Raport JASPERS Sibiu Pitesti

7/23/2019 Raport JASPERS Sibiu Pitesti

1/8

Bucharest, 23/12/2012

Guidance Note No. 2

Report on Route Alignment Options tage 1 Option Anal!sis Route alternati"es 1,2, 3, #, $% &Re" 12.11.201$' issued (! )* +A /-N

Report on Route Alignment Options tage 2 Anal!sis o Options selected in tage 1 % Routealternati"es 1 and 2 &Re". 1.11.201$' % issued (! )* +A /-N

+repared (! Aleandra tan, Andreea Raducu, 4arian +urt5, Angela 6ilipas, )ean *alsesia

Bac7ground

The contract for the Review/Up-date of the Feasibility Study: Sibiu Pitesti Motorway was sined on!"/#$/%#!" between &'()'R and *+, Spea neneria .uropea talia0 - Tecnic &onsultin.nineerin Ro1ania &ontract price: %2 Million R3'4 ,(T e5cluded0+ The 6ic6-off 1eetin for thepro7ect was held on !$/#$/%#!" at *(SP.RS 8ucharest office+ 'otes of the 1eetin containin*(SP.RS reco11endations were issued on %$/#$/%#!"+

3n !9/#9/%#!" *(SP.RS have received for review the nception Report electronic for1at0 issued bythe &onsultant+ ( first Proress Meetin between R'&M'R4 Manain (uthority &onsultant and

*(SP.RS was held on %!/#9/%#!"+ *(SP.RS opinion on the contents of the nception Report R0and the outco1es of the proress 1eetin was presented on %"/#9/%#!"+

3n #2/!%/%#!" *(SP.RS have received for review the followin docu1ents:

1. Route Alternati"es Report - tage 1 Route (lternatives !4 %4 4 ;4 " Rev+ !%+!!+%#!"0

toether with:

(nne5 ! Traffic Study

(nne5 % &ost 8enefit (nalysis

(nne5 .nviron1ental Report

(nne5 ; +!!+%#!"0 toether

with:

(nne5 ! Traffic Study

(nne5 % .nviron1ental Report

(nne5 (rchaeoloical Report

(nne5 ; Utilities Report drawins0

)rawins


2/8

3n !9/!%/%#!"4 durin evaluation of the above 1entioned docu1entation4 an up-dated (nne5 ! -Traffic Study - Stae ! was sub1itted by the &onsultant4 replacin the #2/!%/%#!" version+

*(SP.RS co11ents and reco11endations with reards to the above 1entioned reports are

presented below in connection with previous reco11endations issued by *(SP.RS:

General considerations

The content of the docu1ents reviewed is not suitable at this stae to support a successful Financin(pplication for the pro7ect+

(s reco11ended in the &o11ission?s 1ple1entin Reulation .U0 %#!"/%#$4 the 3ption (nalysisshould be carried out in two steps: in the first step loo6in at basic strateic options i+e+ type ofinfrastructure and location for the pro7ect0 and in the second one at specific solutions at thetechnoloical level+

The option analysis process should start with the strateic bac6round4 the conte5t within the relevant

national strateic plans and develop1ent prora1s e++


3/8

study) should be focused on the entire investment, regardless of the object of the "#$F%CohesionFund assistance.&

(s provided in the e5istin desin contract4 feasibility studies should have been co1pleted by now forthe two lots to be i1ple1ented in the first phase+ The docu1ents reviewed do not provide sufficientlydetailed analysis reBuired by such outputs and therefore could not support a financin application+

peciic omments and Recommendations

tage 1 o 4AThere are various approaches to the M&( applied across the industry+ The approach reco11endedby the above1entioned .U reulations and the .U


4/8

- @evel - % evaluation sub-criteria definin details considered relevant for theco1parison of the proposed options0+

The proposed nu1ber of criteria and sub-criteria is very hih althouh we understand this was drivenby an atte1pt to develop a co1prehensive M&( fra1ewor6+ Fro1 our e5perience a solid ran6in canusually be obtained fro1 a reduced nu1ber of 6ey criteria that are 1ost relevant for the specific

pro7ect circu1stances and that can be reliably assessed/scored+ Therefore4 we suest strea1lininthe whole scorin fra1ewor6+ ( si1plified scorin fra1ewor6 should be considered based on 6eycriteria that can be realistically scored and can 1a6e difference between the studied alin1ents+

Moreover4 we have reservations aainst the relative weihtins proposed4 as the 1ulti-level approachleads to neliible weihtins4 which do not reflect the actual i1portance of a certain ele1ent in theselection process e++ eotechnical constraints the !"H weihtin of these constraints within the!#H allocated to round constraints within the overall %"H weihtin of technical constraints - #+$"H - does not actually capture the i1pact of such constraints0+

The 1anner in which the 1ethodoloical fra1ewor6 is presented does not provide the base for a clearidentification of the steps followed and does not present aru1ents behind the selection of the criteriaas well as of the scorin syste1+ The option analysis is reduced to a su11ary table of results+

Therefore4 the correctness and appropriateness of the option analysis process cannot be chec6ed+

For the purpose of accountability and transparency4 each and every criterion needs to be clearlydefined toether with the reason for considerin it relevant+ f scorin is considered4 then the scoresshould be defined in the presentation of the 1ethodoloy+ &riteria for which the e5istin level ofinfor1ation at this stae does not allow a relevant differentiation between options should be identifiedas such and e5cluded fro1 the assess1ent process e++ hydroloical/hydrotechnical constraints4seis1ic constraints4 traffic safety4 utilities relocation4 interested population4 etc+0+

nfor1ation is not consistent across the report e++ the nu1ber of interchanes in the narrativedescription of the alin1ents differs fro1 the one declared in the su11ary table of the technicalcharacteristics and fro1 the nu1bers considered in the cost evaluationG desin speed values in thenarrative description differ fro1 the values in the su11ary table etc+0+

&li1ate chane vulnerability and ris6 assess1ent are particular aspects which should be considered4especially if the pro7ect is to apply for .U assistance+ *(SP.RS reco11endations with reards tocli1ate chane vulnerability and ris6 assess1ent were not considered in the option analysis process+Many of the proposed criteria are redundant as their effects are captured by the preli1inary &8(pro7ect costs4 traffic values4 i1ple1entation duration4 and benefits associated to the pro7ect ,oT4 ,o&4accidents costs and environ1ental i1pact0+ The construction cost already includes the i1pact of othersub-criteria considered e++ lenth of the pro7ect4 eo1etrical characteristics4 desin speed4 landsurface to be acBuired4 technoloical co1ple5ity of wor6s0+

The i1ple1entation periods reBuired for all pro7ect lots includin loical seBuencin should beadeBuately assessed ta6in into accounts specific enineerin4 environ1ental4 eoloical etc+ issuesaffectin the1 currently the i1ple1entation period considered for all lots is ; years and " years used

in the &8(4 see below0+ 8ut as the i1pact of i1ple1entation periods is i1plicitly captured in the &8( itshould not be considered as a separate criterion+

The proposed split of the pro7ect cost in sub-criteria4 under the financial criterion is not relevant andsince the i1pact of all the pro7ect cost co1ponents &(P.I and 3P.I0 is captured throuh the &8(4these costs should not be considered as separate criteria+

The socio-econo1ic criterion is actually captured by the &8( outputs+ f as shown in the report4 abasic &8( was carried out at this stae for all the alternatives4 then one of the output indicators 'P,or 8&R0 should be considered as the relevant criterion4 since it captures the i1pact of both costs andbenefits of the pro7ect+

(s no tolls which 1iht enerate revenues to affect the option selection are foreseen for any particular

option4 the financial indicators are not relevant for the scope of the M&(+ n this case4 the financial


5/8

analysis is a tool to assess the need of co-financin of the pro7ect fro1 .R)F/&ohesion Funds andshall be therefore carried out only for the preferred option within the final &8(+

(ll the proposed sub-criteria related to environ1ent benefits considered within the socio-econo1icsection such as the positive i1pacts on the local develop1ent or the neative i1pact on the built-upareas4 relocation of hu1an co11unities and e1ploy1ent opportunities are based on the infor1ation

presented considered not relevant since they do not hihliht any specific differences between theoptions analysed+ Such criteria should either be properly analysed and supported by relevant data andinfor1ation e++ nu1ber of properties to be de1olished or nu1ber of inhabitants to be relocated etc+0or if found not to be relevant e5cluded fro1 the scorin fra1ewor6+

The relevant benefits related to environ1ent are noise4 air pollution and # $#H with noise4 e1issions4 accidents4 @evel of Service etc+ i1plicitly included04 and therest to other aspects not considered in the &8(+ These other aspects4 to be deter1ined by the&onsultant as relevant for the pro7ect 1iht include the environ1ental i1pact e++ i1pact on 'atura%### sites4 cultural heritae and water04 cli1ate ris6s floods4 landslides and other relevant ris6s althouh nor1ally these would be reflected in the pro7ect cost0 and social e++ loss of aricultural land4

resettle1ents etc+0 and plannin national and local0 considerations+


6/8

The second stae should consist of the ad7usted definition and e5pansion of the variants consideredi+e+ based on co1binations of several alin1ents by route sectors4 different desin speeds and cross-section alin1ents4 optioneerin for structures etc+ based on the latest survey and environ1entalinfor1ation04 read7ust1ent of the traffic 1odel and assu1ptions used e++ ti1etables4 if reBuired0 andrevision and update of the cost esti1ates based on the 1ost recent survey infor1ation e++toporaphical infor1ation4 round investiations4 latest environ1ental infor1ation4 cli1ate chane

assess1ent4 proressin desin includin buildability considerations etc+0+

The level of detail reBuired for this stae of assess1ent should be developed based on toporaphicalsurveys @)(R (ero surveys0 which provide for a ) 1odellin of the selected route alin1ents andallow for proper identification of potential technical constraints and buildability issues as well as for aproper cost assess1ent to be used in the option analysis+ The availability of such data even at anearlier stae in the option analysis would have supported a better assess1ent of the proposedalin1ents+

The M&( used for the assess1ent of the two preferred options route alin1ents ! and %0 wasdeveloped followin the sa1e criteria e1ployed for the Stae !+ The only reference for review is thesu11ary table of the option analysis4 which shows a sliht 1odification of the scores4 not supportedby any additional infor1ation+

For the environ1ental i1pact assess1ent the followin ele1ents were noted in the relevant report:

- 'o clear distinction between Stae ! and Stae % and no interpretation and 7ustification of theoutco1es of Stae ! were providedG

- Two additional tables as part of the Stae !0 were presented: no+ of protected areas crossedand no+ of intersections with water courses without any interpretation or relevance for theassess1ent+

- The analysis in Stae % was li1ited to presentation the 'atura %### sites concerned for the(lternative ! and (lternative % without presentation of any other environ1ental considerationsG thepresentation of the advantaes and disadvantaes is li1ited and the 7ustification provided is notconvincinG

- The 1itiation 1easures presented in the table4 even if it is a preli1inary esti1ation4 could notbe identified in this stae of the assess1ent+ &onsiderin the co1ple5ity of the pro7ect it is neededto have 1ore detailed and structured infor1ation about the i1pact of the pro7ect on environ1ent4includin i1pact on 'atura %### sites before definin the 1itiation 1easures or4 if neededco1pensatory 1easuresG

- The cli1ate chane aspects were not considered at all in the analysis+ (ccordin to thereBuire1ents of the &o11ission 1ple1entin Reulation .U0 %#$/%#!" layin down detailedrules i1ple1entin Reulation .U0 'o !#/%#!" the options should be compared againstdifferent criteria, including for e'ample technical, institutional, economic, environmental andclimate change aspects. he Financial !pplication for major projects (F!) should provideinformation that such an assessment too place during project preparation. *t is re+uired, undersection $.. (iv), to provide information on riss involved for each alternative, including rissrelated to climate change impacts and weather e'tremes. ! summary of this assessment should

also be presented in ection F.. and section F../. of the F!. !s a support in providing suchinformation can be use the 0on-1aper 2uidelines for 1roject 3anagers4 3aing 5ulnerable1roject Climate #esilient developed by $2 Climate !ction of the "uropean Commission4 http://ec+europa+eu/cli1a/policies/adaptation/what/docs/nonKpaperKuidelinesKpro7ectK1anaersKen+pdf+

The docu1ent provides infor1ation on the steps that can be underta6en to interate cli1ateresilience within a pro7ect develop1ent+

(s an overall re1ar64 in the absence of a defined 1ethodoloical fra1ewor64 with details of the criteriaand scores used for the assess1ent of the two options4 the process cannot be followed andconfir1ed+

The e5istin report needs to be revised to provide the relevant level of details needed for a properanalysis to lead to the preferred alin1ent option+
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/docs/non_paper_guidelines_project_managers_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/docs/non_paper_guidelines_project_managers_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/docs/non_paper_guidelines_project_managers_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/docs/non_paper_guidelines_project_managers_en.pdf


7/8

-raic tudies and BA Reports

The 1anner in which every route alin1ent option and its connection to the e5istin networ6 areconsidered in the traffic 1odel has an i1pact on the esti1ated traffic volu1es and hence theecono1ic perfor1ance i+e+ viability of the specific option+

(s the nu1ber of interchanes for each route alternative analysed is not consistent across the reportsit cannot be identified if all the interchanes where actually considered for the traffic 1odellin e+ forRoute (lin1ent ! the su11ary table of the technical characteristics refers to 9 interchanes4 thenarrative description identifies " interchanes and the traffic study defines " sections which would beenerated by > interchanes0+

The cost of the rehabilitation of )'$& which provides for the connection with Ra1nicu ,alcea0 isconsidered in the cost esti1ates for all the five options studied4 but there is no actual proof of the lin6bein included in the traffic 1odel+

Aith reards to the future networ6 develop1ent considered in the traffic study4 since so1e of the datain the pro7ect i1ple1entation horiJon are Buestionable &o1arnic 8rasov co1pleted in %#%#0 it is

reco11ended for the 8eneficiary to liaise urently with relevant bodies e++ the Stratey )epart1entof the MT0 in order to establish realistic networ6 develop1ent assu1ptions for input into the )e1and(nalysis+

For the first stae of the option analysis a preli1inary traffic study was developed based on the'ational Transport Model within the


8/8

onclusion

Ahile the 1erits of the proposed preferred options are ac6nowleded4 the 1anner in which the optionanalysis is presented does not allow for a clear and certain confir1ation of the selection process+

8ased on all of the above *(SP.RS cannot confir1 the adeBuacy of the docu1ents for the support of

a successful Financin (pplication and reco11ends review and redoin of the route alin1ent studyusin a clear 1ethodoloy4 robust and adeBuate scorin fra1ewor6 without duplications4 based onreliable and robust Traffic Study and reliable &8( tool4 realistic ti1etables4 enineerin solutionsoptioneerin considerin buildability and environ1ental issues and the latest surveys and infor1ation+*(SP.RS support re1ains available assist with future develop1ent of the pro7ect+

Raport JASPERS Sibiu Pitesti

Documents

Transcript of Raport JASPERS Sibiu Pitesti