,- - - -

~HWAYPLANNING M~UAL-
VOLUME 8

UE! OM ECONOMIC EVA&

- . * . * I
. . . .
1

i - -
:I

;i
i?i -- - -5- 4 9 '
-.-

3 PLANNING SERVICE
MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS and HtGHWAYS
BONIFACIO DRIVE, PORT AREA, MANlLA
 This Volume on Guidelines on Economic E v a l u a t i o n o f Road Restora-
- t
f

t i o n Works and Routine and Periodlc Maintenance Works i s p a r t (the

eighth (81 volume- o f a t o t a l o f e i g h t (8) volumes) o f a Highway Plan-

ning Manual prepared by the Transport Plannlng Consultant Mr. Preben

Mfelsen t o the then PI anning and P r o j e c t Development O f f i c e (PPDo) o f

the M i n i s t r y of Public Hlghways (MPH), w i t h vatuabte assistance and

advice from the s t a f f of the PPOO, p a r t i c u l a r l y , the A s s i s t a n t H l n f s t e r

Mr. Teodoro Encarnacion, the Chief of the Planning Servlce M r . Exequiel

T. Gumayan, M r . Trlno-Trinidad Meris, and Mr. Hanuel M. Bonoan as w e l l

as from e x p a t r i a t e s t a f f of the.French firm BCEOM and the National Trans-

port Planning P r o j e c t . The Manual Incorporates methods and findings

developed I n the such as contained i n the Road

Feasibility and 1 1 1 (1978) as well

as the P h i l i p p i n e Islands Road F e a s i b i l i t y Studjes (1979) a l l w f t h

p a r t i c i p a t i o n of Hoff & Overgaard, Planning Cpnsultants, Denmrk.

The Manual cons i s t s o f the fol lowing 8 vol umes :

VOLUME 1 Summary o f Hlghway Plannlng Procedures and Methods

VOLUME 2 Data Framework, T r a f f i c Surveys, T r a f f l c Assignment and

Road Capac i t y

, ':
VOLUME 3 T r a f f i c Generating Sources, T r a f f i c Growth Rates, Generated
T r a f f l c and lnterTModal Relations
I

I VOLUME'4 Bas i c Road T r a f f i c Costs

- . VOLUME 5 Road T r a f f i c Costs for Actual Conditions

- VOLUME 6 Normal, Generated and Oevel opmen t Benefits and Soc f a l
Pricing

Economic Evaluation
VOLUME 7 Guide1 ines on ~conomic Evaluation o f Design Standards of
Pavement and B r f dges

VOLUME 8 Guidelines on Economic Evaluation o f Road Restoration

Works
Guidelines on Economfc Evaluation of Routine and Periodic
Maintenance Works

The Highway Planning Manual i s particularly w r i t t e n and published

for the p r a c t i c a l information and guidance o f ' the PS (MPWH) and MLG

staff personnel and It i s n e i t h e r intended as a text book nor a sub-

sti tute f o r class ical and more theoretical handbooks on the d i s c i p l ines

involved. The contents i n t h i s Volume are mostly limited to methods

appl i c a b l e to rural n a t i o n a l roads i n the P h i l lppines,

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 8

2. , GU I DEL I NES ON ECONOH l C EVALUAT I ON OF ROAD

RESTORATION WORKS ......................................... 2

2.1 General ........................................ ;,..,. 2

2.2 T r a f f i c Costs ........................................ 3
2.3 Traffic .............................................. 7
2.4 Road Inventory ...................... ................ 8
2.5 Restoratlon Costs ,................................... 10
2.6 Economic Evaluation .................................. 12

3, GUIDELINES ON OVERALL ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A

3-YEAR ROAD RESTORATION PROGRAM ........................... 20

3.1 General . . . . . . , , , , , . - . . . . . , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , . , + , . a . , , , 20
3.2 Note: January 3 , 1979
Justification o f national Road Restoration Program
1980f1982 Proposed Under the 4 t h IBRO HIghway
Project. JuIy1979Prices .....m.....e............... 20
4. GUIDELINES QN OVERALL ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A
5-YEARMAINTENANCEPROGRAM .................... ,.,., ..... 26

4.1 General .............................................. 26

k,2 Note: December 22, 1978
Just if i c a t ion o f Malntenance Program for P h i l fppine
National Roads 1978-1982 .......,..................... 26

L I S T OF APPEND1 CES

APFENDlX 1 Cmposite dl-Values per Km. for Surface and

Cond it 1on

APPENDi X 2 Est f ma ted Average Traf f ic (AADT i n ~ e lhc l es)

APPENDIX 3 Benefits (V1000)' Accruing from Normal Malntenancs

 & -w , '

',A= L ~ ~ ~ * ~
.&&
by- "- -

VOLUME 8

APPEtjDiX.2.1-1 Economic Evaluation o f Road Restoiarlon Projects,,

, . Forqa t Samp 1 e :

' . APPENDIX 2..1.-2 Economic Ranking of Road Restoration Projects,

. .. i. Forrnqt Ssmpl e

A P ~ E N D 2.2-1
~X Characteristics of Typical Vehicles June 1981-

APPENDIX 2 . 2 ~ 2 Market P r i c e s ' J u n e 1981

Basic Runn fng and Fixed' Costs . '- <

A P P E N D ~ X2i2-3
L .

shadow Prices June 1981

-
, :
h
.C
'..r
I

Basic Traffic Costs

APPEND l X 2.2-4 Average Occupancy Rates

$,
APPENDIX 2.2-5 DL-Values i n Ksn. Per Actual Km.
APPENDIX 2.2-6 o p e r a. t i n. g Speed Km./Hour ,
?I,--
.--.., -
.,$
* -. :.
,

APPENDIX 2.2-7 Individual T r a f f i c Costs Exclud,ing Taxes and

Custom Dqt4 es Shadow P r ices June 1981 in
6
s
;
- ?
Kilometer
.& %L-,
.a<-.
APPENDIX 2.4-1 ~ o a b t z n d i t i o nInventory, Formar Sample
..
APPENDtX.Z.4-2 Road Inventory, amble . . ..

APPENDLX 2.4-3 1nstructions.for Useof .Rdad inventory F o n a t

-'yk,: ,z-* -
..- '$,+.-
+
~
-:&
-
.*
D
-;-I

Report on Impact o f Poor Ma in f enance Procedures

sn Road Investment Feas ih il i t y 1970
. I
u --
1. t#TRODUCftON

The purpose of the guidelines on economic evaluation methods

for restorat ion norks and f o r ma tntenance operat ions presented' i n

t h i s Volum i s to provide the HPVH and the MLG engtneering and eco-

nomic s t a f f with a set of tools t o apply on pract1ca.l.project eva-

l u a t i o n f o r minor improvement and maintenance works where the time

allowed for evaluation does not favor comprehensive methods.

1

Chapter 2 contains a simple evaluation method, primarily

based on the First-Year-lensfit return om Investment, for road

restora t f on works current ly ca rr ied out annua 1 t y under an l0RO

sponsored program.

In Chapter .3 Is g lqen an example .fran the 4th lBRD H l g h y

Project of overall economic evaluation o f the, 3 years (1980-82)

Road Bes tora t 1on Program,

Chapter 4. shows an exampie or overall economtc evatuation of

a 5-Year (1978-1982) Maintenance Program also under the 4 t h lBRD

Highway Project. The justification of a maintenance program as : ---F~

. .

such' Implies also justiffcattom of the canponmts, such as necessa- 1

r y equ f went , workshops and tools,

It should .be noted that, generally speaking, maintmance pro-

grams are noimally mbre feasible than construction p r o g r w indi-

caFfng that i t w i l l alweys be a good pol Icy to maintain current

assets, such as mads once they are b u i l t , except in exceptional

cases where the road was b u i l t without really being feasible.

 GU l DEL l NES ON ECONOM 1 C EVALUAT l ON OF ROAD RESTORAT,l ON WORKS
1 . .

Genera l

The guidelines contained I n t h i s Chapter a r e an attempt t o

rank the projects proposed for road res torat Ion w r k s on the

basis of sl.mple economlc c r i t e r i a . I t I s vq-y much f e l t t h a t a

p r i o r i t y system Is needed due to the number of projects competing

w i t h each other f o r scarce funds.

The g u i d e l i n e s are formulated I n such a way t h a t the actual

calculations
.. - can be carried out by the MPWH
. -Regional
- Offices,

The economic ranking cri t e r l a used i n t h i s Chapter i s the

F i rs t-Year-Benef i t-Cos t r a t to (TYBc) .

Road restoration projects are expected to y i e l d gains i n

road user benefits o n l y . The possible maintenance cost savings

have been disregarded i n these calculations as the work t o be

carried out consists p s t t y i n the restp_ra.tfon o f _the road

section In question t o b r i n g it back 'to i t s o r i g i n a l function

and t o make it maintainable.

I t i s asswned that the road restoration projects wl l l imply

an upgrading of the existing road condition to a relatively f a i r

maintainable conditfon.

In-formation Sheets A and B (attached as Appendices 2.1-1

;faand 2.1-2) shw the basis data and information needed I n the

analysis. -
2.2 . ' T t d f f i d ' C O P t s

Basic t r a f f i c costs or vehicle operating costs refer t o the

costs incurred I n connection with drfving on an ideal road as exr

plalned in Volume 4 o f t h i s .Manual.

Typical representative vehicles used for evaluation of road

restoration works are,as I n Volume 7,as fol~lows:

Car /Jeep : MacArthur Jeep, Gasoline

Jeepney : Ford F i e r a 1600, Gasol ine

B u s : lsuzu E l f 5 tons GVW, Diesel

(Smell)
Truck : fsuzu TD-72, plus local tady, 1'6.0 tons
GVW, Diesel

The representative vqhj$l-

,-.
-.--C-.r are a~!_ig-tly selected on the
basfs o f sporadic infomation on t r a f f i c for*roads which would

qua1 i f y for m a d restorat ion works,

The procedures used for e s t i p t f o n of bastc t r a f f i c costs in

June 1981 prices are presented i n Appendices 2.2-114. Shadow

p r i c i n g has been a p p l i e d t o the foreign components by a factor o f

1.18 bringing the foreign exchange rate f o r U S $ up t o P9-00 per

unit. The breakdown of foreign components o f basic vehicle opsr-

a t i n g costs excluding transfers are as foltows:

-ltern
Fuel and O i l
ForeiQfl'Cmpbnent
I

75%
T f r e s 65%
Spare Parts 60%
Capital Costs 60%
Insurance, Overhead 0%

Source: Philtppine Islands Road F e a s i b i l i t y Studies,

Hoff E OvergasrdfGreen International.
 Appendices 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 contain the d l and d t systems used
I n road feasibi 1 f t y studies, refer to Volume 5 of t h i s Manual.

The basic t r a f f i c c o s t s are transfonnad tnto actual road stg-

ment t r a f f i c costs by applying the dl-values for various road
types and conditions to the basic running costs, and the:dtwalues

or speed/road types and condit ions-retat fonsh l p s t o the bas i c fixed

and basic time costs, t o arrive a t Individual costs per kflometer

o f various road types and conditions, as set out i n Appendix 2.2-7,

The basic t r a f f i c costs (BTC) excluding taxes and custom du-

ties but w f t h shadow p r f c l n g o f the foreign component were i n June

1981 prices e s t {mated as follows:

BTC'Pesos per 'Km.4 )

Ca r/Jeep/Van 0.85
Jeepney 0.95 -
B u s 1 ,58
Truck 2.09
1) Running + fixed + time costs.

The Indfvidual economic t r a f f i c costs are as shown in Appendix

2.2-7 o f which a sumnary i s shown i n Table 2.2-1. Surface type and
condition are selected on the basss o f the 1978-80 IBRD/HPWH road

restorat ion programts range of types and cond it Tons.

The basic kraff i c costs must be updated regularly in order t o

conform with current prices of road restoration works.

 Table 2.2-1
Individual Economic T r a f f i c Costs i n Pesos
Der Kilometer June 1981 Shadow Prices

SCON CODE Pavement Type and Condition Car/Jeep/Van Jeepney -

B u s Truck
7

Paved Good
Paved Good/Fa ir
Paved Fair
Paved Fa i r /Bad
Paved Bad
Paved Bad/Very Bad
7 Pa,ved Very Bad 1.72 2.17 3.73 4.51
8 Gravel Good 1.07 1.17 1.92 2.62
9 Gravel Good/Fair 1 .I8 1.28 2 . I0 2.86
10 Gravel F a i r 1 .33 1.44 2.36 3.22
II Grave 1 Fa i r/Bad 1.45 1.61 2.68 3.56
12 Gravel Bad 1.61 1.86 3.12 4.03
13 Gravel Bad/Very Bad 1.76 2.08 3 50 4.45
14 Gravel Very Bad 1 *95 2.38 4 05 5-03
Z T
 The actual t r a f f i c cost sav tngs o f restorat ion w r k road sec-

tion are estimated on the basis o f the following typical road res-
toration m r k - cycle:

1. Upgradfng o f Surface Cbkdftion

Gravel: Bad t o F a i r or Very Bad t o F a i r

DBST o r AC: Bad t o F a i r o r Very lad to F a i r

(DBST = Double Bituminous Surface Treatment, AC = Asphalt

Concrets)
2. Shoul der ing (Reg rave 1 1 f ng)

3. U t c h i n g and Other Drainage Works

4. t Bridges
~ e ~ l a c e m e nof

Not treated in t h i s Volume, refer to the system explained i n

Volume 7 o f this Manual.

The actual econmtc t r a f f i c cost savings per kilometer of road

r e s t o r a t i o n works' can be calculated according to e tormula as

*

Where: TC(SCON] i s Actual T r a f f i c Costs per Km. for specffic

SCON code, see values fn Table 2.2-1;

A -
B = Before Improvemnt;
A f t e r improvsment;
~ T ( i ) m Vehicle type I ;
* 1-4 (car/jeep/van,. jeepney, bus, t r u c k ) ;
f
0.365 = CmbIncd factor f& upscal ing of AADT to
annua'l t r a f f i c volume and to express TCS
I n f t ,000;
AADT = Annual Average D a i l y T r a f f i c tn calculation

L - base year, say 1 981 ;

Length of road restdrat Ion sect ton f n Ian.;
TCS = T r a f f i c Cost Savings t n P1,000 per year
 An example would i l l u s t r a t e . the cet1,culatIon procedure as

fol lows :

-
G iven : Road restorat ion by regravel 1 ing and shaping a bad gravel
section t o make i t In f a i r condition a f t e r improvumnt.
L 3.0 kms.

AADT 1981
Carslvans
Jeepneys
Buses 40
Trucks 1 00
Find TCS (f1,000)
TCS (Cardvans)
TCS (~eepneys)
-- (1.28-1.00)~ 0.365 x 3.0 x 50 =
(1.56-1,12)x 0.365 x 3.0 x I5W 72.3
15.3

TCS ( B u s e s ) = ( 2 . 6 7 - 1 . 8 5 ) ~ 0 . 3 6 5 ~ 3 . 0 ~ 4 035.9
~
TCS (Trucks) 1 -
( 3 . 2 9 - 2 . 4 6 } ~ 0 . 3 6 5 ~ 3 , 0 x t 0 ~90.9
Tota-1 (Y1,000) 214.4
II

-
fraff ic

The economic evaluation imply an estlmate of the t r a f f i c on

the section proposed for restoration. This estimate expressed In

annual average daily t r a f f l c (AADT) shall be obtained from the

Mattonwide T r a f f l c Count results from latest counts I h the base

year. I f no count r e s u l t s are available f o r the proposed project,

traffic counts must be carried out over 24 hours for one mek in
accordance with the n o m l M M , PS procedures. A l l AADT must be
expressed for a specif lc year which must be unifonn for a l l regions'

projects. T h e s ~procedures appty also to the vehfcle classffication

into:

1) Cars, jeeps, cans, pick-ups and texis

3) Buses (mint and b i g buses together)

 4) A l l trucks (TH o r T) including seml-trailers w i t h tractor.

2.4 Road Inventory

A road Cnventory must be carrfed out for each project road

segment to obtain tnformstion on the present condition. In this

Volume a dl-fferent rating systm than the one usually used for

road feasibility studies (refer to Volume 5 of this Manual) i s

proposed. I t was developed in January 1978 by the French consult-

lng f i r m BCEOH which a t that t'fme worked for the HPWH as general

consul tants.

The system which operates on t h e basis o f p o i n t s for-rating

o f various road elements i s explained below.

A Road Condition Inventory should be carried out for a l l pro-

Jects proposed to be .included I n a road restoration program. The

d a t a should be listed on the form shown I n Appendix 2.4-1. A

typlcal completed form i s shown i n Appendix 2,492 and the instruc-

tions for completing the format ere shown in Appendlx 2.4-3.

The Legends used are as follows:

LEGEND

- l fghtd e f o m t ion or deterioration (needs minor

repair: routine maintenance)
(less than 30% of roadway a r e a l ) )

- medium sfzed or spot d e f o ~ t i o no r deterioration

(needs heavy ma 1ntenance) (30-50% o f roadway area)

- large or general tzed deformation or deterloration

C (needs res torat ion or improvement)
(more than 50% of roadway area)

1 ) Area. along the longitudinal a l tgnment (Width x ~ength)

 ImRdad Def6 irila t ion
Road Detertorat ton . .- , -

Legend - l tern L&a&rid t tem

A1 1 igator crackfng DEP Depression

CRL Longitudinal Crack
C RT Transverse crack RUT R u t t ing
CRC Diagonal crack
0t D Bleeding COR Corrugat ion
SCA Scal ing PAT Patches,
WAO Washout
RAV Ravel ing
STR S t r i p p i n g , Peeling
POT Pot ha 1 e

Surface Deteriorat ions

Legend Def ;,nit ion

ALC A1 1 i g a t o r cracking I n t e r l a c e d cracking of a bituminous

wearing course i n t o smal I i r r e g u l a r
blocks caused by lack of base
support.
CRL Longitu&inal crack CRACK: f i s s u r e o r open j o i n t t h a t
C RT Transverse crack does not necessarily extend com-
C RC niagonal crack pletely through the body of a
material .
BLD Bleeding The flushing t o the surface o f ;,-+
excess bitumen i n a bituminous -.<.-
.
-,
-material. . . .

SCA Scaling .*= Separated and f l a k i n g o f f , ,surface

d i s i n t e g r a t Ion. .c ..
WAO , T Wash o u t Eros,ive removal o f surfacing by- 1

running water, .? 1
L - I

". Lrn '

RAV Ravel ing Continued l o s s o f aggregate from a
bituminous pavement from the surface
downward, or the edges f nward caused
by'rtie'acrion o f t r ~ f f i c , . FA. .
I L

STR Stripping ,Peel ing off of a hardened wearing

-coufs& such a s a s p h a l t .
POT ~ o t h oel A shallow hole extending below the
toad surfate.
 '
Table 2.4-1 presents a r a t i n g system where the p o i n t s express

the degree of deterioratton. The points in t h i s f a b l e and the con-

sol idated cumulated point system i n Table 2.4-2 have been cal lbrated

w l t h the roughness Index system demonstrated in Volume 5 of t h i s

Hanual to a r r f v e a t consolidated overall pavement ratings,

After the fnventory forms have been completed the daf iciencies

can be rated. After that the points are added up by segment and

the sum o f points will determine the overall pavement r a t i n g i n

Table 2.4-2whtch then 1s the entry to the traffic cost calcu1ations

(before improvement).

The condition o f pavement, shoulders and drainage a f t e r im-

provement should likewise be rated.

2.5 Restoration Costs

The restoration work proposed t o be carrTed out should be

subject to engineering design by regional or d i s t r i c t engineering

offtces and the quantities should be determined and priced i n

accordance w i t h MPWH format guidelines and memoranda.

Normal 1 y , road fmprovemen r costs are expressed i n f lnanc ial

terms. For the purpose of economic evaluation, these have t o be

converted Into economic terms, t h a t i s excludfng taxes and custom

duties. Fran previous experience, refqr t o Rural Roads Develop-

men t Program I I l BRD 1980-82, the taxes and dut ies have, i n
general, been estimated t~ constitute 15% o f the ftnanclal costs,
 Table 2.4-1
Road Inventory Pblnt System for Each Segment of Road

' B i t u m i r i ~ u SSurface
Road
Oef i
ciencvl)
- -c2)
Earth
A
Grave 1
B c A
Surface
Treatment
B, c
Pre-M 1%.
A B C A
Cement
Concrete
B C

ALC 3 6 9 3 6 9 1 0 2 0 3 0
CRL 2 3 4 3 4 5 5 1 0 1 5
C RT 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 1 2
CRC 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 1 2
BLD 1 2 4 1 3 4
S CA 2 4 6 1 3 6 3 6 9
WAO 4 8 12 6 12 18
RAV 3 6 9 5 8 1 1
STR 2 4 6 2 4 6
POT 2 4 6 3 5 7 4 8 1 2 6 1 0 1 4
DEP 4 6 8 4 6 8 1 2 4 2 4 6 2 4 6
RUT 1 2 4 1 2 4 14 2 2 4 - 6
COR 4 6 8 4 6 8 2 3 4 2 3 4
PAT 2 4 8 5 8 1 2 6 8 1 0
Lack of
Dra Inage 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16
E r roded
or :'ar! or
Missing 5
~houlder
NOTES: 1) Refer to page 9 i n t h i s Volume,
2) Refer to page 8 i n t h i s Volume:
A. lkteriorat (on less than 30% o f roadway a r e a ;
0, Deterioration 30-50% of roadway arqa;
C. Deterioration more than 50% o f roadway area.
 Table 2,ft-2
Road Inventory C6risdllddrtdri'df ' P d k System

Type o f Road
Bftriminous Surface

Rat ing/Cond i t ion Earth 11. -Gravel

Surface
Treatment Pre-M l x .
Cmnt
Concrete
'

,,

Goad h2 1.2 5 4 5 4 5
GoodfFair 3-5 3-5 5-7 5-9 6 -9
fair 6-8 6-8 8-10 -10-12 10-12

Fa ir/Bad 9-10 9-10 11-12 13-1 4 13-15

lad 11-12 11-12 13-1 5 15-17 16-18
Bad/Ver,Bad '13-15 13-15 16-18 18-20 19-21
Very Bad 16 5 16 5 - 19 5 21 5 22 5

1) In tonnectfon w i t h t r a f f i c c o s t calculations treated as

f o r gravel surfaceL '

2.6 Economic Evaluation

The sconomtc evaluation c r i t e r i a f o r ranking of road restora-

t l o n profeEts has been determined to be represented by the F t r s t -

Year-Benef it/Cost r a t i o (FYBC)' I n order t o simp1 f f y the procedure.

This i s an acceptable indicator provided benefits can be a s s w e d

to be mnotonously lncresstng over time, r e f e r to Volume 6 of this

Manua I,
' .
The requirement for a f e a s i b l e project i s an FYBC of. a t least

12% correspond lng to an approximate internal rate of return o f 15%.

assuming r general t o t a l traff tc growth 'tats o f about 5% per year,

 The formula for the calculation of the FYBC Is as fol lows:

FYBC - TmT . -
~ T C S 100 xx.x%

FYBC 1s the First-Year-Benef l t-Cost r a t i o i n %.

C i s the total ftnanclal restoration costs i n P1,000.

The factor 0-.94 i s applied to express the costs i n
economic terms, assuming that taxes and custom duties
comprise 15% o f the financial costs, that the shadw
p r i c e i s a factor of 1.18 on the foreign costs and
that a l l construction i s carried out wlthin less then
a year, thereby rendering dlscounttng superfluous. 1)

The pro J ects should be ranked accord ing to -decreas1 ng FYBC,

and the projects should be prepared for Implementstlon u n t i l the

budget 1 s exhausted .
I n certain cases the ranking by FYBC mlght produce unaccept-

able r e s u l t s from a regional distrlbutlon point of view end other

c r i t e r i a might have t o be introduced, such as i l lustrated by past

docmen t s reproduced b e l w -

Foreign costs 52% o f C . Factor 0.94 i s derived as follow

C-0.52 -
1.18 + ( c - c w O . ~ ~ ~ a 0 . 5 2 ) ; example: C= P2 mn.
200.52 l , l 8 . + (c-2-0.15 -2;0.52) = 1..8872 = economl
costs (EC) . E C / ~ =-0.94.
 DRAFT
March 6, 1978
PN I

Addendum to Guidelfnes on Calculation Procedures

for Economic Evaluation of Road Restoration Works,
PPDO January 11, 19% and Modifications January 22, 1978.

This Addendum contains addttfonal c r i t e r i a for ranking of rssr

toration projects Tn case the First-Year-Benefit/Cost Ratio method
using efficiency p r i c i n g , mentioned i n th.eGuidellnes gives unac-
ceptable r e s u l t s concerning regional distribution o f projects.
1 . Nationwide rankfng i s f l r s t made according t o Guidelines.

2, Social pricing i s suggested to be applied as follows:

The benefits calculated according to c r i t e r i a 1.
are multiplied by the product of the following
tw factors:

a) Average Income per Family 1975 (whole country) = x.xx

Average l ncome per Fam I 1 y 1 9 3 (Reg ion ZZ)
b) Length fn kilometer o f Bad and Very Bad National
Roads i n RegionZZ per population (regional) :
Length in kilometer of Bad and Very Bad National
Roads i n the whole country per population
(National) = x.xx
The modified b e n e f l t s are then divided by the
profect costs as defined i n the Guidelines and a
new rankfng l i s t f s produced on the basis o f t h e
adjusted FYB/C r a t i o s .

3. I f the result . i s still unacceptable, from a regional d i s t r k -

bution'point of view, It is proposed to reserve a certain
port ion of the total funds for restorat ion I n the expected
few, i f any, regions where none or o n l y few restoratfon pro-
j e c t s a r e found viable'. The allocation o f these "consola-
t ion" funds (the exact amount t'o be est [mated after appl i-
cation o f the f i r s t two c r i t e r i a ) should still be made on
the basis o f the regionat project ranking 1 i s t concerning
projects which do not qualify f o r the nationwide general
1ist,

The data needed f o r the 2nd criteria are available i n

the.PPD0 files,
 Addendum
. . . . .. t.o- Guidelines
. . .. - .
.. . - - . . . . - - - .- . - -
.. . Catcutatlon'Procedures
. . . ofi

f o r Economic Evaluation of Road Restorat ion Works.

PPDO January 11, 1978 and Hodfficatfon January 22,. 19'78.

Thls Addendum contains a d d i t i o n a l c r r t e r i a for ranking o f res-

t o r a t ion projects i n case the ~trst-year-8enef f t / ~ o s t Rat l o rwthod
ubing e f f i c i e n c y p r i c i n g , mentioned In the.Guidel1nes gfves unac-
ceptabl e resul ts concern ing reg I o n d d I st r i b u t ion of projects.
1 . Nationwide ranking i s f i r s t made according t o Guidelines.
2. S o c i a l P r i c i n g Is suggested to be applied as follows:

The FYB/C r a t i o s calculated according to c r i t e r i a 1.

are m u l t i p l i e d by t h e arithmetical average o f the follow-
fng tm, social f a c t o r s :

1 ) Average Annua l Nat t onw ide l ncome per Fami 1y

Average Annual Income per family (Region)

2) Population I n Region
Average Regional Population

3. If the. result i s s t 4 1 1 unacceptable, from a regional d f s t r l -

button point of view, i t i s proposed t o reserve s c e r t a i n
portion o f the t o t a l funds for r e s t o r a t i o n i n the expected
few, i f any, regions where none o r only few r e s t o r a t i o n
projects are found v i a b l e , The a1 locat ion of these "conso-
l a t ion" funds (the exact amount to be estimated a f t e r
applfcatfon o f the f i r s t tm c r i t e r i a should s t i l l be made
on the basis o f the regional project ranking l i s t concern-
Ing projects which do not q u a l i f y f o r the natlonwlde general
I tst.
The data needed f o r the 2nd c r i t e r i a are available in
the PPDO files.
 Total h i s ,
Total h s . % o f - Wattonat of.,Natfonat Roads,
Region af-Natfohdl*R&ddS11 Tbtd I Included .' ' H T S S ~ )

IV-A

I v-0

v
vI
VI-l

Vlll

IX

XI

TOTAL

I ) Maintained i n 1978.
2) Nat tonal Transport Sys tern Study 1 97Gh79.
 PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

March 30, 1978

K~LOHETEROF BAD SURFACE COND I TI ON (NAT I ONAL) ROADS

PER 1000 POPULATION AS O f DECEMBER 1977.

Reg 1on Committed Plans (ADO') and IBRD2 included)

. I1

111

l V-A

I v-0
v

TOTAL 0.137
- -14- -
.--...--
'a
..-.. .-. -
1 ) 2a.b 105 road (OIO~~~~~-BUO= l lon) Tagaytay-Batangar Road,
I l igan-Butuan b a d , Tatlac-Sta. Rosa
2) Isk, 2nd 8 3rd lBRD Highway Projects
Figures according to the Regional Inventory 1977 In
connection with NTSS.
 March 30, 1978
PN I

PLANN l NG AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OFF l CE

TENTAT l VE

Km. o f Natal, Roads per

Reg ion 1000 P o ~ u l a tion % Bad Condition 1 )
1 68%
II

t II

I V-A

I V-8

v
vI
VI t

Vlll

Ix

XI

TOTAL

1) Excluding committed road plans (ADB & t BRD) as o f

December 1977. Figures according t o Regional
Inventory 1977 i n connect,ion w i t h NTSS.

2 ) Adjusted by P P D O .
 PLANMING A I D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

Road Restoration 1978

A p r i l 6, 1978
Social Factors for Economic Evaluation

Average
Populatton Income (P)
R e g ion ( 1 000) Per Family
1975 1975
I lloc;ls 3,254 5,525
II Cagayan Val,ley
III Central Luton
IV-A
IV-5
V Bicoi
VI Western Vtsayas
Central Visayas
Eastern Visayas
IX Western ~ 'ndanao
l
Nqrthern M indanao
Southern M t ndanao
XIf Central Mlndanao 2,069 5,025 1.16 0.64 0.90
PHILIFPLNES 41,828 5,840 1 .OO 1 .OO 1 .OO

I ] Average Income per Famlly 1975 (phi1 ipplnes)

Average Income per Family 1975 by Region
2 ) Population i n Reg-ion ZZ PF
Average Reg f ona 1 Popu 1 a t ion
3. GU1DEL1NESONOVERALLECONOMlCEVALUATlONOFA3-YEARROAO
~ E S T O R A TON
I PROGRAM

3.1 General

The procedure shown under t h i s Chapter i s directly repro-

duced from a Note made i n ~ a n u a e y1979. Some of the assumptions

made a t that t i m e are no longer v a l i d . Thus, any new study

should Just consider the system as such whlle baslc assumptions

shoul d be changed.

3.2 Note: January 3 , 1979

Just if i c a t ion of Flat tonal Road Restorat ion 'Program 1980-1982
Proposed Under the 4 t h IBRD Highway Project. j u l y 1979 Prices.

3.2.1 Introduction
The j u s t I f [cation procedure used I n t h i s note has been

estab l ished on the ba-si s o f very s Imp l a-assumpt f ons as refs r red
below:
The proposed Road Restoration Program for 1980-1982 on

Mat' 1 . roads is as shown in Table 3.2-1 .The total budget require-

ment I n J u l y 1979 prices would be V869 ill ion for that period.

Table '3.2-1
Road Restoration Program 1 80-82 1)
J u l y 1979 Prices23

Ditches O s b u l d e r s 849 15 1020 19 1318 24

Unpaved Roads 1106 154 1445 201 1822 254
0 iturn lnous Roads 223 51 291 66 377 85
T O T A L . . .. 2178 220 2756 286 3517 363
1 ) Revised by MPH as o f Dec, 6, 1978.
2) July 1978 -prices + 10% P.A.
3.2.2 Findings

The implementation of the Road Restoration Program 1980-82

i s found t o be J u s t if i e d , y i e l d i n g an i n t e r n a l r a t e o f return o f

428 (B/C r a t lo a t 15% p, a , : 1 .56) yi t h time sav f ngs and 25% (B/C
r a t i o a t 15% p.a,: 1.19) without time savings.

3.2.3 Assumptions
1)
The PPDO note on "Just i f i c a t i o n uf Maintenance Program for

P h l l ippine National Roads 1978-82'' December 22, 1978 has served

as b a s i s for the c a l c u l a t i o n s c a r r i e d out i n t h i s note concerning

basic vehicle operating costs in A p r i l 1978 prices, vehTcle com-
position and dl-values, The A p r i l 1978 prices have been updated

t o J u l y 1 9 9 by 10% p e a l

The most e s s e n t i a l assumption f o r the Maintenance Program

1978-82 i s t h a t the Road Restoration Program i s going to-'be im-

p lm e nted .
In the PPOO report on "Impact of Poor Maintenance Procedures2)
on Road investment F e a s f b f l t t y T ' , January 1978 i s shown the l l k e l y
pavement condition changes i f no maintenance i s c a r r i e d out. The

results i n this report have been utilized f o r the purpose o f the

present restoration study.

Through the experience gathered by PPDO during the Investi-

gations o f the 1978 Restoration Program i t i s assumed that a l l

restorat ion works on unpaved and bituminous r o a ;

~ s t a r t from a

very bad surface condition while the work on d t tches and shoulders

1) Refer to Chapter 4 i n t h i s Volume 8 of the Hanuat .,

2) Refer t o Annex 1 I n t h i s Volume 8 of the Manual.

, a m - - -
 s t a r t from a bad surface. Without project, the surface w i l l re-

main i n a very bad or bad condltion which w l l l eventually change

t o a f a i r condition if t h e project works are carried out. The

r e s t o r a t i o n efforts, however, w l l l i n the long run be i n vain i f

they a r e not followed up by normal r o u t i n e maintenance operations.

I n the l a t t e r case the ,restoratton investment w i l l be lost i n few

years time as I l lustrated i n Ta-ble 3.2-2, The assumption behind

the estimates i n t h l s t a b l e Is that the Iifetime of restoration

works i s rather limited if regarded as isolated from maintenance.

operations. In order to avoid double countmtngo f b e n e f i t s s h o r t

project l l f e t l m e s are assumed.

Table 3.2-2
surface Condl t ion and L f f e Times of Restorat ion Works
Isolated from Maintenance Operations

r a t i o n Work T v ~ e
Ditches C Shou'

Opening Year Bad Fair Very bad Fair

II II I# II I 1
Year 2
Year 3 II Bad II II 11

!I L1
Year 4 Bad
Year 5
II If
Very Bad

The canposite savings per vehicle expressed in dl-values

a r e as follows:

dl-Savings
bery Bad t o F a i r Very Bad t6 Bad Bad t o F a i r
Shoulders and
Or tches - -
- 0.34

Grave 1 0.67 0.33 r

0 iturninous 0.47 0.24 -

 The economic basic vehicl-e operating' costs per kilometer

per composite vehicle are as follows (refer t o the Note from PPDO

on J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Maintenance Program, dated June 29, 1978):

A p r i l 1978 July 1979

Including time costs: P0.715 per km. p0.81 per
Excluding t tme cocts: P0.543 per km. ?0,61 per km.

The average t r a f f i c I n veh icl es(AADf) on the d l f f erent resto-

r a t i o n work road types i s estimated on the basis of experience

from the 1978 Restoration Program,' refer t o f a b l e 3.2-3.

fable 3.2-3
E s t imated Average Traf f i c Vol umes i n Veh if les (AADT)

Shoulder 8
Restoration Works:
Open f ng Year
Ditchis
300
-
Grave
350
t B i tumlnous
600
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4 357 41 7 715
Wote: Traff f c growth rate 6% p.a. ; average o f growth rates
assumed for the 4 t h 13RO Highway Project.

The opening year i s assumed to be the year a f t e r completion

of the restoration program for the previous year. The average

opening year t r a f f i c volume for r e s t o r a t i o n projects i s assumed

to decrease by 6% p.a. dve to. the fact t h a t t h e most feasible

projects are imptemented,ffrst. Thus, the opening year t r a f f l c

volume (MT) gravel roads would be constant 350 vehl-

for e m g m

cles i n 1981, 1982 and 1983 for the restoratton programs Imple-
mented dur in$ each of the p r 8 v f 0 ~years,
~ respectively.

The benefits In P M ? ~ion

? are calculated on an annual basis
as the product of:
 AADT x 0.365 x 1 x dls x BVOC k 1,000
where; AADT f s the annual average drily t r a f f i c i n vehicles;
I i s the h s . by wrk type t o be restored by year;.

d i s i s the dl-value saving per kc.; and

BVOC i s the basic vehicle operatifig costs.

The annual and discounted benefits are s M in Table 3.2-4

together wlth the annual and d.lscounted
- --. costs of restoration.

The restoration costs Yre txpressed fn economic terms, 1.e. the

f i n a n c i a l costs reduced by. 12%, which was the assqm@,:3.&re of

taxes and custom dutles a t t h a t time (no shadow--price aspects

were cons idered then).

 . Table 3,2-!1
Anriual and Discounted Benefrts and Restoration Costs
' i n P H i l l ion. July 1979 Prices

, . . ..
C
'
'
\

B e n e f i t s
Including f ime Savings Excluding Time Savings
Ditches 6 1
.
r Unmved B iturn inous Ditches 6 Unpaved B Itumlnous
Shoulders
x
. - Gads Roads Total S k u 1 ders ~bads Roads
-
Year

1980
1481
1 982 .

r 98s 58 142 IS 35 250 45 107 12 27 191 I

1986 74 . 20 94 57 ' 15 72 i!
Present Values
a t January 1981 15% 1092 835 701
25% 876 670 668
, -
. .- .
- IR R 1
I, . ,. - . I --
A
. ,
' 43%
.
B/E R a t i o a t 15%p.a.
, -1

. ,

1) Per Program r,r . ,

- , -:

..- ,
4. GUlDELlNES ON OVERALL ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A 5-YEAR MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM

4.1 General
The procedure s h m In t h i s Chapter Is d,ire,ctty reproduced

from a Note made. In December 1.978. Some of the assumptions made

I

a t that time are no longer v a l i d . I f a new study on maintenance

program J u s t i f f c a t i o n i s carried out i n the future, the b a s i c

assumpt tons should, therefore, be reviewed careful ly before appl i-

cation takes place. I t ts f e l t that the maintenance costs used ,

i n the p a s t s t u d y In the amount of T405 ~lll,ion(financlalcosts,

1978 prices) for 22,330 k i l m t e r s or P18,140 p e r kilometer does

not include sufficient funds for periodic maintenance while t h e
I
~ periodic element.
e c o n m i q c v a l u a t t o n i n c l ~ d ethe Without

periqdic )palntenence costs the returns would be substantially

\

lower than b e ones shown i n the note,

\ .

4.2 Note: December 22; 1978

g a n c -
e Proaram for P h i l i -p .~ i n eNational
,

Roads I 978- 1 982

4.2.1 Introduction ,.

The justification procedure used In t h i s note has been 6s-

tablished on the b a s i s of very slrnple a s s u m p t i o r i s ~ a sreferred

below. The current budget (19783 i n financial terms for mainte-

nance of natlonal roads i s about 9405 H f l l i o n , For t h e purpose

o f econm~cevaluation i t i s assumed t h a t t h i s amunt remains

constant a t f356 Millfon In economic terms, I t Is further as-

sumed t h a t the road restorat Ion program w i 1 l be c a r t ied out as

pragtamed.
 4.2.2 Findlngs
The internal r a t e o f return related t o the maintenance o f

natlonal roads over 5 years i s estimated a t 365% w i t h time savings

and 130% without time savings.

- The B/C r a t i o a t 15% dfscount r a t e
p e a , are 4.03 and 3.06, r e s p e c t i v e l y , w i t h and without tfme
sav ings.

4.2.3 Assumptfons
The National Transportation S y s t m Study (WTSS) has made an

inventory of most of the national 'roads under maintenance. The

NTSS network camprises about 18,000 kilometers compared t o the

national maintenance length of 22,300 kilometers. The d i s t r i b u -

t i o n according t o surface type and condition of the l a t t e r total

i s assumed to be equal to that f o r the NTSS network as s h o w i n

Table .4.2-1,

Table 4.2-1
national Roads by Surface
Type and Surface Condition

Surface h n d it Ion 1977

Surface Type 1977

Good
1 -.
Km
Fat r
I
2 - .
Bad b Very OadZ)
Rin % - -b.
Total

Gravel 826 3*7 5472 24.5 6968 31.2 13266

Aspha 1 t Concrete 625 2.8 1094

'-.
4.9 692 3-1 241 I
CementConcrete 4131 18.5 581 2.6 334 1a 5 5046
T o t a l 6140 27.5 7906 35.4 37.1 8284
22330') 100%
1) National Roads which are included i n the annual maintenance program
2) Estimate, 25% bad and 75% very bad, made on the bas i s o f road f n-
v,entory sheets for the Third s Fourth IBRD
/'

The above road 1engt hs for very bad su rface . cond i t f on hqve

bein reduced by the phys ica 1 targets o f the road res t o r a t ioq. pro-
 gram dated December 6, 1978 as f o l lows:

Gravel
-
1978 .
1230
1979
1424
1 980
1 955
,1981
2465
-
l 582
3 140
'~Ttohlhdas' 2 1 7 '' 170 223 291 377

The impact o f road r e s t o r a t i o n 1s assumed t o l a s t two years

for g-ravel and three years f o r .DBST and AC If no ma intanance i s

carrled out. The reduced lengths are as follows:

Breakdown o f Bad 6 Very Bad Cond I t ion (Krn.)

Ve r~
- -------.
- 'Bad
"lad -
.-
Gravel 1742 5226 3996 2572 1847 806 0 2086 5226 5226

1 ) Assumed s p l i t .

tn Report on Impact o f Poor Matntenance Procedures on Road 1 )

Investment Feesibil i t y , Department of Publ i c Highways, Planning

and Project Development Office, January 1978, i s shown the likely,

pavement condition changes If no maintenance i s carried out. This

has been the basis for the consolidated results i n Table 4.2-2
which are used In the "no maintenance caseJ1.

Table 4.2-2
Pavement ~ o n dt' lion changes (year)
if no Mafntendhce i s c a r r i e d - out

Good -3 Fa f r Fa i r -$ Bad . Bad --:5Very Bad

G rave 1 2 3 2
Paved: D B S t 4 '3 3
AC 7 5 3

11 Refer to Annex 1 I n t h i s Volume 8 o f the Manual.

 These changes have been applied to the dl-value system as used

by the M i n i s t r y of Pub1 lc Highways (MPH) , refer to Aljpendlx I . 2

Interpolation between values has taken place under the assumption

t h a t without maintenance the road-would gradually d e t e r i o r a t e .

The 5-year maintanante program i s assumed to be Justifled by the

benefits accrutng t o road users over the same 5-year period plus

additional years whtch would elapse before the road surface de-

teriorates back to the ariginal, refer to Table 4 . 9 - 7 .

For the purpose of these rather simple and rough calcula-

tlons the average t r a f f i c (AADT) on different road surfaces has

been estimated as shown i n Appendlx 2.

The r r a f f i c growth r a t e unrforml y has been e s t lmdted a t 6%

per annum.

The average vehicle composition has been estimated on t h e

basis o f MPH count results a s follows:
Cars, vans
Jeepneys
Buses
Trucks
1

MPH has recently i n .cooperation w i t h consultants from the

WTSS and the l6RO Road F e a s i b i l i t y Studfes 1 1 1 established b a s i c

v e h i c l e operating costs (BVOC) i n A p r i l 1978 prices as shown in

th& Note on J u s t l f f c a t i o , n o f Maintenance ProgrammforP h i l i p p i n e

National Roads 1978-1982, dated June 29, 1978. Although, the

w e i g h t s by region a r e not yet establ ished, MPH has -for the pur-
pose of t h i s note- estimated general applicable preliminary

1 ) a t t h a t time ( t h e system used from 1981 and onwards i s

shown i n Volume 5 of t h i s ~anual).
 welghts as follows:
M i n i car 10% F ie ra ~ e e ~ n e i 60%
Bantam car 35% MacAr t h ru Jeepney 40%
t I g h t car 15% TOTAL ........,,, - 100%
Heavy car 5% Small bus, diesel 60%
I,' Jeep 30% Large bus, gas 15%

..,..,,,,,. -
I- Van - 5% largebus,diessl 25% I

TOTAL .,... -
100%; TOTAL - 100%

Small truck gas

Medium truck, gas
Medium truck diesel 30%
Heavy truck, diesel
TOTAL
-
... ......,.. -
;, 1008
40%

The detailed assumptions concerning vehicle oporatlng costs

w i 1 l be presented a t a later date in a -manual. The t r i p purpose

d i s t r i b u t i o n and the number o f persons per vehfcle have been

adapted fram recent feasibility studies.

The resulting prelfminary BVOCs are shown i n Table 4.2-3,

expressed i n Ir per kilometer. The speed assumpt Ions are as
-.
fol lows:
Car, van
Jaepney
Bus
Truck
 Table 4.2-3
Basic Economic Vehicle Operating Costs
i n ? per t(m, Apri 1 1978 Prtces Level.

F ixed Tfme

Car , Van
- -
cost s
0.021
costs
0.134
Jeepney
Bus
Truck 0 7 15 0.210 -
The composite BVOC values are established on the basis o f the

veh tcle 'cqnpos i t ion - accord ing to appearance as shown above - as

presented i n Table 4.2-4.

Table 4.2-4
Average Vehicle. Economic Basic Vehicle,
-Operating Costs per'l(rh. Aprlt 1978 Price Level.
lncludlng Time Costs P0.72 per Ian.
ExcludJng Time Costs F0.54 per km.

The b e n e f i t s are calculated on an annual basis as the product

of the figures presented above. An example would illustrate the

calculation procedure:

A. Difference I n d l from Appendlx 1

-
Gravel Good i n 1977 becomes less than good i n 1978
Therefore d l -
1978 = 6.27 -
0.17' (dl-UIth Maintenance)
0.10

B. Frun Table 4.2-1, length o f good gravel is, 826,kms.

C. Fm Appendix 2 , average MOT o/graval i n 1978 i s 350
vebicles x 0.365 127.75
\

D. BVOC from above i f F0.72 per k. including time costs

Results:
AxBx-C x O ~
0.10 x 826 x 127.75 x 0.72 = 7,538 (1000)
(refer t o App8nd.i~3)

The beneftts are shown i n ~ppendtx3.

The annua l and d iscounted benef It s and ma intenance costp pre

shown In Table 4.2-5. The sudden substantial increese i n bsnef l t s

accrulng during the later year a f t e r a slump over the tntermedlate

years i s due to the long-term effect of the 5-year maintenance .
operat ions on concrete roads which has delayed daterJora t ion,
I;?, -
Year

1 978
A l l Surface Types
31 6
Table 4.2-5
Annua'l and Discounted Benefits and Economic
Maintenance Costs for National Roads,
A p r i 1 I978 Price Level.

~ o t a iBenefits ( P M i l l ion.) ~a ihtenance Costs

(PH i l l ion)

1979 463
1980 641
1981 84 1
1 982 1 086
1383 1086
1 984 1020
1 985 985
1 986 847
1987 656
1988 542
1989 496
1 990 382
199 l 398
1 992 466
1 993 478
1 994 652
1995 772
1996 843
r 997 98s
1998 - 1 044
1999 1107
2000 1565
2001 1 990
2002 2462
2003 . 2237
2004 1580
zoos 838
Present 1978-2005 1 978-1 987
July 19' 15% 5562 41 92 1372
V a l ues 50% 1740 1713 928
100% 944 943 690
300% 491 474
365% 455 453
, 400% 442 445 i,
1
 corntosite dl-Values per h. for Surface &'Condition

Surfac~ Condition Lf ght Veh, Heavy Veh. Cornpasite ~ e h ,

~&ea Gbod 0.00 o. ao 0.00
Fair 0.20 0 . X) 0.24
Bad 0.40 0.60 0.47
Very Bad 0.60 0.30 0.71

Gravr 1 hod 0.13 0 20,' 0.17

Fai'r 0.30 0.W . 0.37
Bnd
Very Bad
0-60
0.90. .
.
0 410
I . m:,
-0-71
1.04
,,r I
1:
t
Compos$tc di~Valuespet km. for A c t u a l ~ u r f i c c& Condi t i u n H

I ,&1977
--
dition
Grave 1
Good
W/M $?/ON
.
Grave t

whf
Fufr
-. . Gravel Bad
F;/~M
. ,
CBST Good
,*
DBST Fair
~ ; / o r i tr/M t
DBST Bad
F/OX
'

DBST :
Ver
1977
Condition 6 Bad ,

1978
L979
1980 '
1981
1982
1983
1984 ,

1985
rAlrnpanfti A l ~ ~ n l ~ Drr
r r a km. for Actr!nl T ~ f r r rd C...nd+tion
<
, .

AC Good . AC Falr AC 'Bad CC Good ] CC a - CC Bad -.

-
WM - -
WOM-
O
M
W
,- -- :.W/M O M , M W/OM W/W -
R/OM
 Estimated A v ~ ~ ~TRr acf f i c (AADT in Vehicles)

Grave 1 D B S T A e C C C
Good- & Bad &'I C00d & Bad d Good & Bad & .Coo.d &- Bod '&
Cobdi tion Faf r Very Bad Fair ' Very Bad Fair Very Bad Fair very Bad
1
'"

1977 - condition
 Appendex 3
Page 1 of 1

; -
' e m

Benefits (P1000) Accruing from Normal Maintenance

-
Gravel
1978
1977 Faif 1977 Bad 1977 Very Bdd
55,365 19,456 86,637
1979 122,708 4Q,034 59,109
1980 192,151 42,452 45,011
1981 305,828 45,020 30,8?0
1982 42 5,86 2 47,739 0
1983 376,882 24,538 29,384
1984 313,838
1985 249,615
1986 128,388
1987
1988
 Pace 2 o-f 2

1977 F a i r k g 7 7 Very Bad

14,375
27,428
45,242
41,635
83,451
100,017
122,304
142,593
132,818
116,.542
82,341
43,654
 INFORMATION SHEET A

ECOHOM l C EVALUATl ON .OF: ROAD RESTORAT I OW PROJECTS

Yea r : Reg f on :

Project Identification:

traffic' i n AADT 19 -
Cars, vans :

B u s e s :

Trucks

Tota 1

Road Surface and Condition (Indicate Length i n Kms.):

Before :

After:

T o t a l Traffic costs i n F1000:

Before: .

Restoration Costs In ?1000:

G Ive Short Description of Res t o i a t ion Works: . -.

: ,.,. .,_
:b'
, ",
.. . .
.
. --r'41'.,
1

, ,
,I;
- , . -.
. ....
, ., m
'
, , ,, ,:,,,
,I
, 1'1 '
, ,

. - -. .- . -
: -. '
, +..--;.
,
,;-.:,y.'
a ,,.t,'
...
..,. ...--&>>.. &,<; --.;
FYBC i n %: .. ,
. :, .:..,.-.., . .
. .. -.,, ,>.;~<,.,~.
, . , . < !E

printed Name of' Rep6rt:ing~;,Qf@fi~&~~~

. . .,> . I L .

- ' ,'I
:, ,
 Appendix 2.1-2

INFORMATION SHEET B

ECOWOM l C RANKING OF ROAD RESTORATION PROJECTS

Year: 19 -
Reg ion :

Total
FYBC %
Project ldent i f icat ion Length
-
F'inancfa1
Costs ?1,000
Cost/Km.
-
 CHARACTERISTI~S OF lYPlCAL V E H f C t E S JUNE 1981

Retail ~ r i c e ( p j
~ e t a i lPrice (IF New .Tire Set Fue1
. O r l 1)

- -
Incl. Excl f i r s Sfze Incl. Excl C~r)sump. Consump.
- Tax - Tax and No. Tax Tax L t s . /Km, Lts./1000 Kms. 1,000 Kms. ~&rs

CarlJeep 4~6.0-16 0.12

Jeepney 4~6.5-13 0.11

B u s 130,000 1 16,350 6~7.0-15

t
I Truck 272,760 218,880 6x10-20

1) Including o i l change every 5,000':kms.

2) Including o i l change e'very 3,000 kms,
3) Org. t i r e s e t
* Excluding recapping which w i l l extend t i r e l i f e by 50% o f org. llfe a t -
85% use of arg, l i f e .
 ~ s r k e tPrices June 1981
Basic Running Costs Per Vehicle-Kilometer In Centavos
Jeepney *I B u s T r u c k Car{ Jeep
I n c l . Tax Excl. Tax I n c l . Tax Excl. Tax Incl. Tax .E&cl. Tax Incl, ,Tax ' E x c l . Tax
Fuel 52.25 35-66 44.96 39.04 78.68 . 68.32 57.00 38 90
0.60 0.46 3.00 2.60 4.20 3.64 0.67 0.51
::es 3 92 3-77 7* 93 7.08 20,52 18.32 3.89 3.47
j Maintenance P a r t s 7.09 6.16 17.98 16.10 36.29 28 95 11.02 9.57
Maintenance Labor 6.18 6.00 5.52 5.36 5-27 9.00 7 73 7.50
Oep rec la t ion 10.04 8.72 25.47 22.80 28.08 22.40 . 9,,55 .. - 8,29
T O T A L 80.08 60.77 104~86 92 r 98 177.04 150.63 89.86 68.24

Basic Fixed Cost Per Vehtcle-Hour'ln Pesos

T i m Determined
Capltal C o s t s 0.42 0.37 1.50 1.34 4.20 3.35 0.57 0.50
Opportun 1 t y Cost
of Cap I t a l
Crew Cost
,
Ove rhead Taxes
and Licenses
..
l nsurance 1-34 1.34 1.34 1.34 .2.62 2.62 .0.59 0.59
Total. Fixed Costs 9.68 9.36 23.14 122.27 32.81 29.02 4-71 4.29
-
Reduction
,Total Reduced
Factor 0:s 0.9 0.8 0;8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4

Fixed Costs
8.71 8.42 18.51 17.82 26.25 23.22 1 ,88 1.72
X
I) Including one knductor. FJ
 SHADOW P R I C E S JUNE 1981 EXCLUDING TAXES AND CUSTOM DUTIES

Bas f c Runn ing Costs Per Vehicle-Kf lometer

i n Centavos
' t a f /Jeep' Jeepney Bus- -
f ruck

Fue 1

Oi1

Tires

Maintenance Parts

Ha i n tenance L a b r
Deprec f a t ion 9.19 9.66 25.26 24.82
T O T A L . . . . . 75.90 67 69 t03;63 168.03.

Basic Fixed Costs Per Vehjcle-Hour I n Pesos

f ime
Detemined
Capital Costs

Opportunity Cost of
Capital

Crew Costs
Ove rhead

l nsurance 0459 I .34 1.34 2.62

Total Fixed Costs 4.52 9.53 22 .,87 30.37

Reduct ion Factors 0.4 0 9 0.8 0.8

Total Reduced Fixed 1.81 8,58 18.30 24.30

cust s
Bas i c T,ime Costs Per Passenger-Hour: P I , 60
 --! 1,
Appendix 2 . 2 T
'.:

Average Occupancy
Vehicle Type Rates, Persons

Car/Jeep

Jeepney

0 u s

Trucks

. -

1 ) Excluding d r i v e r

2) Exc 1 ud ing conductor

3,1, vclud ing a s s i s t a n t

--
 Append fx 2.2-5

DL-VALUES i n h. Per Actual Km.

Su rfacs
Roughness
A1 l 1n inches
Pav. Type and Cond. -
SCOH Vehlclss per km, Range of Roughness

. Paved Good 50-50 [B f turnf nous

pavements )

Paved Good/Fa ir

Paved Fair

Paved Fa ir/Bad

Paved Bad

Paved Badfiery Bad

'Paved Very Bad

Gravel Good
G ravel Good/Fa i r

Gravel F a i r .

Gravel Falrjead

Gravel Bad 12

Gravel'-Bad/VeryBad 13
Gravel Very Bad 14
 Operat inq Speed h./Hour 1 )

Car/
Surface Type Jeep/
and Condition -SCON Van Jeepney - -
-Bus Truck

Paved Good 65 65 65
Paved Good/Fa 1 r 60 60 : 60

Paved Fair 55 55 55
Paved Fa l r/Bad 45 45 45
Paved Bad 30 30 30

Paved Bad/Very Bad 25

Paved Very Bad 20

Gravel Good 60

Gravel Good/Fair 55
Gravel F a i r 50

Gravel f a f r/Bad 40
Gravel Bad 30
Gravel Oad/very Bad 25

Gravel Very Bad 20

1 ) Flat t e r r a i n , 6 meters carriageway w i d t h w i t h 2x2.0 meters

shoulders f o r paved roads and 2x1.0 meters shoulders-for
gravel roads,
 Append l x 2,2-7
Page 1 o f 2

I N D I V I D U A L TRAFFIC COSTS EXCLUDING TAXES AND CUSTOM DUTIES

SHADOW P R I C E S " JUNE 1981 I N PESOS PER KlLOHETER

Ca r /
Surface Type Jeep/
and Condition -
SCON -
Cost Van Jeapney -
Bus -
Truck
Paved Good 1 Run. 0.76 0.68
Fix 0.03 0.13
Time 0.06 0.14
Total 0,85 om95 1.58 2 09
Paved Gcod/Fair 2 Run. 0.80 0.71 1 .03 1.76
Fix. 0.03 0,14 0.30
Time 0,06
Total 0.89 1 .OO 1 -67 2.21
Paved F a i r 3 Run. 0.89 0.80 1.22 1.97
Fix. 0.04 0,lS 0.33 0.44

Total 1.00 1.12 1..85 2.46

Paved Fa i r/Bad 4 Run. 0.98 0.88 1.34 2.17
Fix, 0.04
Time 0,08 0.20 0.38 0.06
Total 1.10 1.27 2.12 2.76
Paved Bad 5 Run, 1.09 0.97 1.49 2.40
Fix; 0.07 0.28 0.61 0.80

&-.-
-
-f Time 0.12 0,3 1 0.57 0.09
- Total 1.28 1.56 2.67 3 29
&. I

Paved Bad/Very Bad 6 Run. 1.20 1,07 1.64 + 2.65

Fix. 0.08 0.34 .o 73
Time 6.15 0.37 0.68
Total 1..43 1.78 3 .05 3.72
Paved Very Bad 7 Run. 1.44 1.29 1 .97 3.18
Fix. 0.10 0.42 0.9 I I .20

Total 1.72 2.17 3-73. 4.51

I ) For foreign components: 1 .OO US$ P9.00
2) 50% considered productrve a t V0.80 per person-hour.
 Appendix 2.2-7 ,

Page 2 of 2

,%
CI' .
Surface Type Jeep/
and Condltton SCON -
Cost Van ~eepney -
Bus -
Truck

Gravel Good 8 Run. 0.98 0.88 1.34 2,17

Fix. 0.03 0.74 0,30 0.40
* Time 0.06 0.15 0,28 0.05
Total 1,07 1.17 1.92 2.62
Gravel Good/Fair 9 Run, 1.07 0.96 1.47 2.37
Fix. 0.04 0.15 0.33 0.44
Tfme 0.07 0.17 0-30 0,05
Total 1 .I8 1,28 2.10 2.86
Gravel F a i r 10 Run. 1 ,22 1.09 . 1.66 2.69
Fix. 0.04 0.17 . 0.36 0.4,8
Time 0.07 0.18 0.31: 0.05
Total 1.33 1.44 2.36 3,22
Gravel Fair/Bad 11 Run. 1-31 1.17 1.79 2.89
Fix. 0.05 0.2 1 0.46 0. 60
Time 0.09 0.23 0.43 0.07
Total 1.45 1.61 2.68 3.56
Gravel Bad 12 Run. 1 -42 1.27 1.94 3.14
Fix. 0-07 0.28 0.61 0.80
Time 0.12 0.31
Total 1.61 1.86 3. I2 4.03
Gravel Bad/ 13 Run. 1.53 1.37 2.09 3 38
Very Bad FIX, 0.08 0.34 0.73 0,96
Time 0,15 0.37 0.68 0.11
Total 1.76 2.08 3.50 4.45
Gravel V e r y B a d 14 Run. 1.67 1 .SO 2.29 3-70
Fix. 0.10
Time 0.18 0.46 0.85 0.13
Total 1;95 2.38 4.05 5,03
REMON : tnspwutor Name: Sheet No.
DATE
ROAD CONDITION INVENTORY
DlSTRlCTI CITY : -% ' PAVEMENT W I D M : I ADT:
ROAD From. to. % SSOUUIERS WIDTH Left. right.
TYPE of ROAD: % -000 ,200 ,400 ,600 .800 XXX)
URBAN or RURAL AREA 7
ROAD SIGNS and MARKING 8
Permanent or femporory STRUCTURES o

OETERlORATlON

VEGETATION CONTROL es
DRlVlNB CONDITIONS 27

TYPICAL CROSS- SECT10 N 88

ADDITIONAL DATA
29
WEMENT LOGS

:
k
E ,
Molstdra oontent
L,..,,
Pfostioity
,,.it
Index
' 30
31
32

w
K
W
Clctsslfl ca ?ion

C.B.R.
a3

34
BENKELMAN BEAM 35

ROADWORKS
36
PROPOSED
SURFACE

DEFORMATION

TY PlCAL CROSS-SECT ION

ADDITIONAL DATA
29
PAVEMENT LOBS

Molstur* Content 30
2 g Llquld Limit 31
Fu + PI08tIcit y Index '
32
W
F Class1 f i c u t ! o n - -
38
0
W
'13 C. 0, R. 34

-
BEMKELMAN BEAM 35
A=m#neM H ~ emrCriw
-
*d#*#eh;~~ JI#t€*
ROADWORKS
36 'NCIHT~EI+K<E cle,wiy @[dep$
PRO POSED d, fdrl
.- L
 Page 1 o f 4

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF ROAD INVENTORY FORMAT

How t o Complete the Form

(1) Distrlct/City: name o f the d i s t r i c t o r the c i t y .

(2) Pavement W i d t h : state h a r e ' the average w i d t h o f the section.

-
AADT: annual average d a i l y t r a f f i c ( i f known)

73) Road From: (name of c i t y ) -

To: (name o f c i t y )

(4) Shoulder Width: state -

here the average width o f L e f t shoulder
and Right shoulder

(5) Type o f Road: E.R.: earth road

G.R. : gravel road
B.R.: bitumen
C.C.: concrete (cement)

(6) State Krn. p o i n t i n f r o n t o f ,000 on chainage scale

(7) Urban o r Rural Area: s t a t e i f the sect ion i s i n :

U.A.: urban area
R.A.: rural area

(8) Road Signs and Harking: make simple drawing o f existing

r o a d s i ~ n sand markina e . a ,

( 9 ) Permanent or Temporary Structures :

- If box culvert s t a t e

L x 1 (L and 1: internal s i z e s )

- If p i p e e.g, 1 meter i n t e r n a l diameter s t a t e :

- I f permanent b r i d g e , s t a t e :
S.P.B.: steel permanent b r l d g e
C.P.B.: concrete permanent b r i d g e
O.P.B.: other permanent b r i d g e

- I f temporary b r i d g e s t a t e :
B.T.B.: B a i l e y temporary b r i d g e
T.T.B. : timber temporary b r i d g e
O.T.B.: other temporary bridge
 Appendix 2.4-3
- Page 2 o f 4

(10) A l ignrnent -
Vert i t a l : make s i m p l e drawings o f evaluated
longitudinal slope e.g.

( 1 1 ) A1 igriment - Horizontal : make s imple drawings o f h o r i z o n t a l

curves :

Straight alignment

Left curve

Right curve

Hair p i n cu r v e

(12)(13)(14) Surface~Deterioration: using t h e legend a t t a c h e d

state here a l l the d e t e r i o r a t i o n s you f i n d on the Left Side.
C e h t ~ iL i n e . and R i d h t Side o f t h e bavement. e . a .
--

Light a l l i g a t o r cracking

Medi urn bleeding

Large scal i n g

Surface Deforrnaf ion

(15) Depression: s t a t e the % o f a.rea

(16) R u t t i n g : - I f less t h a n 50 mm d e e p : shallow r u t t i n g : s t a t e

RUTS.

- t f 50 mm o r more deep: d e e p r u t t i n g s t a t e RUTD

and e v a l u a t e the d e p t h i n m i l l i m e t e r e.g.
RUTD 150 mm.

(17) Corrugation: s t a t e the l e n g t h i n meters of the corrugated

sect ion
 .-
- - -
-
L_tAppendix 2.4-3-
Page 3 o f 4

(18) -Patches: s t a t e t h e % o f ar-I 11

m- a a

Road S Ides

(19) (20) Shoulder: s t a t e the shoulder conditions '

F if f a i r .
E if rutted
ER if eroded
N i f none

-
Ditch:
E.C.:
state the d i t c h conditions
existing and, clean
E.W.: existing b u t needs cleaning
c u t t i n g vegetation
E.F.: exfst4ng and filled
W.L. : wateway insuff icfent
N ,: none (d it c h e i needed)
(23) (24) Slope: indicate i f I n c u t or I n f i I 1 slopes and state
S I f stable
NS i f not s t a b l e
(25) Culvert Cleaning: put an "X" i f cleaning needed,

(26) Vegetation Control:

F.C.: f a i r l y cut
N.C.: needs cutting

(27) D r i v i n g Conditions:
F,: fair
DWC : drive w i t h care due t o some defects
D.D.: , d r i v i n g difficult due t o bad conditions

(28) Typical Cross Section: make simple drawing of surface

cross-sect ion.

(291 Additional Data-Pavement Loqs: t h i s refers t o informations

regarding the materials of the road structure.
To be submitted only when required.
 Append i x 2 . 4 - 3
P.age 4 of 4

-
(30) ( 3 4 ) Geotechn ical Tests : t e s t s t o be performed and report
on results t o be submitted o n l y when required.

(35) Benkelman Beam T e s t : ditto

(36) Road Works Proposed: s t a t e what proposed' works a r e recom-

mended s e p a r a t e 1 y f o r :
- maintenance
- res t o r a t ion
- imp rovemen t

use additional sheets i f needed.

 REPORT
on
IMPACT OF POOR MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
OH ROAD 1NVESTMENT FEASIBILITY.

A case btudy an selected road projects

from the Proposed Fourth IBRD Highway Project
 Annex. 1
Page 2 of 1 1

This report is prepared on request of the XBRD Mission visit-

fag the Philippines in October'f977, The purpose of the report is
t o demonstrate the impact of pri~r~maintenanceprocedures on road
investment feasibility, A prioxi, f t is assumed that lack of
make any road
maintenance on existing and improved roads ~ $ 1 1
investment non-viable,

The results Ln t h i s teport.shoulc not.be.interpreted In a

general manner as they refer to 5 cases of different p a v e n t
combinations selec tsd from the proposed Fourth IBRD Highway
,
Project only,

Case Sections

The case sectfons have been selected from the proposed

Fourth IBRD Highway h o j e c t under review by the Bank. The sec-
tions and their main characteristics are as follows:

Existing Proposed
Section ETo. 6, Locatton Surface Surf ace

3001 {Baron-puezon, Negro91 Gravel GraveL

1203 (Limbog-Banga, Panay) Gravel DBST
203 ( ~ i l a h n a p l i ,Negros) AC/CC AC
203 ( s i l a ~ n a p f a , ~ e g r ~ s ) - AC/Cc 6Q
205 (Manapla-Fabrica, ~ e g r o s ) AC K

The assumptions about condition "life-time" assming rea-

sonably poor maintenance operations,-partly have been made pn
the basis of actual observattoos -from fnvsntory sheets in the
Philippines over 3% years of changes in condition, and partly
on the basis of experience from other countries with correspond-
trig pavptqenta and climate, The estimates presented below are,
of couxse,. average f f gums which are highly suoject t o varia-
tion. However, i t is f e l t that these figures -represent the b e s t
avaiable*eslimates as follows;
 Pavement Condf tion Changes (Years)
Cood-+'Fait ., Fair-*Bad.. Bad4Very Bad

EXISTING ROADS
Gravel (GR)
-
I

Asphalt Concrete (AC)

DBST I

Cement Concrete (CC) 6

IMPROVED ROADS
Gravel
Asphalt Concrete
DBST
Cement Concrete

The improved roadr are assumed to be designed and conatrocted

according t o the ndst available design and constructio~methods,
The interpretation of the above mentioned table is sr follows:
Good-)F'afr 6 years; means that the pa-nt will change
from good t o fair condition after b years.

Below is shown the condition changes(~= good, P fair,

B- bad, VEi* very bed) for the involved road section8 (in brackets
are shown the speed in t s m h x . ) :

Section 3001
Exfstinqt Gravel 8.6 kms. 1981 - 2000 VB (20)

.Improved: Gravel 8.6 kms. 1981 L963 1986 1988~2000

G(55) F(45) B(35) VB(20')

Section 1203
--
1981 - - -
1977 1985 -
1987 -
1988 -
3983 1990 -
1984 1991
-
Exist.: 5.51 lcmuos.
0 "
CC
CC
C
F
G(50)
B(40)
~(45)
W 30)
B(40) VB( 30)
3.98 " GR F VB(30)
34.94 " GR B VB(30)

Total 45.60 kms. (+ LO sharp cuxvea, 4 narrow structrrreal

 Annex 1
page,4 o f 1 1

Zmpxoved: 5.51 b s . CC ~ ( 5 0 )F(45) BI40) VB(30)

0.15 " CC B(40) VS(30)
39.04 " DSST G(65) F(5D) B(40) VB(30)
Total 44,70 kms.

Section 203

1977 1981 1983 1984 1987 1988 1990 1991 : 1993 1994 1997

-
- - - _ L - - - - - - -

Exfst.: 13-23 ITI IS. CC G G ( 6 5 ) F(50) B(40) VB( 30) -. - ra

9
4.85 " CC F B(40) VJ3(30) -
6.74 " AC F B(40) V3(30) L
0.72 " AC B VB(30)
0.10 " AC VB VB(30) -
Total 25.66 kms. (+lo Narrow S txcc tuxes)
.*.
*--- -
*
L . I _
.- '- ,
i
.
* ." --
Improved : ' l f

.?-
I ..
1 - 1

, .#. ' Total 29-64 kms.

,

-
,

F.I
c-
.a.
Improved:12,39 kms.CC G(70) ~(70)
With CC: 13.25 I' CC G(70) F(50) B(40) VB(30)
.5 ..
'_

Section 205

Existfnq: 15.48 kms. CC B VB ( 301

1-87 " AC F B(40) VB(30)
, .
:1 -. .
Tqtal 18.50 kms. 6 Narrow Structures

Improved: 18.02 kms. AC

 Page 5 o f 1 1

Traffic C o s t and Benefits CalcuLations .

he LMI value and travel time system normally used by D P ) ~

have been a p p l i e d t o the case section values i n t h i s study. Traffic
by section has been calculated under the same assumptions, concern-
ing present level and t r a f f i c growth rates, as presented t o the
Bank in the Addendum t o Updated Feasibility Study, Proposed Fourth
IBRD Highway Project, DPH January 1 9 7 8 , No xep'ercussion on traffic
growth due to deteriorating existing and improved condition has been
asswed in this study mostly due t o l a c k of data on the subject and
also because i t i s f e l t that normal t r a f f i c growth will take place
as long as the road is passable. However, no generated traffic is
assumed to occur.

The economic t r a f f i c costs are ca l c u l a t t d using the assumptions

in the September 1977 DPR report t o the Bank on the Reevaluation of
the Proposed Fourth XBRD Highway Project, ?'he benefits are as usual
calculated as the difference between the t r a f f i c c o s t s by year,
refer t o Appendix 1 .

Improvement Cos t s

The economic improvement c o s t s have been adopted from the

f i n a l design estimates as of September 1977, For Section 203 an
a1texna t i v e c o s t estim te of cement aoncrete pavement has been
made, Thf $*gives 20% higher costs than for asphalt concrete.

No maintenance savings have, of course, entered these case

studies.,

Economic Evaluation and Conclusions

The benefit and c o s t streams for each one of the 5 cases are
shown ~ p ~ e n d il xr

The internal rate of return for e a ~ hcase is shown in Table 1.

11 A t t h a t t i m e '(the system used from 1981 and onwards i s shown

In Volume 5 of t h i s Manual).
 Table 1
Internal Rate of Return in %
c .
--7--%J!

-
Case Section Imp. Level time Savf ngs W/O Time Savings

1 -1 Gravel -1.0 (19.1) -3.0 (17.3)

2 1203 DBST 9.7 (15.7) 7.5 (14.1)
3 203 AC 27.6 (29.6) 23.8 (27,7)
4 20 3 CC 27.2 (26.2) 23.6 (24*84)
5 205 AC 31.2 (25.4) 24.8 ( 2 3 . 1 )

Note: Nonnal IRIls are.shown i n brackets. with maintenance savings.

It appears that an assumption of poor maintenance operations

w i l l make improved gravel and DBST roads un,feasible, while the nor-
mal feasibility indicators will remain relatively unchanged for
asphalt concrete and cement concrete pavements,
 PHI LIPPINES
FOURTH IBRD HIGHWAY PROJECT

ESTIMATED COST AND BENEFIT S T R W

(FlOOO)
~ect'ioa3002 Baron-Quezon ( ~ e g r o s )Exist, : Gravel, Imp. : Gravel

: , C o s t s B e n
e f i t s
a Construction : :Operating Costs Savings:. Net Beneffts
: Right-of-IJay :$Reduction : t
Year
c? : Engineering : in : Total : Without : i : Without : With
;'1 : Supervision :Maintenance: Costs : Time : Tim : Time : Time
Cost s v - ; : 'Costs : : -
1977 r 83 : :
:..II
"'1
I, I
243
1975- : : :,

1 2000 : : 0 0 : . -,'-..--*--.
1

,, ! *Construction Cost used is C o s t of Construction less tax.

 .Annex 1
Page 8 of 11

" I c PHILIPPINES
FOURTH fBRD HIGHWAY PROJECT

ESTIMATED COST AND BENEFIT STRUMS

(PlOOO)
Section 1203 Limbog-hnga (Panay) Exist,: Gravel, Imp.: DBST , I

: C o - a t s B e n e f i t s
: Construction : :Operating Costs Savinqa: Pet Benefits
-
:
Year :
:
Right-f-Way
Engineering
Supervision
:*Reduction :
: in : Total
:Maintenance: Costs
:
: Without
: Time
:
:
With
Tim
t
:
Without
Time
: With
: Time
,
- Costs ' : Costs .: -
1977 : 2128 : : : !.

1999 : : 1635 : 1676 :

ZOO0 : 2 : 1705 : 1748 : -I-

*Cons truclion C o s t used is Cost of Construction less tax. ,

-
.1
dl-
I

-m
-

. ,
--

-
1 -
- .-1
T

Section No, 203

: C o
L

8 t s
YHL LIPPINES
FOURTH TBRD HIGHWAY PROJECT

ESTIMATED COST AND BEMBFf T STREAMS

{PlOOO)

Silay-hmplct ( ~ e ~ r o aExist,
)
:
i CC/AC,
B e
Imp. : AC
n e f i t s
: Construction : :Operating
.. - Costs Savings: * N e t Benefits
''$ Year : Right-of-Way :*Reduction :
: Engineetihg :
:
in : Total : Without : With : Without : With
Supefvisfoa :Maintenance: Costs : Time : Tim : Time : Time
:
 Annex 1
Page 10 of 11

% ,4
1
I
C PHILIPPINES
- -r?&
. IBRD HIGHWAY PROJECT
'A ESTIMATED COST AND BENEFIT S I R E A M
(PlOoo)
\
Sectipn Mo. 203 SLlaf-Manapla (Negros) Exist, : CC/AC, Imp. t CC
. '..
- : . C o a t: s t B e n e f i t s ,
, '2

: ,bn\structioa : . :Operating C o s t s Savings:, ' fret Benefits. !

: Right-of-tJay :*Reduction : z
Year : Ensfnearing : in t Total : . W i t h o u t : With : Without : With
: Supervision :Maintenance: Costs : The : Time , Time : Time
_ : Costs- . Costs : : ' -

, ,
1977 : 565 t : I
8.
'
-

1993 : !, : : 19824 : 266h4 : :

1994 r : : : 18122 . 22772
, :
1995 : : + : 16649 . 21752 , : .--Y.C.I-.
:
- - .-, --. -.. - -
1996 : t . : 15295 : 20681 I:
i
1999 : :. : 14051 . : 19662 : :
1998 : t s 15837 : 21887 t -.
1999 : 17849 ..
: 24365
. ;

I 2000 : 6 : : 20116 : 27119

*Co'nstruclion Cost used is Cost of Construction less tax:
I
 Annex 1
Page I l o f l l

PHILIPPXNES
FOURTH fBRD HIGHWAY PROJECT

ESTIMATED COST Am BENEFIT STREAMS

t~looo)~
Section.No, 205. Mapla-Fabrics ( t i g r o s ) xi st.: A t , Imp.: AC

s.. t s -
: Construction r

: Time : : Time .

. : 5686 {' 6861 : :

dl985 :
'i
. : 5980 : 7229 :, -
,,dl986t . . : 6288 . : 7622 : ,

, : 1987 : : . : : 6611 : 8036 _ : :

, ,

,:
,: ,';
1988 : . - : : SO73 . : 6219' - : -: -
-? 1909 : . : :h 5352 r 6578
' I

:#

. -
. '*
' .u
.:j1990
j : , : : 5644 : 6958 : :
;?--y:
y-',:..' 1991
I'
: ,. : . : 5956 : 7365 :
219-92 : . : 4903 : 6101 . :

,
(1993
,
:
. ,
t ' 4036 : 5055 a .
71994 : . :
..
: 3660 : 3529 ' : :
. -,I995
. : : 2320 : 2605 : .---.---- -.
: ,1996 ; , . . .+ : 1759 : 1871 -
. : -
..*:
:!'
:I
1997 :
I
- : : 1334 1343 -..
.-.
• % ' .
":
1. .
,
:.,-+19988
.,
t ' t t 1544
I
: 1554 t .- -.-
Fi
:.?21999 :
&?t..r
: : 1787 : 1798 . . :- .
2069 : 2980 z
ruction less-tax,