FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Western Freeway Sea Link

Aditya Vikram
(03004003)

03004003
WFSL

03004003
Salient Features

Total length 14.77 Km

Alignment about 200m away from Shore line
Starting from interchange at Worli
Eight lane bridge from Worli to HajiAli
interchange
Six lane beyond Haji Ali to Nariman Point
A major cable stayed bridge across link between
Malabar Hill Point and Nariman point
Modern Traffic Monitoring Control
State-of-the-Art toll collection system proposed
Superstructure proposed with precast units over
RCC substructures supported on large
diameter piles
Landmark in the city
03004003
Benefits of Western Freeway Sea Link

ƒ Significant savings in travel time

•increased speed
•reduced delays at intersections

ƒ Savings in Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC)

• reduction in congestion on the existing roads

• lower vehicle operating cost on the bridge
ƒ Ease in driving with reduced mental tension

03004003
Benefits of Western Freeway Sea Link

ƒ Reduced accidents
ƒ Air and noise pollution reduced
ƒ No land acquisition hence no R & R issue

03004003
Financial Analysis

Financial analysis:

rate of return for investors under realistic conditions.

Financial evaluation:

adequate cash to meet all its operating expenditure

service and repay the debt

attractive return on equity to shareholders.

03004003
 FLOW CHART FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Project Description

Total
Annual Concession
Capital Cost O & M Cost Cost

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Project Taxation
(Diverted + Generated) = Total
Revenue
Traffic

Cash
Flow Capital
Toll Revenue Structure
&
Financial Financial
Analysis Condition
03004003
 Debt Finance:

Describes loans from banks or other financial institutions

such as commercial banks, investment banks, developing
agencies etc.

Sources:
Rupee debt from financial institutions and banks
IDBI, DFC,
International funding agencies
World Bank, IFC,ADB
Foreign banks and Institutions
Infrastructure bonds
Foreign currency debit
03004003
 Equity Capital

Provision of risk capital by investors to an investment

opportunity and results in issuance of shares to those
investors.

Sources

Contribution from Govt. of Maharashtra/ MMRDA/ MSRDC

Domestic and foreign construction companies

Financial investors
IDBI, IDFC, Insurance companies

Private placement of equity

03004003
 Project cost

5%
1999 2005

COST

2005 2008
2006 2007
15% 30%
25% 03004003
30%
Capital Cost & Phasing

15% 25% 30% 30%

P ro je c t C o st 1999 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005
C o n s tr u c ti o n
C o st 13208 2529 4214 5057 5057 17700
E n g in e e rin g
C o s t (7 % ) 925 177 295 354 354 1328
C o n ti n g e n c i e s 9 9 1 190 316 379 379 1240
R & R C o st 0 0 0 0 0 0
O th e r C h a r g e s 7 2 6 139 232 278 278 975
T o ta l C o s t 15850 2 8 9 5 .1 9 4 8 2 5 .3 2 5 7 9 0 .3 8 5 7 9 0 .3 8 21243
C o s t a fte r i n fl a ti o n (6 %
/a n n u m ) 1 7 3 .7 1 2 8 9 .5 2 3 4 7 .4 2 3 4 7 .4 2 1 1 5 8 .0 8

O & M Cost
is assumed to go up in tandem with inflation i.e. @ 6% p.a.
03004003
Operation & Maintenance Cost

Operation
Maintenance of Toll
Period Routine Periodic Plazas Total Cost
2008 - 2012 41 - 27 67
2013 - 2017 55 206 35 296
2018 - 2022 73 276 47 396
2023 - 2027 98 369 64 530
2028 - 2032 131 493 85 709
2033 - 2037 175 660 114 949
Operation and Maintenance Cost (2004- Price Level)

03004003
Toll Tax
Methods
ƒ Occupancy of the vehicle
ƒ Hindrance caused to other vehicles
ƒ Willingness to pay survey
Toll
ƒ Toll of Rs. 5.00 / km for Car, Taxi and LCV and
ƒ Rs. 8.50/ km for BUS & TRUCK
Ca r/ Bus Truc k
Taxi
L in k 1 20 30 30
L in k 2 10 20 20
L in k 3 30 50 50
03004003
 Toll Tax Revenue

Toll (Rs.) Revenue Toll (Rs.) Revenue Toll (Rs.) Revenue Revenue
Mode 2003 2008 Link - 1 2003 2008 Link - 2 2003 2008 Link - 3 (Rs.)/Day
Car+Taxi 20 27 2181187 10 13 478262 30 40 754433 3413883
LCV 20 27 36353 10 13 7971 30 40 12574 56898
HCV 30 40 14893 20 27 4354 50 67 5723 24970
BUS 30 40 37804 20 27 11052 50 67 14529 63385
Total Rev./Day (Rs. million) 3.56
Total Rev./Year (Rs. million) 1299.08

03004003
Advertisement Revenue

Possible Avenues
• Elevated portions of the Toll plazas
• Bill boards on the street lights polls
• Advertisement on the toll tickets

5% 10%

6%

03004003
Financial Viability Analysis

Assumptions and Parameters.

Debt Equity Ratio - 2:1
Rate of inflation - 6% p.a.
Rate of interest - 10%
Concession period - 30 years
Project cost - 2124.3 crore
Annual O & M Cost - 68 million
Toll revenue - 1299.2 million
Advertisement Revenue - 77.94 million

03004003
Financial Analysis
IRR VALUE

Toll tax collection only 12.27%

Toll tax collections

+ Advertisement revenue 12.74%.

03004003
 Sensitivity Analysis

Increase in capital cost by 10 %

Decrease in revenue by 10 %
Increase capital cost by 10 % & decrease in revenue by 10%
IRR VALUES
3 0 Ye a rs 2 0 Ye a rs
S c e n a r io T o ll + A d v m t O n ly T o ll T o ll + A d v m t O n ly T o ll
Base Case 1 2 .7 4 1 2 .2 7 6 .5 7 .8 8
S e n s itiv ity A n a ly s is
1 0 % In c r e s e in C o s t 12 1 1 .5 4 7 .5 5 6 .9 4
1 0 % D e c r e a s e in R e v e n u e 1 1 .8 9 1 1 .4 7 7 .3 8 6 .7 8
C o m b in e d S c e n a r io 1 1 .7 1 1 0 .6 7 6 .4 6 5 .8 7

03004003
Conclusion from Financial4/3/2007 Analysis

FIRR = 12.74% < (16 – 17%)

Thus Project it Financially Weak.

Project can be made Acceptable by:

Development rights in the new areas around the

freeway.
Support from state govt./MMRDA/BMC in the initial
stages
Public-Private Partnership(PPP)

Additional features like Viewers Gallery, Commercial

centre at Toll Plaza.

03004003
 Thank You
03004003
Financial Analysis of
Chennai MRTS

By: TAPISH MEHTA (03004008)

Chennai City prior to MRTS
4.2 million (city) population in 2003, 7.5 million
(metropolitan area)
Port city, major industrial and commercial
center
Population growth in the 1990s: 0.9% per
annum;
Density in Chennai City: 250 people/hectare,
double in sub-areas
Transport system: road-based but with strong
commuter rail network
The MRTS
PHASE 1
Approved by the Planning Commission and
the Railway Board in 1983-84
To be implemented and operated by the
Southern Railway department of Indian
Railways
8.6 km in long, 1,676 mm gauge, double-track
line
Completed in 1997, 20 years after its
conception, the total cost came to Rs 2,690
million
Government of Tamil Nadu contributed about
20 hectares of land, including 0.5 ha of private
land
About 3,500 families were affected by the
project and received a total Rs 60 million in
compensation
It was designed for a maximum load of
600,000 passengers per day, but carried only
about 9,000
PHASE 2
It will be elevated along 7.9 km, out of its 11.2
km total length and have 7 elevated and 2 at-
grade stations
Construction costs are forecast at Rs 6.05
billion rupees
The Government of India will contribute one-
third and Tamil Nadu for two-thirds of the
investment
Tamil Nadu will also contribute 100 ha of
state-owned land and about 9 ha of private
Expected to involve about 2,500 households, will
be about Rs 250 million
Expectations are that the complete Phase I and II
sections will carry 29,600 passengers per hour
per direction in 122 trains
PHASE 3
It is just 5 km long, would connect the MRTS
with the south-west commuter rail line at St.
Thomas Mount station.
This is expected to cost Rs 3.78 billion
(US$78.8 million)
Fare Affordability
Bus fares were onerous for monthly household
incomes of less than Rs 1,000 (roughly 10-
13% of passengers)
Commuter rail monthly passes were
significantly more affordable. At Rs 2,500 a
month per household, a monthly bus pass for
one person would be under 10% for most
distances, and rail passes were half of that
The conclusion is that fares are set at levels
acceptable for a majority of passengers
Significance of the Project
Urban transport effects in reduction of poverty
indirectly as a stimulator of poverty reducing
growth and directly effects on the quality of life
of people
In past few years transport system has been
unable to keep up with the growing number of
firms moving into Chennai
A 2003 Confederation of Indian Industry
survey of urban populations in Southern India
showed 90% passengers dissatisfied with
roads, and 58% dissatisfied with public
transport services
The same survey showed that 89% were
willing to pay for good-quality toll roads and
65% are willing to pay higher public transport
fares to get more comfort and frequency
Tools for Financial Analysis
The following tools were used for the financial
analysis of the project:
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Net Present Value (or Discounted Cash Flow)
Internal Rate of Return
Assumptions
Discount rate is 10 %
Traffic,
From 1997 to 2010 traffic growth rate is 5%.
From 2011 to 2020 traffic growth rate is 4%.
From 2021 to 2026 traffic growth rate is 3%.
Construction Cost
Phase 1: 269 crore Rupees.
Phase 2: 733.39 crore Rupees(estimated)
Phase 3: 3428 crore Rupees(estimated)
Operation and maintenance cost
Regular maintenance cost was 27.5 crore for
1997.
3% Increase in maintenance cost per annum.
Revenue
5 % increase in toll revenue per annum and
implemented after every three years
Average Daily Trip Length
Assuming no change in daily trip length10.2
km estimated from road transport.
Analysis Results
The following results were obtained from the
financial analysis of the project:

B/C Ratio 0.161

IRR -1.45%
NPV -1902.78 Crore Rupees
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis is done for following
three cases :
Case I: Increase in project cost by 10 %.
Case II: Decrease in revenues by 10 %.
Case III: Increase in project cost and decrease
in revenue by 10%.
The results of the Sensitivity Analysis are as
follows:
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3

B/C Ratio 0.146 0.145 0.132

IRR -1.77% -1.80% -2.11%

NPV -2129.45 -1939.17 -2165.84

Crore Rupees Crore Rupees Crore Rupees
Conclusions
The benefit cost ratio is about 0.161 and
internal rate of return is -1.45% from which it
can be concluded that the project is
financially unviable
The perception of the people should also be
considered as to whether they are willing to
travel on this proposed MRTS as per the fare
structure proposed
The project is less sensitive to the increase in
cost and decrease in benefits as seen from
Sensitivity Analysis
Since the FIRR of this project is much less
than minimum attractive rate of return 15%,
Therefore the project needs government
contribution for making it financially attractive
References
Adler, H.A. (1987) ”Economic Appraisal of Transportation Projects”.
Stopher, P.R. (1978) ”Transportation Systems Evaluation”.
Document to the World Bank (March 2005) “Towards a discussion of
support to Urban Transport development in India”.
Railways (2006), “Chapter 3: Planning, execution and operation of Mass
Rapid Transit System, Chennai”.
Websites
http://chennai.metblogs.com/archives/2006/04/chennai_mrts_the_urban_rail
.phtml
http://www.cmdachennai.org/english/projects/mrts.htm
http://www.cmdachennai.org/english/projects/mrts.htm
http://www.southernrailway.org/aboutus/statistics.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Rapid_Transit_System_(Chennai)
THANK YOU
 Financial Evaluation of BOT
Highway Projects
Case Study: MPEW and NH 4

Guided by: Presented by:

Prof. S. L. Dhingra Prerna Singhvi
03004016

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 1

 Outline
Outline
Introduction
BOT Scheme
Financial Evaluation
Acceptance Criteria of BOT Projects
Risk Analysis
Case Study: MPEW and NH 4
Conclusion

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 2

 Introduction
Introduction
An efficient transport system is a pre-requisite for
economic development.
Project appraisal is essential for infrastructure projects.
The role of private sector in the provision of infrastructure
is currently receiving a great deal of attention.

Financial evaluation identifies the lean period and is

critical for project sustainability.
Risk analysis is essential for dealing with the problem of
uncertainty of the project.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 3

 BOTScheme
BOT Scheme
One of the promising methods of privatization.
Jointly carried by public and private sector.
Development of infrastructure with financing from outside
the budget allocation.
Risk transfer to private sector and better risk management,
by exploiting the innovativeness and efficiency of private
sector.
Creation of new equity by stimulation of investor interest
in BOT infrastructure projects.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 4

 Financial Evaluation
Financial Evaluation
Ensures that there are sufficient funds to cover the cost of
implementing the project.

Focuses only on the costs and revenues of the enterprise

responsible for the project.

Market prices and valuations are used in assessing benefits

and costs, instead of measures like willingness to pay and
opportunity cost.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 5

 EvaluationTechniques
Evaluation Techniques
Net Present Value (NPV)
• Estimation of the net benefit over the lifetime of a
project.
• NPV > 0 => project is acceptable.
N
NPV = ∑ Ct /(1+i)t
t=0
Where: Ct is the net cash flow in year t,
i is the discount rate,
N is the life time of the project.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 6

 EvaluationTechniques
Evaluation Techniques (Contd.)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
• Rate at which the present value of a series of
investments is equal to the present value of the returns
on those investments, i.e. NPV = 0.
• Alternate having higher IRR is preferred.
N
NPV = ∑ Ct /(1+IRR)t = 0
t=0
Where: Ct is the net cash flow in year t,
IRR is the discount rate at which NPV = 0,
N is the life time of the project.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 7

 EvaluationTechniques
Evaluation Techniques (Contd.)
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
• Identifies the relationship between the cost and benefits
of a proposed project.
• BCR > 1 => project is acceptable.

B/C = PVB/PVC
Where: PVB is the present value of benefits,
PVC is the present value of costs.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 8

 AcceptanceCriteria
Acceptance Criteriaof
ofBOT
BOT Projects
Projects
NPV for the project should be positive.

IRR should have a value greater than the discount rate.

Cash flow situation in each year of the concession period

should be satisfactory.

BCR for the project should be greater than one.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 9

 RiskAnalysis
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is essentially a method of dealing with the
problem of uncertainty.

In reality, many critical variables of a transport

infrastructure project such as construction cost, operation
cost, maintenance cost, traffic volume and toll revenue
cannot be predicted precisely.

For a realistic and meaningful financial analysis of BOT

projects, the consideration of risk and uncertainty should
be explicitly incorporated.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 10

 RiskAnalysis
Risk AnalysisTechniques
(Contd.)
Sensitivity Analysis
• Non probabilistic technique used for the evaluation of
risk variables.
• The value of an input variable is changed while all
others are held constant, and the amount of change in
analysis results is noted.
• The process is repeated for all other input variables.
• Sensitivity analysis allows the analyst to get a feel for
the impact of the variability of individual inputs on
overall economic results.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 11

 RiskAnalysis
Risk AnalysisTechniques
(Contd.) (Contd.)
Scenario Analysis
• Several parameters are varied simultaneously and their
combined effect on the overall economic results can be
examined.

• It helps in determining which combination of input

variables gives the best possible results.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 12

 Case Study
Case Study:: MPEW and
and NH
NH44
Existing Scenario
• The project had initially been budgeted at around Rs.
1,600 crores; finally Rs. 2,136 crores was spent on it.

• With an average initial debt repayment interest of 13%,

the total liability is now Rs. 3,000 crores.

• The projected traffic was nearly 50,000 PCUs (by 2004)

but the actual number of vehicles using the expressway
daily is only 16,000.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 13

 Proposal
Bids were invited for tolling, operation and maintenance of
the MPEW and widening, tolling, operation and
maintenance of NH 4.

Ideal Road Builders took the project against an upfront

payment of 900 crores.

The company also immediately started collecting the toll

from the Expressway.

The IRB, in turn, have to ensure the up gradation of the

NH4 to a four-laned at a cost of Rs 400 crores.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 14

 Project
Cost andDetails
Finance Structure
Mumbai-Pune Expressway (MPEW)
Initial Cost (2004) 900 crores
Periodic Maintenance and Operational Cost - 5 yearly 210 crores
Periodic Maintenance and Operational Cost - annually 63 crores
Growth of Maintenance Annually 3%
Project life in years 15 (2005 to 2019)
Length 94 Km

NH 4
Construction Cost (2004 -2005) 400 crores
Periodic Maintenance and Operational Cost - 5 yearly 40 crores
Periodic Maintenance and Operational Cost - annually 12 crores
Growth of Maintenance Annually 3%
Project life in years 14 (2006 to 2019)
Discount Rate 15%
Length 111 Km

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 15

 Revenuesand
Revenues andReturns
Returns of MPEW
FY Cap. Cost PMC RMC Total Costs Total Rev. Dis. Costs Dis. Ben. Dis. Cash Flows
2004 900 900.00 60.05 900.00 60.05 -839.95
2005 243.45 70.91 314.36 191.13 273.35 166.20 -107.16
2006 73.04 73.04 202.77 55.23 153.32 98.09
2007 75.23 75.23 215.12 49.46 141.44 91.98
2008 77.49 77.49 228.22 44.30 130.48 86.18
2009 79.81 79.81 242.12 39.68 120.37 80.69
2010 282.22 82.20 364.43 256.86 157.55 111.05 -46.50
2011 84.67 84.67 272.50 31.83 102.44 70.61
2012 87.21 87.21 289.10 28.51 94.51 66.00
2013 89.83 89.83 306.70 25.53 87.18 61.65
2014 92.52 92.52 325.38 22.87 80.43 57.56
2015 327.17 95.30 422.47 345.20 90.81 74.20 -16.61
2016 98.16 98.16 366.22 18.35 68.45 50.10
2017 101.10 101.10 388.52 16.43 63.15 46.71
2018 104.13 104.13 412.18 14.72 58.25 43.54
2019 107.26 107.26 437.29 13.18 53.74 40.56

NPV = -216.535 crores IRR = 11.09% BCR = 0.88

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 16

 Revenues and Returns of NH 4
FY Cap. Cost PMC RMC Total Costs Total Rev. Dis. Costs Dis. Ben. Dis. Cash Flows
2004 150 150.00 0 150.00 0 -150.00
2005 250 250.00 51.80 217.39 45.04 -172.35
2006 12.00 12.00 164.85 9.07 124.65 115.58
2007 12.36 12.36 174.89 8.13 114.99 106.87
2008 12.73 12.73 185.54 7.28 106.09 98.81
2009 13.11 13.11 196.84 6.52 97.87 91.35
2010 46.37 13.51 59.88 208.83 25.89 90.28 64.40
2011 13.91 13.91 221.55 5.23 83.29 78.06
2012 14.33 14.33 235.04 4.68 76.84 72.15
2013 14.76 14.76 249.35 4.20 70.88 66.69
2014 15.20 15.20 264.54 3.76 65.39 61.63
2015 53.76 15.66 69.41 280.65 14.92 60.32 45.40
2016 16.13 16.13 297.74 3.01 55.65 52.64
2017 16.61 16.61 315.88 2.70 51.34 48.64
2018 17.11 17.11 335.11 2.42 47.36 44.94
2019 17.62 17.62 355.52 2.17 43.69 41.53

NPV = 666.322 crores IRR = 42.00 % BCR = 2.43

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 17

 Cumulative Performance
MPEW NH 4
FY Costs Benefits Costs Benefits Total Costs Total Ben. Cash Flows Dis. Cash flows
2004 900.00 60.05 150.00 0.00 1050.00 60.05 -989.95 -989.95
2005 314.36 191.13 250.00 51.80 564.36 242.92 -321.43 -279.51
2006 73.04 202.77 12.00 164.85 85.04 367.62 282.58 213.67
2007 75.23 215.12 12.36 174.89 87.59 390.01 302.42 198.85
2008 77.49 228.22 12.73 185.54 90.22 413.76 323.54 184.99
2009 79.81 242.12 13.11 196.84 92.92 438.96 346.04 172.04
2010 364.43 256.86 59.88 208.83 424.30 465.69 41.39 17.89
2011 84.67 272.50 13.91 221.55 98.58 494.05 395.47 148.67
2012 87.21 289.10 14.33 235.04 101.54 524.14 422.60 138.15
2013 89.83 306.70 14.76 249.35 104.59 556.06 451.47 128.34
2014 92.52 325.38 15.20 264.54 107.72 589.92 482.20 119.19
2015 422.47 345.20 69.41 280.65 491.88 625.85 133.97 28.79
2016 98.16 366.22 16.13 297.74 114.28 663.96 549.68 102.74
2017 101.10 388.52 16.61 315.88 117.71 704.40 586.69 95.35
2018 104.13 412.18 17.11 335.11 121.24 747.30 626.05 88.48
2019 107.26 437.29 17.62 355.52 124.88 792.81 667.93 82.08

NPV = 449.786 crores IRR = 20.34 % BCR = 1.20

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 18

 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis Construction Cost
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV IRR NPV IRR NPV IRR
10% -216.53 11.09% 631.54 38.93% 415.00 19.85%
30% -216.53 11.09% 555.45 32.97% 338.92 18.80%
Operational and Maintenance Cost
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV IRR NPV IRR NPV IRR
10% -304.69 9.50% 656.32 41.67% 351.63 19.17%
30% -481.05 6.28% 636.33 41.01% 155.28 16.83%
Volume of Traffic
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV IRR NPV IRR NPV IRR
-10% -373.06 8.05% 552.95 37.83% 179.89 17.19%
-20% -529.59 4.72% 485.20 35.21% -44.39 14.45%
Toll Rates
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV IRR NPV IRR NPV IRR
-10% -374.38 8.02% 554.15 37.87% 337.62 19.07%
-20% -530.04 4.71% 437.75 33.49% -92.30 13.84%

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 19

 Scenario Analysis
Scenario Analysis
Original Scenario
Change MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
Const. Cost 0%
Op. Cost 0% NPV -216.53 NPV 666.32 NPV 449.79
Traffic 0% IRR 11.09 % IRR 42.00 % IRR 20.34 %
Toll 0%

Scenario 1
Change MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
Const. Cost 10%
Op. Cost 10% NPV -308.61 NPV 618.71 NPV 310.10
Traffic -5% IRR 9.42 % IRR 38.52 % IRR 18.62 %
Toll 5%

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 20

 Scenario Analysis

Scenario 2
Change MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
Const. Cost 10 %
Op. Cost 10 % NPV -429.91 NPV 530.85 NPV 100.93
Traffic -8 % IRR 7.02 % IRR 35.47 % IRR 16.20 %
Toll 0%

Scenario 3
Change MPEW NH 4 Cumulative

Const. Cost 10 %
Op. Cost 10 % NPV -531.66 NPV 457.16 NPV -74.50
Traffic -10 % IRR 4.87 % IRR 32.87 % IRR 14.10 %
Toll -5 %

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 21

 Conclusions
Conclusion
Privatization provides with risk mitigation and financing
from outside budgetary allocation.

BOT scheme is very instrumental in achieving

privatization objectives.

MPEW and NH 4, together was found to be financially

strong with NPV of 449.786 crores and IRR of 20.34%

Sensitivity analysis shows that traffic volume and toll rates

are more sensitive to the project.

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 22

 Thank You
Thank You

2/04/07 Department of Civil Engineering 23

Course Project Seminar
Economic Evaluation of Mass Rapid
Transit System for
Chennai

By
Manish Goyal
03004020
Economic Viability Analysis

¾ The Economic Viability analysis of the Chennai MRTS assessed

within the broad framework of Cost-Benefit Analysis

¾ The Economic costs and benefits over life of project have been
identified under with and without the project conditions

¾ Analysis identifies and quantifies the social benefits in terms of

the effects of the projects on fundamental objectives of the
whole economy
Objectives of the evaluation of
Chennai MRTS

„ To assess the Economic viability of a project

and its ability to meet its debt service
requirements.

„ To assess the sensitivity of the MRTS

Chennai project for the assumptions made in
the analysis.
Steps Followed in the Economic
Evaluation
„ Estimation of economic costs of the project both, capital, as well
as annual operating costs, for the assumed economic life of 30
years after the commencement of the project

„ Estimation of annual recurring operation & maintenance costs at

the current market price & its conversion into economic costs

„ Identification and quantification direct and indirect economic

benefits to users, Non-users, Community

„ Based on traffic forecast for the project annual stream of

benefits will be estimated and compared with the stream of
annual costs
Evaluation of Economic Costs

Measurement of Economic Costs and Benefits:

„ The measure of a project’s benefit to the economy is not the

difference in output or cost levels before and after constructing
the project. The proper measure is difference between what the
level of output services would be with the project and what they
would have been without it

„ In the case of Chennai MRTS project, the without situation will

not mean continuation of the present situation but will include
others measures that could be undertaken to meet the growth in
demand for transport
Evaluation of Economic Costs

„ The annual stream of project costs and benefits in

economic terms will be computed over the analysis
period of 30 years in the present project

„ These cost and benefit for every year will be

compared to estimate the net cost / benefit and
calculation of economic viability with the help of
Discounted Cash Flow Technique

„ The results will be presented in terms of Economic

Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and Net Present
Value (NPV)
Phase I
Length 8.55 km.
Estimated cost Rs 53.46 crores.
Cost of completion 260 crores.
Government land 9.68 hectare
Private land 0.54 hectare
Cost of the land Rs. 60 crore
Cost of 3500 tenements affected Rs.6.00 crores
Surface length 2.75 km
Elevated length 5.80 km
No. of elevated stations 5
Carrying capacity 10-12000 commuters/day
No. of ground stations 3
PHASE II: THIRUMYLAI -
VELACHERY
Length 11.165 km
Estimated cost Rs. 733.39 crores.
Expenditures(upto October 2006) Rs 665.53 crores
Government land 34.50 hec.
Private land 33.93 hec.
Cost of the land Rs. 60 crore
Gauge (1676 mm) Broad Gauge
Surface length 2.75 km
Elevated length 7.848 km
No. of elevated stations 7
Carrying capacity 4.25 Lakh trips per day
No. of ground stations 2
Benefits of Chennai MRTS

„ Savings in Foreign Exchange due to reduced

Fuel Consumption
„ Reduction in Pollution
„ Savings in Time for all passengers using
Metro and Roads
„ Savings in Accidents
„ Savings in Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) due
to decongestion for residual traffic
„ Savings in Capital and Operating cost of
diverted vehicles
„ Savings in the cost of Road Infrastructure
User of the MRTS

„ (i) Reduction in travel time due to higher

speeds.
„ (ii) Savings in travel cost.
„ (iii) Greater comfort and convenience
enjoyed by commuters
Social / Community benefit

„ (i) Reduction in pollution levels.

„ (ii) Increase in opportunity cost of land in the
catchments area.
„ (iii) Change in land values and higher tax
base to local authority.
„ (iv) Savings in land area for “Transport” use
and overall ratio at city level due to high
density of development
Estimation of Economic Costs

„ Capital cost

„ Maintenance cost

„ Road User Cost

 Capital cost

„ Outlays for construction works for:

„ Proposed MRTS,
„ Track as well as rolling stocks stations
„ Other commuter walkways
„ Traffic junctions

„ Environmental and social mitigating measures

„ Relocation of utilities

„ Land acquisition and construction supervision

 Capital Cost

Basic Project Cost : 269 Crores

(Phase I)

773 Crores
(Phase II)

Rs 3545 crores
(phase III + IV)
 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost

„ The main items of routine maintenance cost are:

„ Cost of operation
„ Regular maintenance of track, rolling stock, stations,
signaling & ticketing system, etc.

„ The annual cost of O&M has been estimated at Rs 27.50 crores in

the first year of operation.

„ Based on rider ship and capacity augmentation the O&M costs have
been envisaged to increase
 Operating and Maintenance Cost

Department Year

1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023

System Operation (A) 23.91 27.5 77.75 90.47 197.9 228.5

Admn. + General 2.87 3.3 9.3 10.86 23.75 27.41

charges @ 12% of
(A)
Contingency @ 3.5% 0.72 0.7 2.75 2.77 5.95 8.0
of (A)

Total 27.5 31.8 89.8 104.1 227.6 263.9

 Economic Cost

Economic Cost of O&M

Year

1998 89.08
2003 92.735
2008 367.71
2013 500.9
2018 193.46
2023 263.9
Benefits
Category of Benefit 1998 2007 2017

Saving in VOC & 30.6 36.57 234.21

VOT

Saving in 194.4 324 810

alternative transport
system
Environment 7.02 11.4 42.12
Benefits
Analysis
Sensitivity analysis of the projects economic viability
has carried out to take into consideration
uncertainties pertaining to traffic forecast and critical
parameters relating to cost and benefits. The analysis
reveals the impact of changes in the following main
variables

1. Increase in capital cost by 10%.

2. Decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%.

3. Combined effect of increase in project cost by

10% and decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%.
Results of Economic Analysis

Base Sensitivity 1 Sensitivity 2 Sensitivity 3

Case

EIRR

12.08% 11.24% 10.14% 9.31%

B/C Ratio 1.6 1.52 1.44 1.37

NPV (Rs
crores) 611.65 478.31 357.74 225.48
¾ The EIRR of 12.08% for the base case.

¾ The sensitivity analysis estimates the lowest EIRR at

9.31%.

¾ The B/C ratio is 1.6

This indicates that the project is unviable under the

worst condition of increase in project cost by 10%
and decrease in benefits by 10%
Facts
„ MRTS runs 90 trains per day, with 15 min headways in the peak
and 30 min off peak.
„ It was designed for a maximum load of 600,000 passengers per
day, but carries only about 9,000.
„ Poor location relative to sources and destinations of
passengers, especially the low-density area between the line
and the Bay, the proximity of parallel and fare-competitive bus
lines, and poor feeder/interchange facilities
These are 2002-2003 data obtained directly from the Southern
Railway.
„ Other sources cited 7,000 passengers per day in 2001, with
subsequent increases of as much as 50% on monthly basis, in
late 2002, due to bus strikes and fare hikes, reflecting a high
price elasticity of demand.
Thank You
 Course Project Presentation

Economic Evaluation of
Konkan Railway

Under the guidance of

Prof. S.L.Dhingra
Sriram Emani (03004023)
Economic Evaluation
{ The objective of economic evaluation is to
determine the feasibility of the proposed project
in terms of the benefits likely to accrue to the
economy as a whole, thereby justifying its
implementation based on profit to the nation/
economy.

{ Need for Economic evaluation

z Cost-Effective Design and Construction
z Best Return on Investment
z Understanding Complex Projects
z Documentation of Decision Process
 Process of Economic Evaluation
{ Main Step Followed in the Economic Evaluation are as Follows:

{ Estimation of economic costs of the project both, capital, as well

as annual operating costs, for the assumed economic life after the
commencement of the project.

{ Estimation of annual recurring operation & maintenance costs at

the current market price & its conversion into economic costs.

{ Identification and quantification of economic benefits to users,

Non-users, Community.

{ Based on traffic forecast for the project annual stream of benefits

will be estimated and compared with the stream of annual costs.
Konkan Railway – Project Proceedings

Information Time

Construction Starting 1991

Construction Ending 1998

Commercial Operation 1994

Discount Rate 10%

Economic Costs
{ Capital cost
z Construction costs
z Environmental and social mitigating measures
z Relocation of utilities
z Land acquisition and construction supervision.

{ Costs are computed first in financial terms based on

market prices.

{ market prices are often distorted due to market

imperfections, govt. policies and regulations.

{ The financial cost therefore will be converted into

economic cost by applying conversion factor of 0.85 as
recommended by international funding agencies

{ Capital cost = Rs. 3300 crores

Maintenance Costs
{ Maintenance Cost:

z Regular Maintenance Cost = Rs. 200 crores

per year and increases by 10% annually.

Assumption:

z Periodic Maintenance Cost = 25% of

Construction cost
(0.25 * 3300 = Rs. 825 crores)
 Financial Economic
Year O&M Cost Cost
1994 1.1 0.935
1995 2.9 2.465
1996 18.6 15.81
1997 26.4 22.44
1998 161 136.85
1999 479.5 407.575
2000 513 436.05
2001 548 465.8
2002 551 468.35
2003 146 124.1
2004 196 166.6
2005 217 184.45
2006 241 204.85
2007 297.22 252.637
2008 297.22 252.637
2009 297.22 252.637
2010 297.22 252.637
2011 297.22 252.637
2012 326.942 277.9007
2013 326.942 277.9007
2014 326.942 277.9007
2015 326.942 277.9007
2016 326.942 277.9007
2017 359.636 305.6906
2018 359.636 305.6906
2019 359.636 305.6906
2020 359 636 305 6906
Periodic Maintenance Cost
Year Financial costs Economic costs
(Rs in crores) (Rs in crores)

2008 800 680

2018 800 680

Economic Benefits
{ The benefits of a transportation investment are
typically estimated by comparing the amount of
travel time, vehicle miles traveled and expected
number of crashes for the Alternative to the Base
Case.

{ The second step is translating these physical

benefits into monetary values.

{ The major economic benefits are

z Saving in Vehicle operating time (VOT)
z Savings in Vehicle operating cost (VOC)
 Savings in
VOC and VOT
2.560
8.560
14.670
22.870
34.670
78.000
95.000
109.250
125.638
144.483
166.156
191.079
219.741
252.702
290.607
334.198
384.328
441.977
508.274
584.515
672.192
773.021
888.974
1022.320
1175.668
1352.018
Economic Appraisal
{ The annual stream of economic costs and benefits has
been computed over the analysis period.

{ Net Present Value

{ All costs and benefits in future years are discounted to

the year of analysis using the adopted discount rate.
The future stream of discounted costs is subtracted
from the future stream of discounted benefits. This can
be represented by the following formula:

{ NPV = PV(Benefits) – PV(Costs)

{ If the sum of the discounted benefits is greater than

the sum of the discounted costs, the net present value
is positive and the infrastructure improvement is
deemed to be economically justified
Economic Viability
{ The project’s economic viability is assessed in
terms of Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR)
and Net Present Value (NPV) by applying the
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) technique to the
annual stream of the net benefits of the project
Sensitivity Analysis
{ Sensitivity analysis of the project’s economic
viability has been carried out to take into
consideration uncertainties pertaining to traffic
forecast and critical parameters relating to cost
and revenue/ benefit.

{ The analysis reveals the impact of changes in the

following main variables

z Increase in capital cost by 10%

z Decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%
z Combined effect of increase in project cost by 10%
and decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%
Results of Economic Analysis

Base Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity

Case 1 2 3
EIRR
15.4% 17.8% 17.4% 16.9%

B/C 0.726 0.714 0.653 0.642

Ratio
NPV (Rs
crores) -3846 -4081 -4006 -4240
Conclusions
{ Economical analysis of the project gave the
EIRR to be 15.4% which is greater than the
discount rate of 10%, but the B/C ratio came
out to be less than 1
{ According to the acceptance criteria of a BOT,
the project is deemed to be financially non
viable.
{ As per sensitivity analysis results the increase
in costs by 10%, decrease in benefits by 10
%, and both these cases the IRR is
nearly about 17 %. So project is very
less sensitive to the increase in cost and
decrease in benefits.
THANK YOU
 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF
DELHI – GURGAON EXPRESSWAY

By
SAURABH JAIN
03004025
Finacial Analysis

z Method used to evaluate the financial viability of a

proposed project by assessing the value of net cash flows
that result from its implementation.

z Includes calculation of
– Costs
– Benefits
z Costs can be divided into
– Total Tranportation Costs
z Construction cost
z Maintenance Cost
z Road User Cost
– Economic and Financial Costs

z Benefits can be divided into

– Tangible Benefits
– Intangible Benefits
Methods of Financial Analysis

z Net Present Value Method

z Internal Rate of Return Method

z Benefit Cost Ratio Method

Acceptance Criteria for BOT Projects

z The NPV for the project should be positive.

z The financial IRR should have a value greater than the

discount rate.

z The BCR for the project should be greater than one.

Delhi – Gurgaon Expressway

z Project Details
1. Cost: Rs 755 Crore .
2. Length: 27.70 Km.
3. Number of lanes: 8/6
4. 8-lane portion: 22.33 Km.
5. 6-lane portion: 5.37 Km.
6. Number of fly-overs: 7
7. Number of underpasses: 5
8. Length of service road: 46.84 Km.
9. Median strip width: 4.0 meters
10. Paved shoulder width: 1.70 meter
11. Completion month: July, 2007
Financial Costs

z Capital Costs
– Construction Costs
– Maintenance Costs

z Costs are computed first in financial terms based on

market prices.

z Market prices are often distorted due to market

imperfections, govt. policies and regulations.
z The predicted construction costs of the project was 550
crores but due to delays in the project it rose to around
750 crores.

z Maintenance cost
– Periodic Maintenace Cost = Rs. 150 crores every 5 years
– Regular Maintenance Cost = Rs. 50 crores anually
Cost Structure of DGEW

Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway
Initial Cost (2004) 750 crores
Periodic Maintenance and Operational Cost - 5
yearly 150 crores
Periodic Maintenance and Operational Cost -
annually 50 crores
Growth of Maintenance Annually 3%
15 (2005 to
Project life in years 2019)
Length 28 Km
Periodic Maintenance Cost

Year GPEW Financial costs

(Rs in crores) (Rs in crores)

2010 173 345

2015 224 542

2020 298 764

Financial Benefits
Financial Appraisal

z The annual stream of financial costs and benefits has been

computed over the analysis period.
z Net Present Value
All costs and benefits in future years are discounted to the year of
analysis using the adopted discount rate. The future stream of
discounted costs is subtracted from the future stream of discounted
benefits. This can be represented by the following formula:

NPV = PV(Benefits) – PV(Costs)

If NPV > 0 then the project is deemed to be financially justified.

Financial Viability

z The financial viability of a project is assessed in terms of

Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) and the Net
Present Value (NPV).

z For the Delhi Gurgaon Expressway:

– FIRR = 8.26%
– NPV = -224.56 crores
– B/C = -0.74
Sensitivity Analysis

z Sensitivity Analysis is done for following three cases

– Case I: Increase in project cost by 10 %.
– Case II: Decrease in revenues by 10 %.
– Case III: Increase in project cost and decrease in
revenue by 10%.
z Results of three cases are as follow:
– Case I: FIRR=9.48%
– Case II: FIRR =8.94%.
– Case III: FIRR=8.83%
Conclusions

z Financial analysis of the project gave the FIRR to be

8.26% which is less than the discount rate of 10%, and
also the B/C ratio came out to be less than 1
z According to the acceptance criteria of a BOT, the project
is deemed to be financially non viable.
z As per sensitivity analysis results the increase in costs by
10%, decrease in benefits by 10 %, and both these
cases the IRR is nearly about 9 %. So project is
very less sensitive to the increase in cost and decrease
in benefits.
THANK YOU
ECONOMIC
EVALUATION OF
BANGALORE METRO

BY
SAURABH PARETA
ROLL NO.- 03004026
 Project Background
„ Bangalore Metro

It offers:
¾ Comprehensive connectivity

¾ Convenience

¾ Comfort

¾ Affordability

¾ Frequency

¾ Reliability

¾ Safety
The Route Map
 Some informations regarding
Bangalore Metro
¾ Cost of the project

* Figures in bracket refer to completion cost which is the current cost

plus an annual escalation of 5% per year for the likely duration of the project.
 Economic Viability Analysis

¾ Broad framework of Cost-Benefit Analysis.

¾ The Economic costs and benefits over life of project

have been identified under with and without the project
conditions.

¾ Analysis identifies and quantifies the social benefits in

terms of the effects of the projects on fundamental
objectives of the whole economy.
 Benefits of Bangalore Metro

„ Reduction in the travel times.

„ Reductions in travel costs, and as a result of savings in

accidents.

„ Increased employment opportunities both directly as a

result of the construction and operation of the system.

„ Environment benefit such as the reduction of air

pollution.

„ Economic benefits to the overall regional development

policies.
The disbenefit can include

„ Adverse socio-economic effects resulting from

displacement of residents and businesses to make way
for the system.

„ State subsidies to construct or operate the system.

„ Diversion of resources from other activities, so-called

opportunity costs.
 Cost Benefit Analysis

‰ The main objective of the analysis is to identify all the

direct and indirect benefits and to compare them over
the economic life of the project so as to justify its
implementation based on benefits/ profits to the
economy/ nation.

‰ This necessitates consideration of different streams of

costs and benefits over time.
 Steps Followed in the Economic Evaluation

„ Estimation of economic costs of the project both, capital, as

well as annual operating costs, for the assumed economic life
of 25 years after the commencement of the project.

„ Estimation of annual recurring operation & maintenance costs

at the current market price & its conversion into economic
costs.

„ Identification and quantification of direct and indirect economic

benefits to users, non-users and community.
 Evaluation of Economic Costs

Measurement of Economic Costs and Benefits:

„ The measure of a project’s benefit to the economy is not the

difference in output or cost levels before and after constructing
the project.

„ The proper measure is difference between what the level of

output services would be with the project and what they would
have been without it.
Evaluation of Economic Costs contd.

„ The annual stream of project costs and benefits in

economic terms is computed over the analysis period of
25 years in the present project.

„ These cost and benefit for every year will be compared

to estimate the net cost / benefit and calculation of
economic viability.

„ The results will be presented in terms of Economic

Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and Net Present Value
(NPV).
Estimation of Economic Costs contd.

„ Capital cost

„ Maintenance cost

„ Road User Cost

 Capital cost

Outlays for construction works for:

„ Proposed Metro
„ Track as well as stations

Environmental and social mitigating measures

Relocation of utilities

Land acquisition and construction supervision.

 Capital Cost contd.
The capital cost of the Bangalore Metro System is estimated at
Rs 5912 crores. In addition, the project will require additional
cost of Rs 478 crores to cover pre-construction planning and
design cost, proof checking & supervising consultancy, legal
and financial charges.

“ The financial and economic cost of the project are as follows :

¾ Financial cost including other charges Rs 6395 crores.

¾ Economic cost with conversion factor of 0.85, i.e., Rs
5435.75 crores.
 Operating and Maintenance (O&M)
Cost

„ The main items of routine maintenance cost are:

Cost of operation.
Regular maintenance of track, stations, etc.

„ The annual cost of O&M has been estimated at Rs 320

crores in the first year of operation.

„ Based on capacity augmentation the O&M costs have

been envisaged to increase.
Operating and Maintenance Cost contd.

Year Economic Cost of O&M

2007 272

2012 386.8

2017 498.1

2022 571.2

2027 620.5
 Cost of replacement
„ In addition to O & M cost, fund will be required for
replacement of old equipment. The cost of replacement
has been estimated as

¾ Rs. 262.3 crores in 2020

¾ Rs. 693.7 crores in 2025

¾ Rs. 130 crores in 2030.

 Categories of Benefits
A. User benefits of the Metro

¾ Reduction in travel time due to higher speeds.

¾ Savings in travel cost.

¾ Greater comfort and convenience enjoyed by

commuters.
 Categories of Benefits contd.
B. Non-user benefits to users of rail based transport

¾ Savings in vehicle operating costs due to reduced

congestion as a result of Metro.

¾ Savings in travel time cost due to reduced congestion.

¾ Savings in energy cost as a result of reduction in fuel

consumption.

¾ Savings in cost to Transport System Management.

 Categories of Benefits contd.

C. Social / Community benefit

¾ Reduction in pollution levels.

¾ Change in land values and higher tax base to local

authority.

¾ Savings in land area for “Transport” use and overall ratio at

city level due to high density of development.
 Estimated benefits
(all units in Rs. Crores)

Category of
Benefit Year

2012 2017 2022 2027 2030

Saving in VOC 678 748.6 826.5 912.5 968.4

Saving in 417 283.9 294.3 510.6 501

alternative
transport system
Environment 60 75.7 81.3 89.03 89.03
Benefits
 Land Appreciation

„ Land requirement met by the State Govt.

„ Total 138 acres of central govt. land acquired.

„ Total land appreciation cost estimated to be Rs. 600

crores.
Distribution of various benefits
 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis takes into consideration uncertainties
pertaining to forecast and critical parameters relating to
cost and benefits. The analysis reveals the impact of
changes in the following main variables.

1. Increase in capital cost by 10%.

2. Decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%.

3. Combined effect of increase in project cost by 10%

and decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%.
 Results of Economic Analysis
Base Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity
Case 1 2 3

EIRR
11.29% 10.1% 10.02% 8.90%

NPV (Rs
589.5 45.88 10.53 -550
crores)
B/C ratios
1.7 1.65 1.53 1.49
 Conclusion

¾ The EIRR of 11.29% for the base case.

¾ The sensitivity analysis estimates the lowest EIRR at

8.90%.

¾ The B/C ratio is 1.70.

This indicates that the project is viable for all cases

except the case under the worst condition of increase in
project cost by 10% and decrease in revenue by 10%.
 References
„ http://www.bmrc.co.in/.

„ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_Metro.

„ http://www.bmrc.co.in/rrpackage.pdf.

„ http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070307000832
AAaChQs.

„ http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/06/stories/2006040621890100.htm.

„ http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/03/15/stories/20060315
03221900.htm.

„ http://www.irfca.org/users/delhimetro/maps/Bangalore.pdf.

„ http://bangalore.metblogs.com/archives/2007/02/metro_rail_update
.phtml.
 Course Project Presentation

Financial Analysis of
Konkan Railway

Under the guidance of

Prof. S.L.Dhingra
Sameer Gupta (03004029)
Financial Analysis
{ Evaluates the financial viability of a
proposed project

{ Assess the value of net cash flows

that result from its implementation

{ Includes calculation of
z Costs
z Benefits
Financial Analysis
{ Costs have the following components
z Total Tranportation Costs
{ Construction cost

{ Maintenance Cost

{ Road User Cost

z Economic and Financial Costs

{ Benefits can be divided into

z Tangible Benefits
z Intangible Benefits
Methods of Financial Analysis
{ Net Present Value Method

{ Internal Rate of Return Method

{ Benefit Cost Ratio Method

Acceptance Criteria for BOT projects
{ The NPV for the project should be positive

{ The financial IRR should have a value

greater than the discount rate

{ The BCR for the project should be greater

than one
Financial Costs
{ Capital Costs
z Construction Costs
z Maintenance Costs

{ Costs are computed first in financial terms

based on market prices.

{ Market prices are often distorted due to

market imperfections, govt. policies and
regulations.
Costs
{ Capital cost = Rs. 3300 crores

{ Maintenance Cost:

z Regular Maintenance Cost = Rs. 200 crores

per year and increases by 10% annually.

Assumption:

z Periodic Maintenance Cost = 25% of

Construction cost
(0.25 * 3300 = Rs. 825 crores)
 Depreciation and Periodic Maintenance
Year Project Cost O&M Cost financial charges Cost Total Cost

1991 108 108

1992 266 266

1993 388 388

1994 506 1.1 507.1

1995 823 2.9 825.9

1996 445 18.6 463.6

1997 510 26.4 536.4

1998 327 161 488

1999 479.5 479.5

2000 513 513

2001 548 548

2002 551 551

2003 146 405 551

2004 196 413 609

2005 217 377 594

2007 297.22 400 697.22

2008 297.22 400 800 1497.22

2009 297.22 400 697.22

2010 297.22 400 697.22

2011 297.22 400 697.22

2012 326.942 400 726.94

2013 326.942 400 726.94

2014 326.942 400 726.94

2015 326.942 400 726.94

2016 326.942 400 726.94

2017 359.636 400 759.64

2018 359.636 400 800 1559.64

2019 359.636 400 759.64

2020 359.636 400 759.64

19801.85
 Earnings

Total
Year Passengers Others Earnings

1991 0

1992 0

1993 0

1994 0.06 0.06

1995 0.22 0.22

1996 0.92 0.92

1997 5.3 5.3

1998 18.4 0.55 18.95

1999 80.4 18.1 98.5

2000 118 12 130

2001 152 16 168

2002 179 9.5 188.5

2003 212 16 228

2004 235 15.5 250.5

2005 272 17 289

2006 341 31.45 372.45

2007 395.56 37.11 432.67

2008 458.85 43.79 502.64

2009 532.27 51.67 583.94

2010 617.43 60.97 678.40

2011 716.22 71.95 788.17

2012 830.81 84.90 915.71

2013 963.74 100.18 1063.92

2014 1117.94 118.22 1236.16

2015 1296.81 139.50 1436.30

2016 1504.30 164.60 1668.90

2017 1744.99 194.23 1939.22

2018 2024.19 229.19 2253.38

2019 2348.05 270.45 2618.50

2020 2723.74 319.13 3042.87

20911.19896
Financial Appraisal
{ The annual stream of financial costs and benefits has been
computed over the analysis period.

{ Net Present Value

{ All costs and benefits in future years are discounted to the

year of analysis using the adopted discount rate. The future
stream of discounted costs is subtracted from the future
stream of discounted benefits. This can be represented by the
following formula:

{ NPV = PV(Benefits) – PV(Costs)

{ If the sum of the discounted benefits is greater than the sum

of the discounted costs, the net present value is positive and
the infrastructure improvement is deemed to be economically
justified
Financial Viability
{ The project’s financial viability is assessed in
terms of Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net
Present Value (NPV) by applying the Discounted
Cash Flow (DCF) technique to the annual stream
of the net benefits of the project
Sensitivity Analysis
{ Sensitivity analysis of the project’s financial
viability has been carried out to take into
consideration uncertainties pertaining to traffic
forecast and critical parameters relating to cost
and revenue/ benefit.

{ The analysis reveals the impact of changes in the

following main variables

z Increase in capital cost by 10%

z Decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%
z Combined effect of increase in project cost by 10%
and decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%
Results of Financial Analysis

Base Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity

Case 1 2 3
IRR
8.41% 9.21% 9.14% 9.09%

B/C 1.056 1.038 0.950 0.935

Ratio
NPV (Rs
crores) -3000 -3190 -3226 -3440
Conclusions
{ Financial analysis of the project gave the IRR
to be 8.41% which is less than the discount
rate of 10%, and also the B/C ratio came out
to be less than 1
{ According to the acceptance criteria of a BOT,
the project is deemed to be financially non
viable.
{ As per sensitivity analysis results the increase
in costs by 10%, decrease in benefits by 10
%, and both these cases the IRR is
nearly about 9 %. So project is very
less sensitive to the increase in cost and
decrease in benefits.
THANK YOU
Economic Evaluation of
Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway

Under the supervision of By

Prof. S.L Dhingra Vipul Modi
Department of Civil Engineering (03004030)
IIT Bombay
April 2007
An Outline

z Salient Features of Expressway

z Benefits
z Technical Details
z BOT Scheme
z Cost Structure & Analysis
z Sensitivity Analysis
z Conclusion
Introduction
z The expressway is built on one of the busiest link in the
country connecting Delhi and Haryana State on National
Highway 8

z It will reduce the travel time from an hour to 20 mins

z PCU count for the link was estimated as over 120,000 per
day

z It consists of an 8 lane road (82%) and 6 lane road (18%)

for congestion reasons

z Toll Structure taken into account will be at concessional

rate for local traffic.
Salient Features of Expressway
z Use of Modern Technology and Equipments

z Project is on Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis

z Construction being done as in International Standards

z Speedy Completion of Work

z Cranes provided to lift and remove vehicles

Benefits

z Travel Time reduced from 65 mins to 20 mins

z Saving fuel worth Rs 8000 crores per annum
z Less Pollution
z Faster and Comfortable journey
z Easily accessibility to the Delhi International
Airport
z No Intersections
z Highway Patrolling
z Less Road-Mishaps
Technical Details

z8 / 6 Lane expressway with 22.33 kms

and 5.37 kms respectively
z Length of service road: 46.84 Km.
z Median strip width: 4.0 meters
z Paved shoulder width: 1.70 meter
z No. of Flyovers: 7
z No. of Underpasses: 5
Plan of Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway
View of Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway
The BOT Scheme
Principles of Economic Evaluation

z Complete objectivity is required in the estimation of

estimating, forecasting and selecting the factors and their
magnitude.
z Economic Analysis is not the decision process, though it
aids in decision making.
z All the alternatives should be considered, so the best one is
selected.
z The analysis is done based upon all the net costs and net
consequences.
z All factors in the analysis should be discounted to the
same time, using an appropriate time discount factor.
z Economic evaluation is independent of method of analysis.
z The inputs (costs) and outputs (benefits & adverse affects)
must be considered for the exact period of time.
Steps in Economic Evaluation Analysis

1. Identification of definition of the project.

2. Collection of economic base data.
3. Traffic surveys on existing facility.
4. Selection of policy variables for analysis and decision
criteria.
5. Inventory of existing road.
6. Traffic projections.
7. Engineering design of proposed alternative schemes.
8. Estimation of cost of new facility as per all alternatives
considered.
9. Traffic analysis on existing road and new facility.
10. Estimation of road user benefits.
11. Economic analysis.
Methods of Economic Evaluation

• Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Method

(EUAC)
• Present Worth of Costs Method (PWOC).
• Equivalent Uniform Annual Net Return
Method (EUANR).
• Net Present Value Method (NPV).
• Benefit-Cost ratio (B/C) method.
• Internal Rate of Return Method (IRR).
Total Transportation Costs
1. Construction cost
2. Maintenance cost
3. Operation cost
4. Road user cost

Under the Road user cost the following costs will

come
™ Vehicle operation cost.
™ Travel time cost.
™ Accident cost.
Vehicle Operation Cost Components

• Distance- related components

¾ Fuel
¾ Lubricants
¾ Tyres
¾ Spare parts
¾ Labour cost of repairs and maintenance

¾ Time-related components
¾ Depreciation
¾ Fixed costs
¾ Wages of crew
Assumptions
z Rise and Fall for the Expressway is taken as 30m per Km
and 10m per Km respectively.

z Roughness values assumed to be 2000mm per Km

z Effect of congestion in both distance and time related

components.

z Capacity is taken as 150,000 PCU per day used to

determine the distance and time related congestion
factors.

z M & O Costs taken together and are going to start after 4

years of opening of the Expressway with an annual
increase of 3%.
Cost Structure
Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway

Initial Cost (2005) 750 crores

Periodic Maintenance and Operational Cost - 5 210 crores

yearly
Growth of Maintenance Annually 3%

Project life in years(2005 to 2019) 15

Length 28Kms
Cost Structure

z Assumed that the overall cost has been

divided in a 20 – 30 – 30 – 20 ratio in
percentages over 4 years

z Total Traffic when open to Public is assumed

according to

Mode HCV LCV Buses Cars

No. 5680 9724 3646 31602
Value of Travel Time and Savings from it

Mode Travel time Unit value of Value of travel time

savings (min) travel time saved

HCV 70 75 Rs/hr 87.5 Rs

LCV 50 60 Rs / hr 50 Rs

Buses 60 350 Rs /hr 350 Rs

Cars 75 130 Rs / hr 162.5 Rs

VOC Equations for Cars
VOC Equations for Buses
Study of Accident Rate and Cost
Savings from VOC in Rs per Km

Mode HCV LCV Buses Cars

Savings 9.56 6.43 7.68 3.1

Sensitivity Analysis
Cases With Travel Without
Time Savings Travel Time
Savings
Base Case 15.35% 12%

10% increase in initial investment 14.13% 11.9%

10% decrease in Revenue 13.96% 11.74%

10% increase in investment and 14.81% 12.74%

10% decrease in revenue
Conclusions
z From Sensitivity analysis results we concluded that the Delhi – Gurgaon
Expressway Project is economically feasible as the value of IRR is
coming out to be 15.35% with travel time savings.

z Benefits to Cost ratio is coming out to be 1.126

z Important thing we have to consider is whether the traffic projection as

given in this report will come on to this proposed Expressway or not. And
also the coming traffic will very much depend on the Toll structure.

z We have to take the perception of the people whether they are willing to
come on this proposed Expressway for the toll structure given.

z Also depends upon the future developments around the expressway i.e
Delhi Metro and other State peripheral expressways.
Thank You
 Course Project Presentation

Economic Evaluation
of
Mumbai Pune Expressway and NH4

Guide Jyothsna Pannala

Prof S.L.Dinghra 03004035

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 1

 Economic Evaluation
• The objective of economic evaluation is to determine the
feasibility of the proposed project in terms of the benefits
likely to accrue to the economy as a whole, thereby
justifying its implementation based on profit to the nation/
economy.

• Need for Economic evaluation

– Cost-Effective Design and Construction
– Best Return on Investment
– Understanding Complex Projects
– Documentation of Decision Process

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 2

 Economic Evaluation Process
• Main Step Followed in the Economic Evaluation are as Follows:

• Estimation of economic costs of the project both, capital, as well as

annual operating costs, for the assumed economic life after the
commencement of the project.

• Estimation of annual recurring operation & maintenance costs at the

current market price & its conversion into economic costs.

• Identification and quantification of economic benefits to users, Non-

users, Community.

• Based on traffic forecast for the project annual stream of benefits will
be estimated and compared with the stream of annual costs.

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 3

 MPEW and NH4
• Mumbai Pune Expressway
– India’s first expressway
– reduced the travel time between Mumbai and Pune to
approximately two hours
– construction entrusted to MSRDC by the Govt. of
Maharashtra in March 1997 on Built, Operate and Transfer
(BOT) basis with the permission to collect the toll for 30
years.
– Initially budgeted around Rs. 1600 crores
– Final cost around Rs. 2,136 crores
– cost escalation of about 30 per cent
– With an average initial debt repayment interest of 13 per
cent, the total liability is now Rs. 3,000 crores.

• March 1, 2004, NH-4 and the Expressway were handed over to

Ideal Road Builders (IRB), a Mumbai-based company.

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 4

 Project Details
• capital cost –
• Mumbai Pune Expressway - Rs. 900 crores
• widening of the parallel NH 4 from two lanes to four lanes
- Rs. 400 crores

• construction period for NH4 is 1 year

• life period
– MPEW is 15 years (2005 to 2019)
– NH 4 is 14 years (2006 to 2019).

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 5

 Project Proceedings

Time
Information May-04
Construction Starting Sep-04
Construction Ending Aug-05
Commercial Operation Sep-05
Concession Ending Dec-19
Discount Rate 15%

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 6

 Economic Costs
• Capital cost
– Construction costs
– Environmental and social mitigating measures
– Relocation of utilities
– Land acquisition and construction supervision.

• Costs are computed first in financial terms based on market prices.

• market prices are often distorted due to market imperfections, govt.

policies and regulations.

• The financial cost therefore will be converted into economic cost by

applying conversion factor of 0.85 as recommended by international
funding agencies

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 7

 Capital Costs

Total
Total
MPEW NH4 Economic
financial Cost
(Rs in crores) (Rs in crores) Cost
(Rs in crores)
(Rs in crores)

900 400 1300 1105

Table Capital Costs of MPEW and NH4

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 8

 Maintenance Costs
• MPEW:
– Regular Maintenance Cost = 70.91 crores per year and
increases by 3% annually.
– Periodic Maintenance Cost = 210 crores @ every 5th year

• NH4
• Assumptions:
– Regular Maintenance Cost on NH4 = 3% of construction cost
= 0.03 x 400 = 12 crore per year and increases by 3%
annually.
– Periodic Maintenance Cost on NH4 = 10% of construction cost
= 0.1 x 400 = 40 crore @ every 5th year

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 9

 MPEW NH4 Financial Cost Economic Cost
Year
(Rs in crores) (Rs in crores) (Rs in crores) (Rs in crores)
2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
2005 70.91 0.00 70.91 60.27
2006 73.04 12.00 85.04 72.28
2007 75.23 12.36 87.59 74.45
2008 77.49 12.73 90.22 76.68
2009 79.81 13.11 92.92 78.98
2010 82.20 13.51 95.71 81.35
2011 84.67 13.91 98.58 83.79
2012 87.21 14.33 101.54 86.30
2013 89.83 14.76 104.59 88.89
2014 92.52 15.20 107.72 91.56
2015 95.30 15.66 110.95 94.31
2016 98.16 16.13 114.28 97.14
2017 101.10 16.61 117.71 100.05
2018 104.13 17.11 121.24 103.05
2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 10
2019 107 26 17 62 124 88 106 14
 Periodic Maintenance Costs

Year MPEW NH4 Financial costs Economic costs

(Rs in crores) (Rs in crores) (Rs in crores) (Rs in crores)

2005 243 0 243 206

2010 282 46 728 619

2015 387 54 941 800

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 11

 Economic Benefits
• The benefits of a transportation investment are typically estimated
by comparing the amount of travel time, vehicle miles traveled
and expected number of crashes for the Alternative to the Base
Case.

• The second step is translating these physical benefits into

monetary values.

• The major economic benefits are

– Saving in Vehicle operating time (VOT)
– Savings in Vehicle operating cost (VOC)

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 12

 Savings in VOT
• Travel-time savings typically generate the greatest amount of benefit
• These savings are calculated based on the difference in travel time
between the Base Case and an Alternative.
• Savings in Travel Time will increase in 3% rate as traffic is
increasing at a rate of 3%
• Savings in VOT
– HCV : 87.5 Rs per day
– LCV : 50 Rs per day
– Buses : 350 Rs per day
– Cars : 162.5 Rs per day
• From 2005 september onwards, Savings in Travel Time on MPEW
will be reduced to half because of widening of NH4 to four lanes.

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 13

 MPEW NH4 Total Savings
Year
(Rs in crores) (Rs in crores) (Rs in crores)
2004 43.94 0 43.94
2005 - Jan to
104.87 0 104.87
Aug

2005 - Sep to
17.48 28.43 45.91
Dec
2006 74.17 90.49 164.67
2007 78.69 96.00 174.70
2008 83.48 101.85 185.33
2009 88.57 108.05 196.62
2010 93.96 114.63 208.60
2011 99.68 121.61 221.30
2012 105.75 129.02 234.78
2013 112.20 136.88 249.07
2014 119.03 145.21 264.24
2015 126.28 154.06 280.33
2016 133.97 163.44 297.41
2nd April2017
2007 142.13 173.39
Economic Evaluation 315.52 14
 Savings in VOC
• When transportation improvements are made, the cost of operating
vehicles along a particular facility or set of facilities can change.
• Operating costs can change because the number of miles driven
changes, as in the case of a shorter bypass or a reduction in circuity
or diversion of trips, or it can change because of changes in the
number of stops.
• The number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) is the most common
variable that affects vehicle operating costs.
• Savings in VOC
– HCV : 9.56 Rs per day
– LCV : 6.43 Rs per day
– Buses : 7.68 Rs per day
– Cars : 3.1 Rs per day

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 15

 MPEW NH4 Total Savings
Year
(Rs in crores) (Rs in crores) (Rs in crores)
2004 1.68 0.00 1.68

2005 -Jan to Aug 4.01 0.00 4.01

2005 - Sep to Dec 0.67 1.09 1.75

2006 2.83 3.46 6.29

2007 3.01 3.67 6.68
2008 3.19 3.89 7.08
2009 3.38 4.13 7.51
2010 3.59 4.38 7.97
2011 3.81 4.65 8.46
2012 4.04 4.93 8.97
2013 4.29 5.23 9.52
2014 4.55 5.55 10.10
2015 4.83 5.89 10.71
2016 5.12 6.25 11.37
2nd April 2017
2007 5.43 Economic Evaluation 6.63 12.06 16
 Economic Appraisal
• The annual stream of economic costs and benefits has been
computed over the analysis period.

• Net Present Value

• All costs and benefits in future years are discounted to the year of
analysis using the adopted discount rate. The future stream of
discounted costs is subtracted from the future stream of discounted
benefits. This can be represented by the following formula:

• NPV = PV(Benefits) – PV(Costs)

• If the sum of the discounted benefits is greater than the sum of the
discounted costs, the net present value is positive and the
infrastructure improvement is deemed to be economically justified

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 17

 Economic Viability
• The project’s economic viability is assessed in terms of
Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and Net Present
Value (NPV) by applying the Discounted Cash Flow
(DCF) technique to the annual stream of the net benefits
of the project

NPV
EIRR
(Rs in crores)

MPEW 29.71% 715.35

NH4 75.66% 1382.51

Total 42.92% 2097.87

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 18

 Sensitivity Analysis
• Sensitivity analysis of the project’s economic viability has been
carried out to take into consideration uncertainties pertaining to
traffic forecast and critical parameters relating to cost and revenue/
benefit.

• The analysis reveals the impact of changes in the following main

variables
– Increase in Capital costs
– Decrease in volume of traffic
– Increase in discount rate
– Increase in O&M costs
– Decrease in toll rates
– Decrease in VOC savings
– Decrease in VOT savings

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 19

 Increase in Capital Costs

Construction Cost
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative

% Change NPV EIRR NPV EIRR NPV EIRR

10% 274.27 20.75% 1031.32 61.41% 1305.59 32.68%
30% 485.85 22.98% 1288.83 59.64% 1774.69 33.83%

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 20

 Decrease in Traffic Volume

Volume of Traffic
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV EIRR NPV EIRR NPV EIRR
-10% 492.36571 25.19% 1204.5 68.47% 1696.9 37.73%

-20% 269.38 20.65% 1026.56 61.22% 1295.94 32.55%

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 21

 Change in Discount Rate

Discount Rate
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
%
Change NPV EIRR NPV EIRR NPV EIRR
18% 493.39 29.71% 1116.60 75.66% 2097.87 42.92%
22% 273.28 29.71% 852.82 75.66% 1126.10 42.92%

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 22

 Increase in O&M Costs

Operational and Maintenance Cost

MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV EIRR NPV EIRR NPV EIRR

10% 640.40 28.06% 1374.02 75.40% 2014.42 41.61%

30% 490.49 24.85% 1357.03 74.87% 1847.52 39.06%

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 23

 Toll Rates
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV EIRR NPV EIRR NPV EIRR
-10% 558.83 26.59% 1269.15 71.08% 1827.98 39.48%
-20% 402.30 23.45% 1155.78 66.49% 1558.08 36.05%
VOC Savings
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative
% Change NPV EIRR NPV EIRR NPV EIRR
-10% 399.85 23.39% 1153.40 66.39% 1553.26 35.98%
-20% 397.41 23.34% 1151.03 66.30% 1548.43 35.92%

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 24

 Decrease in VOT Savings

VOT Savings
MPEW NH 4 Cumulative

% Change NPV EIRR NPV EIRR NPV EIRR

-10% 338.28 22.09% 1093.55 63.96% 1431.84 34.36%

-20% 274.27 20.75% 1031.32 61.41% 1305.59 32.68%

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 25

 Scenario Analysis
• Scenario 1: Increase in capital cost by 10%.
• Scenario 2: Decrease in benefits by 10%.
• Scenario 3: Combined effect of increase in project cost by
10% and decrease in revenue or benefits by 10%.

Base Case Sensitivity 1 Sensitivity 2 Sensitivity 3

EIRR 42.92% 28.89% 28.51% 25.04%

NPV (Rs
Crores) 2709 1114.41 983.85 792.67

B/C ratios
2.97 2.7 2.68 2.43

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 26

 Conclusions
• Economic analysis of MPEW project alone gave an EIRR of
29.71% and NPV of 715.35 crores. Though the base project
MPEW project is economically viable, any variation in project
parameters can result in a lower value of EIRR.

• Economic analysis of NH4 project alone gave an EIRR of

75.65% and NPV of 1382.51 crores. NH4 project is very much
economically viable.

• The cummulative performance of MPEW and NH4 is found to be

good with project EIRR of 42.92%, NPV of 2709 crores and
BCR of 2.97. The cut off rate for the economically viable project
at present is 15%. The project gives the EIRR of 42.92% for the
base case. The combined project is economically viable.

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 27

 Conclusion
• The sensitivity analysis was carried out on the project parameters

• The sensitivity analysis estimates the lowest EIRR at 25.04%. This

indicates that the project is viable even under the worst condition of
increase in project cost by 10% and decrease in revenue by 10%.

• A 20% decrease in VOT savings showed a 45% decrease in NPV.

This indicates that the project is very sensitive to VOT savings.

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 28

 Thank You

2nd April 2007 Economic Evaluation 29

CE 754 Course Project

Economic Evaluation of BOT Scheme for

Highway Projects
Instructor
Prof. S.L. Dhingra

Presented by
Vikranth Audi
(03004036)
Introduction

„ Transport economic analysis is an important phase of the

transport project appraisal.

„ It is a technique where the costs and benefits from a scheme

are quantified over a selected time horizon.

„ Economic analysis is done for national point of view.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 2

Methods of Economical Analysis

„ Benefit Cost Analysis

n
Ci
C pv = ∑
n
Bi
B pv = ∑
i =1 (1 + r )
i
i =1 (1 + r ) i

‰ Benefit Cost Ratio Method (BCR)

‰ Net Present Value Method (NPV)

CE754 Course Project Presentation 3

 Case Study
„ National Highway 8 which connects the Jaipur city to Delhi is provided with a bypass road,

which passes through the Transport Nagar intersection – where NH 8 meets the other national

highway no 11 (Jaipur – Agra road) and passes via Karbala T-junction and Y junction with old

Amer road.

„ Being at the boundary of the Jaipur city, this section of the road caters for all type of traffic –

light, medium and heavy vehicles including buses and trucks.

„ This bypass road is also accessed from the important Amer road via the busy and congested

Karbala link road. It is necessary to upgrade this package road section for traffic worthiness in

conformity with the Delhi road.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 4
„ Keeping in view the requirement of future widening in due course, decision

has been taken by the authorities to keep this road for future 6 lane decided

configuration and wherever space is available without constraint, to also

provide for 2X1.5 m further widening over and above 6 laning and to

provide, for the present, 4-lane divided carriageways for the time being, to

ease congestion.

„ Two stretches of this bypass road from Transport Nagar crossing up to

Karbala T junction have already been taken up under package no.

JAI/ST/01 and JAI/ST/03.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 5

„ It is therefore proposed to take up improvement of this portion of the bypass road

from Karbala T junction up to bottom of hilly stretch by construction of a new retaining

wall on the RHS(Jaipur-Delhi) from Karbala up to the hillock opposite to mosque and

further from existing road up to bottom of Ghati portion including cutting of the hill, for

the future 6-laning including widening, providing for only 4-laned configuration for the

present throughout the package length, besides improvement of intersections en-

route and wayside development like service roads in the commercial stretch ensuing

after the Ghati. After the package length, the Delhi road is already 4 lane.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 6

Justification for road widening:
„ This section of road connects heavily
populated commercial, agricultural area.
„ At present, the carriageway is only 2 lane
wide, with paved shoulders of widths varying
from 0.6m to 8 m.
„ Due to inadequate carriageway width, the
road becomes congested resulting into low
speeds and to possibility of accidents,
whereby the traffic passing through this
stretch suffers the most.
CE754 Course Project Presentation 7
„ Widening and strengthening as per requirement of
this 8.85 km length of the bypass is, therefore,
absolutely necessary
- to ease traffic situation near Jaipur city
- to provide relief and time savings to through traffic
- to reduce accidents, congestion and operating
expenses of the vehicles

„ This will also improve the environment of Jaipur city.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 8

Assumptions
„ Initial investment and residual value of the project is zero.

„ Moratorium period is 6 years for this project i.e. construction

period plus one operational year consider as moratorium
period.

„ Discount rate is constant throughout the concession period.

„ Operation and maintenance cost are assumed to increase

at the rate of inflation rate.

„ All toll rates for any mode at any time are kept in full rupees

CE754 Course Project Presentation 9

Traffic Survey
‰ Peak hour traffic survey was conducted in June 2004 on the Delhi bypass road. Total
ADT in both directions of various categories of vehicles is given in the table below.
Keeping in view the future construction of a new bypass, the initial design period for
stage construction of this arterial road has been taken as 5 years. In accordance with
IRC: 37 – 2001, a growth factor of 7.5% per annum has been used to predict the
future traffic.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 10

Maintenance strategy
„ The maintenance of the pavement can be of two types

o Routine maintenance

o Periodical maintenance

„ Routine maintenance includes the regular crack sealing due to shrinkage of asphalt layer,

repair pot holes, bitumen heaves near the bus stops or approach road which are caused

due to acceleration and deceleration of the vehicles. The periodical maintenance is related

to the roughness index of the pavement. Whenever the roughness index of the pavement

goes beyond the specified value, profile corrective course in the form of bituminous

overlay has to be provided. Generally the interval of periodical maintenance is 5 years.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 11

 Operation and Maintenance cost
„ The estimated O&M cost (at 2010 prices) are summarized in the following table.

Operation and Maintenance Cost

CE754 Course Project Presentation 12

Useful Parameters

CE754 Course Project Presentation 13

Conclusion
„ After simulating the data of this project in Highway Design

and Maintenance Standards Model (HDM), IRR was

18.14% and NPV was Rs 3.97 crore at the discount rate

of 12%.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 14

THANK YOU
CE 754 Course Project

Financial Evaluation of BOT Scheme for

Highway Projects
Instructor
Prof. S.L. Dhingra

Presented by
P.Vikram Reddy
(03004040)
Introduction

„ The financial viability of a project built by a private sector means

that the project must generate revenue that will be sufficient

¾ To payoff principal and interest payments in respect of the project debt over the term

of the various loans and

¾ To provide a return of and on equity which is commensurate with whatever

development and long term project risk the equity investors are being asked to take.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 2

„ Financial costs represent the actual amounts one has to pay to get a

road constructed and maintained. They are the engineer’s estimates

to get the project sanctioned and they are shown in the accounts and

budgets.

„ In financial analysis, one is concerned with the ways and means of

financing a project (through taxes or toll) and the financial profitability

of the project.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 3

 Case Study: Statistics of the Project
„ Construction cost

‰ The project cost has been estimated based on 2005 prices

‰ Project implementation is spread over the years 2005-2010.

‰ Cost estimates have been adjusted for inflation @ 6% p.a.

‰ Interest during the construction period (IDC) has been considered on the debt

component @ 12% p.a and has been funded till the year, 2010. Hence the

repayment of interest and principal starts from 2011 after moratorium period ends.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 4

„ The project is planned for completion within five years. The investment phasing schedule of construction

has been given in the following table.

Phasing of Construction Cost

CE754 Course Project Presentation 5

„ Traffic and Toll

‰ The average daily traffic (ADT) and toll rates for base year (2004) of different category of vehicles

are given below in the following table. The annual growth rate for daily traffic is taken as 7.5% and

toll rates are assumed to go up in tandem with inflation i.e., @ 6% p.a.

Table: Traffic and Toll rates for base year 2004

CE754 Course Project Presentation 6

„ Advertisement Revenue:
The share of advertisement revenue for such projects in the total operating
revenue has been ranged between 5-10%. The possible avenues where
advertisement billboards can be targeted are:

• Advertisements from hoardings on the sides of the highway.

• Advertisements on the toll tickets.

„ For this project, the share of the advertisement revenue has been
assumed at 5% of the tolls revenue.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 7

Cost and Finance Structure

CE754 Course Project Presentation 8

Conclusion
„ After simulating the data of this project in model IRR and NPV was

calculated as 20.91% and Rs 5.85 crore respectively with ad revenue

and without ad revenue, IRR was 18.14% and NPV was Rs 3.97

crore at the discount rate of 12%.

„ According to the acceptance criteria, the project is found to be

financially viable.

CE754 Course Project Presentation 9

THANK YOU