardhaghat Bardhaghat Sunwal Sunwal Sunwal Sunwal Sunwal Tribeni Tribeni Tribeni Tribeni

Bardhaghat Sunwal Tribeni Maheshpur Gopigunj Butwal Bhairahawa Gopigunj Sunwal Triveni Maheshpur Butwal Bhairahawa Tribeni Maheshpur Gopigunj Butwal Bhairahawa Maheshpur Gopigunj Butwal Bhairahawa

6, 5, 4 (45) 2, 5, 8 (41) 2, 5 (24) 2, 4 (30)

8 (17) 8, 6, 1 (64) 8, 5, 2, 1(62) 8,5,4 (53) 5, 3 (27) 3, 2, 1 (42)

Maheshpur Gopigunj Maheshpur Butwal

Maheshpur Bhairahawa 3, 4 (30) Gopigunj Butwal 6, 1 (47) 5,2,1 (45) Gopigunj Bhairahawa 5, 4 (36) Butwal Bhairahawa 1 (24) *Length of the route is given in parenthesis in Km. NA = Not applicable

27

Table 4 Origin-Destination Road Distance Matrix among Market Centers1

Market Centres Parasi Bardhaghat Sunwal Tribeni Maheshpur Gopigunj Butwal Bhairahawa
1 2

Parasi Bardhaghat Sunwal Tribeni Maheshpur Gopigunj Butwal Bhairahawa 0 26(36) 9(14) 32(64) 12(18) 15(30) 30(42) 21(42) 0 17(23) 26(52) 25(66) 9(18) 38(51) 62(90) 0 43(75) 21(32) 26(41) 21(28) 45(40) 2 0 21( ) 17(34) 64(103) 53(106) 0 13(2) 42(60) 30(60) 0 47(69) 36(72) 0 24(32) 0

Figures outside the bracket show the distance in Km and inside the bracket shows the time distance in minute. No motor able road exists now, therefore requires new construction.

Table 5 Identification of the Shortest Routes after Constructing the Proposed Roads (Distance in km)
Links in the Route1 Shortest Distance Shortest Time Links2 1 2 Parasi Bardhaghat 5, 6 (24) 2,1(26) 5,6 (24) 2,1(36) Parasi Sunwal 2 (9) 2 (9) 2(14) Parasi Tribeni 5, 8 (32) 5, 8 (32) 5, 8(64) Parasi Maheshpur 3 (12) 3 (12) 3(18) Parasi Gopigunj 5 (15) 5 (15) 5(30) Parasi Butwal 2, 1 (30) 2, 1 (30) 2, 1(41.5) Parasi Bhairahawa 4 (21) 4 (21) 4(42) Bardhaghat Sunwal 1 (17) 1 (17) 1(23) Bardhaghat Triveni 6, 8 (26) 6, 8 (26) 6, 8(52) Bardhaghat Maheshpur 6, 10 (18) 6, 10 (18) 6, 10(66) Bardhaghat Butwal 1 (38) 1 (38) 1(51) Bardhaghat Bhairahawa 1 (62) 6, 5, 4 (45) 6, 5, 4 (45) 1(90) Sunwal Tribeni 1, 6, 8 (43) 2, 5, 8 (41) 2, 5, 6 (41) 1, 6(75) Sunwal Maheshpur 2, 3 (21) 2, 3 (21) 2, 3(32) Sunwal Gopigunj 1, 6 (26) 2, 5 (24) 2, 5 (24) 1, 6(41) Sunwal Butwal 1 (21) 1 (21) 1(28) Sunwal Bhairahawa 1 (45) 2, 4 (30) 2, 4 (30) 1(40) Tribeni Maheshpur 9 (21) 9 (21) 9(42) Tribeni Gopigunj 8 (17) 8(17) 8(34) Tribeni Butwal 8, 6, 1 (64) 8, 5, 2, 1(62) 8, 5, 2, 1(62) 8, 6, 1(103) Tribeni Bhairahawa 8,5,4 (53) 8,5,4 (53) 8,5,4(60) Maheshpur Gopigunj 10 (14) 10 (14) 10(28) Maheshpur Butwal 3, 2, 1 (42) 3, 2,1(42) 3, 2, 1(60) Maheshpur Bhairahawa 3, 4 (30) 3, 4 (30) 3, 4(60) Gopigunj Butwal 6, 1 (47) 5,2,1 (45) 5,2,1 (45) 6, 1(69) Gopigunj Bhairahawa 5, 4 (36) 5, 4 (36) 5, 4(72) Butwal Bhairahawa 1 (24) 1 (24) 1(32) 1 Length of the route is given in parenthesis in Km. 2 Time in minutes. Origin Destination

28

Table 6 Assignment of Future Intensity of Interaction on Present and Proposed Links

Link ID 1 Link Mahendra Highway Routes using the Link Parasi Bardhaghat, Butwal, Bardhaghat Sunwal, Butwal, Bhairahawa, Sunwal Tribeni, Gopigunj, Butwal, Bhairahawa, Tribeni Butwal, Maheshpur Butwal, Gopigunj Butwal Parasi Bardhaghat, Sunwal, Butwal; Maheshpur Sunwal, Butwal Maheshpur Parasi, Sunwal, Butwal, Bhairahawa Bhairahawa Parasi, Tribeni, Maheshpur, Gopigunj Parasi Tribeni, Gopigunj; Triveni Bhairahawa, Gopigunj Bhairahawa Bardhaghat Tribeni, Maheshpur, Sunwal Tribeni, Gopigunj, Butwal Tribeni, Gopigunj Tribeni Parasi, Bardhaghat, Sunwal, Gopigunj, Butwal, Bhairahawa Tribeni Maheshpur Maheshpur Gopigunj, Bardhaghat Assignment of Intensity 5.49+47.19+5.76+35.04+ 10.06+0.59+0.42+43.18+ 7.19+8.04+2.96+8.04+ 3.87 =177.83 5.49+17.25+47.19+1.70+ 12.90 = 84.53 11.59+17.25+12.90+19.32 = 61.06 73.6+8.96+19.32+7.26 =109.14 2.36+2.73+8.96+7.26 =21.31 4.33+5.83+0.59+0.42+ 8.96+7.26 = 27.39 2.36+4.33+0.59+1.73+ 8.04+8.96 = 26.01 2.96 5.83+1.72+2.96 = 10.51

2 3 4 5 6

Sunwal Parasi Parasi Maheshpur Parasi Bhairahawa Parasi Gopigunj Bardhaghat Gopigunj Gopigunj Tribeni Tribeni Maheshpur Gopigunj Maheshpur

8 9 10

Table 7 Projected Volume of Passengers and Freight

Passengers Route ID Route Base Year Growth Rate in % (Passengers) 1,241,913 2.30 658,825 5.40 739,125 6.45 517,713 5.49 1,140,443 0.24 855,332 -1.95 298,753 5.38 Future Volume of Passengers 1,747,870 1,450,211 1,887,936 1,153,868 1,181,806 636,523 655,839

2 Sunwal - Parasi 3 Parasi - Maheshpur 4 Parasi - Bhairahawa 5 Parasi - Gopigunj 6 Bardhaghat - Tribeni 8 Gopigunj - Tribeni 9 Tribeni - Maheshpur 10 Gopigunj - Maheshpur Freight Route ID 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Route Sunwal - Parasi Parasi - Maheshpur Parasi - Bhairahawa Parasi - Gopigunj Bardhaghat - Tribeni Gopigunj - Tribeni Tribeni - Maheshpur Gopigunj - Maheshpur

Base Year Growth Rate in % Forecasted Freight (Freight) 1,961,875 6.95 5,371,858 976,375 9.28 3,694,809 1,299,765 11.06 6,269,548 380,948 12.85 2,336,583 1,753,825 2.26 2,451,371 1,315,369 4.74 2,634,732 197,100 8.91 709,084

29

Table 8 District Level Roads in the Underdeveloped Areas ID Road Length (km) GIS 25 14.3 11.0 12.7 29 18.3 12.9 123.2 DOR/PLRP 26.5 18.5 Surface Present Status District Road Main Trail District Road Main Trail Main Trail Main Trail Main Trail

1 Dumkibas - Dhurkot 2 Arunkhola - Majhkot 3 Chormara - Jhyalbas 4 Jhyalbas - Hupsekot 5 Kawasoti - Dedgaon 6 Mukundapur - Thambensi 7 Dhobadi - Bulintar Road Inventory

28

Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth

Table 9 Prioritization of the Proposed Roads by Socio-Economic Parameters in the Underdeveloped Areas
R. No. Road Name Total Rank Agri. Interaction Accessibility Environmental Score Potential Impact Weight 0.3 0.45 0.15 0.1 1 0.16 0.21 0.075 0.05 0.50 III 0.3 0.36 0.15 0.06 0.87 II 0.14 0.08 0.15 0.05 0.42 V 0.30 0.19 0.12 0.45 0.02 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.93 I 0.06 0.43 VI 0.07 0.45 IV Parameters

1Dumkibas - Dhurkot (Jhadewa) 2Kawasoti - Dedgaon (Bhimad) 3Jhyalbas - Hupsekot 4Chormara - Jhyalbas2 5Kawasoti (Dhobadi) - Bulintar 6Mukundapur - Thambensi 7Arun Khola - Ruksebhanjyang (Majhkot)

30

Table 10 Prioritization of the Road Links by Economic Indicators in Underdeveloped Areas Expected Rate of Return
R.No . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Road Dumkibas - Dhurkot Arunkhola - Majhkot Chormara - Jhyalbas Jhyalbas - Hupsekot Kawaswoti Dedgaon Mukundapur Thambensi Dhobadi - Bulintar BCR

12%
Ranking 0.99 V 1.07 II Already constructed 1.03 III 1.33 I 0.73 1 VI IV

Table 11 Comparative Results of Prioritization Based on Socio-Economic Criteria and Economic Analysis R.No. Road A B 1 Dumkibas - Dhurkot I V 2 Arunkhola - Majhkot V IV 3 Chormara - Jhyalbas The road is already constructed 4 Jhyalbas - Hupsekot IV III 5 Kawaswoti - Dedgaon II I 6 Mukundapur - Thambensi VI VI 7 Dhobadi - Bulintar III IV A = Ranking based on socio-economic criteria, B = Economic Ranking using DRPMD

31