Six lane Acess Control Greenfield Capital Region Ring Road Bhubaneshwar Bypass from Rameshwar to Tangi in the state of Odisha on HAMFour-lane, Parmakudi to Ramanathapuram Section of NH-87 in the state of Tamil Nadu on HAM4 Laning of Rajapalayam to Shenkottai Section of NH-744 from Km 71+600 to Km 139+900 (Design Chainage) in Tamil Nadu on Hybrid Annuity Mode (Project Length-68.3Km)

F.No.2/2/2025-PIU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Infrastructure Finance Secretariat ISD Division (PIU) ***** STCs Building, Janpath New Delhi Dated: 12th May 2025 Record of Discussion Subject: Record of Discussion of the 122nd meeting of the PPPAC for considering the Two project proposals of the Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways (MoRTH) on PPP mode. Reference: 120th Meeting of the PPPAC meeting held on 11th February 2025 & 122nd meeting held on 29th April 2025. Sir/Madam, The undersigned is directed to forward the Record of Discussion of the 122nd meeting of the PPPAC held on 29th April 2025, under the Chairmanship of Finance Secretary & Secretary (EA) for information and necessary action. 2. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. (Arya Balan Kumari) Joint Director (PIU) 011-2370 1219 To, 1. Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North block, New Delhi-01 2. CEO, NITI Aayog, Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi-01 3. Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, Transport Bhawan, New Dehi-01 4. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. Copy to: 1. Sr. PPS to Finance Secretary & Secretary (EA) 2. Sr.PPS to OSD, DEA 3. Sr. PPS to JS (ISD) Page 1 of 24Subject: Record of Discussion of the 122nd meeting of the PPPAC for considering the following project proposals: - (i) Six-lane Access Control Greenfield Capital Region Ring Road (Bhubaneswar Bypass) from Rameshwar to Tangi in the State of Odisha on HAM. (ii) Four-lane, Parmakudi to Ramanathapuram Section of NH-87 in the State of Tamil Nadu on HAM. (iii) 4 Laning of Rajapalayam to Shenkottai Section of NH-744 from Km 71+600 to Km 139+900 (Design Chainage) in Tamil Nadu on Hybrid Annuity Mode (Project Length-68.3Km) 1. The 122nd meeting of the PPPAC was held on 29th April 2025 at 06:15 Hours under the Chairmanship of Finance Secretary cum Secretary (EA) to consider the above-mentioned road projects of MoRTH. Project (i) and (ii) were discussed in the 120th PPPAC also but deferred in the light of observation of the PPPAC. MoRTH has provided a detailed response to the observations of the 120th PPPAC. The responses of MoRTH are annexed at Annexure-I & II. 2. The project at serial number (iii) was deferred for consideration after receiving response of the MoRTH on comments at Annexure-III 3. List of attendees is placed at Annexure-IV. 4. With the permission of Finance Secretary cum Secretary (EA), Joint Secretary (ISD) welcomed all the attendees to the meeting. NHAI made a detailed presentation on these two road projects. Page 2 of 24I. Six-lane Access Control Greenfield Capital Region Ring Road (Bhubaneswar Bypass) from Rameshwar to Tangi in the State of Odisha on HAM. 1. The basic details of the project are given in the table below: Table 1: Details of the project Development of new 6-lane Access Control Greenfield Capital Region Project Ring Road (Bhubaneswar Bypass) from Rameshwar Near Kuspangi (NH- Description 16) to Tangi Near Bandalo Toll Plaza (NH-16) total length Km. 110.875 on Hybrid Annuity Mode in the State of Odisha PPP Model HAM Sponsoring Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) Authority Implementing National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Agency State: Odisha Location District: Khurda, Dhenkanal & Cuttack Length 110.875 Km Type of Flexible pavement Lane Six Lane (6-Lane) configuration Proposed 60 m RoW Sl. Total Description Package-1 Package-2 Package-3 No. 1 Length(km) 40.250 30.295 40.330 110.875 2 Interchange 2 3 1 6 4 Viaduct 1 Nil 2 4 5 VUP 08 Nos. 03 Nos. 06 Nos. 17 Nos. 6 LVUP 08 Nos. 06 Nos. 16 Nos. 30 Nos. 7 SVUP 07 Nos. 03 Nos. 03 Nos. 13 Nos. Structures EUP/Animal 12 Nos. 8 07 Nos. 03 Nos. 02 Nos. Underpass 10 ROB 01 No. Nil 2 Nos 3 Nos. 11 Major Bridges Nil 03 Nos 02 Nos 5 Nos. 12 Minor Bridges 10 Nos. 11 Nos. 23 Nos. 44 Nos. 13 Culverts 142 Nos 90 Nos 69 Nos. 301 Nos. Waysides 3 Nos. 14 01 No. 01 No. 1 Nos. Amenity Page 3 of 24One Main One Main Plaza and Only Ramp Plaza and ramp Plaza Plazas at 15 Toll Plaza ramp Plaza at Exit - exit- entry at Exit -entry entry locations. locations locations Sl. Total Project Description Package-1 Package-2 Package-3 No. Packages 1 Length(km) 40.250 30.295 40.330 110.875 Concession 17.5 years (2.5 years of construction + 15 years of O&M) Period Sl. DESCRIPTION Package- Package- Package- Total No. OF WORKS 1 2 3 Cost of Civil A 1584.36 1314.22 1742.25 4640.83 Works Utility Shifting B 25.64 11.78 8.49 45.91 Cost Total Civil Construction Estimated Cost 1 1610 1326.00 1750.74 4686.74 Capital Cost (including cost with Break- of Utility up under Shifting) major heads I/C & Pre- of Operative expenditure 2 16.10 13.26 17.51 46.87 Expenses (1 % of Civil Cost) Financing Cost 3 7.18 5.89 6.39 19.46 (1% of debt ) Interest during 4 82.03 57.50 52.69 191.04 construction Estimated 5 Project Cost 1715.31 1402.64 1827.33 4945.28 (1+2+3+4) Page 4 of 24GST @ 18 % on Total Civil 6 293.99 252.48 315.13 861.6 Cost (Excluding Utility Shifting) Contingency @ 1% on Civil 7 15.84 13.14 17.51 46.49 Cost (Excluding Utility Shifting) O&M Cost for 15 years as per 8 Ministry OM 216.57 177.16 240.76 634.49 dated 23.05.2022 Escalation @ 5% per year for 9 3 Years (on 253.74 208.98 275.92 738.64 Civil Cost ic. Utilities) Supervision 9 Charges on 0.64 0.29 0.21 1.14 Utility Cost Land 10 acquisition and 426.26 383.17 220.0 1029.43 R&R Environmental 11 & Forest 22 15.32 13.34 Mitigation Cost 50.66 Total Capital Cost 12 2944.36 2453.18 2910.20 8307.74 (5+6+7+8+9+10 +11) Per km of Total 13 Capital Cost 73.15 80.97 72.15 74.93 (Cr. / km) Page 5 of 24Total Required: 840.39 Ha Land 3A: 95%, Acquisition 3D: 95% Status 3G: 85% Particulars Package1 Package2 Package3 Project IRR (in %) 12.66% 13.08% 12.83% Equity IRR (in %) 15% 15% 15% Financial Project NPV @12% 27.39 Crs. 36.27Crs. 36.73 Crs. Viability discounting (Rs. in Cr.) Project NPV @WACC of 105.82 Crs. 120.71 Crs 123.19 Crs 10.31% (Rs. in Cr.) Min. DSCR 1.34 1.37 1.31 Concession Based on MCA for Hybrid Annuity Model Agreement Bidding Bids will be evaluated on the basis of the lowest Bid Project Cost. parameter Bidding Single Stage Two Envelop Process process 2. The primary purpose of the proposed 6 Lane access-controlled project Highway is to ease up congestion in the existing NH-16 (Part of GQ) passing through Khorda, Bhubaneswar & Cuttack (86 Km). The Existing NH-16 (Kolkata- Chennai) passes through highly urbanized areas of 3 major cities of Khorda, Bhubaneswar and Cuttack. Considering the rapid urbanization and growth in the state capital, it is not practical to widen or augment the existing National Highway. The traffic in the city has already crossed 1 Lakh PCU leading to multiple congestion points. Therefore, the proposed project is essential to address the huge traffic congestion problem and for the overall development of the Region. 3. The travel time on the existing road section is around 120 minutes. During the peak hours, the travel time on existing road section increases from 120 minutes to 150 minutes. The proposed greenfield alignment, designed for 100 km/h, is expected to reduce travel time from 120 minutes to 80 minutes. The proposed 6-lane road project, spanning 110.875 km with a 60m right-of-way, is expected to yield significant savings in Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC). 4. The project will be executed under the HAM model with a Total Capital Cost of Rs.8,307.74 crore. Subsequently, it will be monetized through InvIT or TOT models. The project will be implemented in three packages and is part of NH(O) Scheme. The financial assessment indicates a Project IRR of both the packages are higher than 12% and equity IRR of 15%. With respect to land acquisition, the 3G of 85% has Page 6 of 24been achieved in the project. Further, state govt. is sharing 50% of land acquisition cost in the project. Accordingly, 200 Cr. has already been deposited by state Govt for this purpose. 5. The project has been considered in the 120th PPPAC meeting held on 4th Feb 2025. The queries raised by the PPPAC and the response of MoRTH are provided at Annexure I. The main observation was on the tolling plan of the proposed road including proposal of revenue sharing with the existing BOT concessionaire. In its reply, MoRTH said that the tolling plan proposed during the 120th PPPAC meeting has been revised, eliminating the need for compensating the existing BOT concessionaire through toll revenue sharing. Tangi serves as the toll plaza for the BOT (Toll) project, located 16KM from the proposed roadway. Between Bhubaneswar and the Tangi toll plaza, the distance is 44.3KM. As per the revised tolling strategy, no toll is to be paid by the passengers for 33KM on the proposed bypass (which is the equivalent distance of 44.3 KM of existing BoT Road). In other words, it is now proposed to allow the user to travel equivalent road length free on proposed bypass to ensure no financial impact on the commuter as well as the existing BOT concessionaire. The toll Plaza of CRRR on Tangi side shall be shifted in Ch. 78km (approx.) at suitable location. With the integrated tolling system, commuters from Chennai and Kolkata will be tolled at the Tangi Plaza, ensuring that the operation remains free of financial losses to the existing concessionaire. 6. After the detailed presentation, the Chair asked the PPPAC members for their observations. DEA, NITI Aayog, DoE and DoLA supported the proposal and stated that no further comments to offer. 7. The Chair made the following observations: a) How MoRTH is addressing the problem of unregulated ribbon development along the ring roads/bypasses? b) Has any legal advice been sought regarding revised tolling strategy envisaged for the project? c) The per KM for Package-2 is higher than the normative costs and those of the other two packages? 8. MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: - a) MoRTH is finalizing a policy on development of access-controlled Ring roads/ bypasses for major cities for urban decongestion. Under the proposed policy, emphasis is on regulated development along proposed bypasses. The policy would require a development control zone of 15m on either side of the NH bypass or ring road shall be notified by the State Page 7 of 24Government as a green zone under the planning laws enacted by the State Government where development shall be prohibited unless it is for public transport or mobility infrastructure, public utility infrastructure like electricity, water or sewerage pipeline or green zone infrastructure. Beyond the No Construction Green Zone, the State Government may plan, develop, or regulate the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional infrastructure within a 2 km radial distance on either side of the bypass or ring road. This will enable value capture for new development for economic activities using the ring road or bypass as the centre of development in a regulated manner. Additionally, the access to ring road/bypass would be only through service roads which would be constructed at the time of project development and entry to the main carriageway would be provided only through slip roads or interchanges. b) A legal opinion has been obtained on the revised tolling strategy, and it has been confirmed that the proposed mechanism is free from any legal impediment. The existing BOT concessionaire has also given no objection to this. c) The per kilometer cost for Package-2 is Rs. 80.97 crore vis a vis the costs for the other two packages are in the range of Rs. 73 crore per kilometer. The main reason for the high per km cost in Package-2 is due to the construction of bridges over the Mahanadi River. Recommendations: 9. After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for “Development of Six-lane Access Controlled Greenfield Capital Region Ring Road (Bhubaneswar Bypass) from Rameshwar to Tangi in the State of Odisha on HAM” for consideration of the competent authority for giving administrative approval. The overall recommendation is subject to following specific recommendation. a) The appraised Total Capital Cost for all three packages is Rs. 8307.74 crore. b) The project should be taken up on HAM under the NH (O) scheme. c) MoRTH should develop a policy for regulated development along Ring roads/ bypasses. d) All approvals, such as forest clearance, tree cutting, permissions, etc., shall be obtained by the NHAI well before the bid submission date. 10. Revalidation of its recommendation by the PPPAC is not required for the following post recommendation changes in the project costs/bid documents: - Page 8 of 24a) Any change in the date / time period for any time-bound actions like appointed date, financial close, construction period etc. b) Non-substantial change in risk-allocation. c) Any other changes/modification in the project proposal with the overall objective of making project successful. d) Further, MoRTH/ NHAI may decide whether the changes proposed post recommendations of the project proposal by the PPPAC fall within the threshold criteria as stated above. All such changes falling within the threshold criteria shall be appraised at the level of Secretary (RTH)/ BoD of NHAI as the case may be, without any further need of revalidation by the PPPAC and shall proceed with the approval process accordingly. *** Page 9 of 24II. Four-lane, Parmakudi to Ramanathapuram Section of NH-87 in the state of Tamil Nadu on HAM 1. The basic details of the project are given in the table below: Table 2: Details of the project 4 Laning of Parmakudi to Ramanathapuram Section of NH-87 from Km Project 80+360 to Km 127+025 (Design Chainage) in the state of Tamil Nadu Description on Hybrid Annuity Mode (Project Length-46.665 km) PPP Model HAM Sponsoring Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) Authority Implementin National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) g Agency State: Tamil Nadu Location Town: Tiruppuvanam to Dhanushkodi Length 46.665 km Type of Flexible pavement Lane configuratio Four lanes (4-lane) n Proposed 30m – 45m RoW Major Bridges Nil Major Bridge Cum VUP 1 No. Minor Bridges 20 Nos Box Culverts 106 Nos = 49 (New) + 51 (Reconstruction) + 6 (Widening) Additional Box culverts 10 Cross road Box Culverts 77 Median Drain Out Culverts 26 Flyover Nil Structures Interchange Nil Viaduct Nil RoB/ RuB Nil VUP 9 Nos. Animal Underpass (No) Nil LVUP 4 Nos SVUP 4 Nos VOP 19 Nos. FOB Nil Page 10 of 24Junctions below grade separated 18 Nos. structures Length of Service Road/ Slip Road 3.430 Km + 20.890 Km = 24.320 (Both Sides) Km Lined/RCC roadside drain (Both 25.030km Sides) Median Drain 42.694 km Bypass (No. & Length) 2 Nos & 7.870 km Realignment – length 17.275 km Bus-bays/ Shelters Bus Bays: 7 Nos. Bus Shelters: 33 nos. Truck Lay-byes 2 No (Both Sides) Rest Area / Way side amenities Nil Any Other, specify Nil Project One package with 46.665KM Packages Concession 17 years (2 years construction period + 15 years Operation Period) Period Cost (Rs in Sl. No. Description crore) Civil Construction Cost including Utility (i) 997.63 Shifting (Excl. GST) (ii) IC & Pre-operative Expenses 9.98 (iii) Financing Cost 4.23 Estimated (iv) Interest During Construction 30.99 Capital Cost (v) Estimated Project Cost [(i) to (iv)] 1042.83 with Break- up under (vi) Civil Construction Cost per km 21.38 major heads Land Acquisition Cost including R&R & of (vii) 340.94 Structures expenditure Other Cost (like Forest Clearance, (viii) 6.50 Environmental Mitigation Measures etc. (ix) Contingency @ 1% of (i) 9.98 (x) GST@18% of (i), (ii) & (iii) 182.13 (xi) Escalation during construction 60.00 (xii) O&M for 15 years including escalation 210.78 Page 11 of 24Total Capital Cost (xiii) 1853.16 [(v)+(vii)+(viii)+(ix)+(x)+(xi)+(xii)] Estimated BPC 1313.84 S.No. Description Present Status 1 Total Land Required (Ha) 302.57 2 Existing Land available (Ha) 107.49 3 Addl. Land Required (Ha) 195.08 4 Forest land (Ha) Nil Land Acquisition 5 Private land (Ha) 154.11 Status 6 Govt. land (Ha) 40.97 7 3A Status Published for 185.59 Ha (95.14%) 8 3D Status Published for 185.59 Ha (95.14%) 9 3G Status Completed for 121.5 Ha (62.3%) 10 3H Status Completed for 15.1 Ha (7.7%) Category Value PIRR 12.70% EIRR 15% Financial Project NPV @ 12% discount rate Rs. 33.75 crore Viability Project NPV @WACC of 10.31% (Rs. in Rs. 81.50 crore crore) Minimum DSCR 1.59 Concession Based on MCA for Hybrid Annuity Model Agreement Bidding Bids will be evaluated on the basis of the lowest Bid Project Cost. parameter Bidding Single Stage Two Envelope Process process 2. The primary purpose of the project is to provide better connectivity between Paramakudi and Ramanathapuram and also to decongest the existing 2 lane paved shoulder road. The project road is a section of NH-49 (new NH-87) which connects two important pilgrimage centers Madurai and Rameshwaram. The Page 12 of 24Project Road passes through plain terrain and through settlements like Paramakudi Near Ariyanandel, Sathirakudi, Achundanvayal, Ramanathapuram and Perungulam. The proposed alignment with designed speed of 80 km/hr, will connect five economic nodes. 3. The project, with a stretch of 46.665 km, is proposed for 4 lane development in on Hybrid Annuity Mode. As per the revised proposal for the 46.665 km stretch, approximately 25 kms is to be developed as greenfield due to the presence of dense habitation along the existing alignment. Approximately 13 kms of the existing road are proposed to be widened without demolishing existing road, while approximately 8 kms are planned for complete reconstruction by demolishing the existing road, which is inevitable due to approach locations of grade separators and technical constrains. The financial assessment indicates a Project IRR project is 12% and equity IRR of 15%. With respect to land acquisition, 3G of 62% land has been achieved. 4. The project has been considered in the 120th PPPAC meeting held on 4th Feb 2025. The queries raised by the PPPAC and the response of MoRTH are provided at Annexure II. The main issues raised by the 120th PPPAC was about the dismantling of the existing road which was constructed in 2019. In its reply, MoRTH said that in the initial proposal demolition of existing stretches of around 21 km was proposed as per the design requirements of IRC-SP-84-2019, whereas 2-laning with paved shoulders constructed in 2019 was based on IRC- SP-73-2007. Now, the proposal is modified by avoiding the demolition of existing pavement to the possible extent and now only around 8 km stretch is coming under re-construction in approaches of crossing structures against 21 km proposed initially. As a result, Rs. 320 crore has been saved as compared to the initial cost estimates. 5. After the detailed presentation, the Chair asked the PPPAC members for their observations. DEA, NITI Aayog, DoE and DoLA supported the proposal and stated that no further comments to offer. 6. The Chair made the following observations: a) What is the typical lifespan of a 2-lane road? b) The existing road was constructed in 2019, and the land acquisition process for the proposed corridor also commenced in 2019. This indicates poor planning on the part of the authority? Page 13 of 24c) How will the traffic of the existing stretch will be managed during the construction phase? d) The possibility of developing the entire Madurai to Ramanathapuram corridor on BOT(Toll) mode may be explored? 7. MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: - a) The typical lifespan of a two-lane road is 20 years. b) In 2014 when the approval process of the existing road was started, the PCU on the corridor was qualifying for 2-lane only (less than 15000 PCU). However, the guideline changed in 2016 by which the 4-lane traffic trigger point was changed to 10,000 PCU. When the project completed in 2019, the traffic in the stretch was more than 10,000 PCU necessitating the augmentation to 4-lane. Since the traffic has been triggered for 4-lane in 2019, the land acquisition process has been initiated in 2019 itself. c) Traffic management during the construction period falls within the scope of the concessionaire by providing diversions. It will be ensured that there will be minimal disruption to regular traffic flow. d) The short stretch of Paramakudi–Ramanathapuram is not financially viable on its own in BOT (Toll) mode. However, the completed Madurai–Paramakudi section, built under the EPC model, can be offered to the concessionaire under the TOT model to enhance overall project viability. Based on financial analysis and also considering the audit observation, the possibility of developing combined Madurai–Ramanathapuram stretch on the BOT (Toll) model shall be explored. Recommendations: 8. After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for 4 Laning of Parmakudi to Ramanathapuram Section of NH-87 from Km 80+360 to Km 127+025 (Design Chainage) in the state of Tamil Nadu on Hybrid Annuity Mode for consideration of the competent authority for giving administrative approval. The overall recommendation is subject to the following specific recommendations. a) The appraised Total Capital Cost is Rs. 1853.16 crore. Page 14 of 24b) the possibility of developing combined Madurai–Ramanathapuram stretch on the BOT (Toll) model shall be explored by the MoRTH. c) MoRTH should adopt a forward-thinking approach for designing road projects, considering future traffic demands, infrastructure needs, and potential challenges. This would prevent the need for costly and premature redevelopment while ensuring that road infrastructure remains sustainable and efficient over its intended lifespan. d) All approvals, such as forest clearance, tree cutting, permissions, etc., shall be obtained by the NHAI well before the bid submission due date. 9. Revalidation of its recommendation by the PPPAC is not required for the following post recommendation changes in the project costs/bid documents: - a) Any change in the date/time period for any time-bound actions like appointed date, financial close, construction period etc. b) Non-substantial change in risk-allocation. c) Any other changes/modification in the project proposal with the overall objective of making project successful. d) Further, MoRTH/ NHAI may decide whether the changes proposed post recommendations of the project proposal by the PPPAC fall within the threshold criteria as stated above. All such changes falling within the threshold criteria shall be appraised at the level of Secretary (RTH)/ BoD of NHAI as the case may be, without any further need of revalidation by the PPPAC and shall proceed with the approval process accordingly. *** Page 15 of 24Annexure-I (Replies to observations to PPPAC committee for Capital Ring Road Project ) S. No. Comments of 120th PPPAC Reply by MoRTH A. Project Rationale 1. This section passes through The mentioned proposal planned by State The mentioned 2 large cities, Bhubaneswar, proposal planned by State the same is yet to be started. and Cuttack. The state government had planned The alignment mentioned is planned from eastern side and another proposal almost 2 will only bypass Bhubaneswar city. However, MoRTH years back to decongest the proposal is from western side which is bypassing three Cities city section at a much lower namely Bhubaneswar, Cuttack ft Khorda. cost. Also, The Heavy traffic from NH-55, NH-655, NH-57 ft SH-65 is not captured by State alignment. Further, the State Govt is sharing the 50% LA cost of proposed Bhubaneswar Bypass. As the state proposal is at very initial state, costing has not been finalized for the same, as of now. The per km per lane estimated civil construction cost of the MoRTftH project is 6.98 Cr., which is within the normative cost. 2. The availability of this The existing Khurda-Chandaka-Nanadakanan State Road is alternate route, besides primarily 2 Lane having poor geometrics, which is already existing Khurda-Chandaka- congested and may not solve the problem of traffic congesti Nanadakanan road may on. Further, it ends before Cuttack ft Mahanadi bridge and have implications on the may not solve the traffic congestion in Khurdha and Cuttack. It likely traffic on the proposed may not have any implication on likely traffic of proposed bypass. Bypass as the through traffic of NH-16 on either side of proposed bypass shall get diverted before Khordha and Cuttack respectively. 3. The estimated traffic on the Looking into the traffic growth, the widening of existing NH-16 proposed bypass ranges to 8 Lane with Service Road will be costly option with much from about 20,000 to 24,400 higher cost including LA for additional 20m Land PCU. Therefore, it would required. The said option has been examined and not found solve only a part of the urban feasible and hence bypass has proposed. congestion problem. The rationale of a very high level The through Traffic on NH-16 shall be diverted on proposed of congestion (1 lakh PCU Bypass. Thus, the proposed Bypass will ensure smooth travel per day) in the city limits of through traffic and traffic bound towards western Odisha appears to be due to the through NH-55, NH-655, NH- 57 & SH-65. Further diversion of local traffic, and most likely through traffic through the proposed bypass shall result in will remain partly addressed. substantial reduction in the traffic on existing NH-16 in urban , area, which will partly de-congest the urban part. The problem of local traffic not getting catered by the proposed bypass and creating congestion will be addressed by the road planned by State Govt. Further, on completion of CRRR and roads planned by State Government, assessment would be done and needful action shall be taken accordingly. 4. The urban congestion is The traffic assessment has been made on the basis of 24- likely to be mostly during the hour OD survey. Further, the existing stretch (NH-16) is also day period, and that too being tolled. The traffic assessment has been done during peak hours. During considering both peak and off-peak hours and the estimated Page 16 of 24off-peak hours and during traffic has been calculated accordingly. nighttime, the through traffic may still find it convenient (shorter distance) to pass through the 2 cities instead of using the bypass road. That may lead to lower than estimated traffic on the bypass road and lower toll earnings for NHAI. B. Tolling Strategy 1. There seems to have a The existing concession of BOT(Toll) road is up to 2037. balance period of another 10 to 12 years. 2. The non-compete period in The tolling plan proposed during PPPAC scheduled earlier the existing concession is has been revised and the revised tolling plan is at Annexure- perhaps over. However, the 1. It is now proposed not to compensate the existing BoT concessionaire will may have Concessionaire by sharing toll revenue. Under this plan, it is to be compensated for a few unlikely that the concession period would be extended. years (may be 5 to 7 years). 3. NHAI proposes to share a In earlier tolling plan, it was proposed to reduce the user fee part of the toll collected on charged at BOT Plaza for Vehicle moving from Chennai to the bypass road with the Kolkata and compensate the same to Concessionaire by the BOT Concessionaire. Such Authority. sharing is not envisaged in the concession agreement Now, tolling strategy has been revised and it is now proposed (CA). not to compensate the existing BoT Concessionaire by 4. Adopting a compensation sharing toll revenue. The Bypass has been proposed to be method outside the CA will constructed on HAM mode, to be tolled by NHAI. involve negotiation of the CA. In order to avoid unfair charging of user fee (at Bandalo Toll Plaza on NH-16) for length not travelled by the users in the BOT project, it is now proposed to allow the user to travel equivalent length free for both side movement on proposed bypass. In other words, the toll Plaza of CRRR on Tangi side shall be shifted in Ch. 78km (approx.) at suitable location. Revised Tolling Plan attached at Annexure- A). 5. The concession road will As clarified above, it is now proposed not to compensate the have lower traffic (as a part existing BoT Concessionaire by sharing toll revenue. of the traffic will use the bypass road) resulting in Further, despite the use of proposed Bypass Road by through lower wear & tear requiring traffic, the remaining as well as local traffic shall be using the lower maintenance cost. existing road. Yet, the concessionaire is proposed to be There may not be any significant difference of maintenance compensated as if the cost. The periodic renewal has to be done as per IRC diverted traffic was also on Guidelines. the concession road. 6. A clarity is also needed in As per revised Tolling Plan, there is no requirement of respect of the appropriate negotiation with Existing BoT Concessionaire forum and the competent authority for appraising and approving the negotiated concession. 7. In view of the sharing of the The viability of the project has already been considered toll revenue, the economic taking into account the proposed integrated tolling Page 17 of 24and financial viability of the mechanism. project may also be lower. The viability should be reworked based on net toll to NHAI. Annexure-A Revised Tolling Strategy The map showing the tolling strategy is at attached. Case 1: - For traffic moving from Kolkata to Chennai using Bhubaneswar Bypass: - Car crossing point P (BOT toll Plaza at Bandola) will be paying full charges at the BOT toll plaza and the vehicles coming on bypass shall be allow to travel equivalent length (33 Km) free upto point X-X and charges will be applicable for actual distance travelled beyond point X-X till it exits from Bhubaneswar Bypass. Case 2: - Vehicle moving from Chennai to Kolkata using Capital Region Ring Road (Bhubaneswar Bypass). 1 User entering Bhubaneswar Bypass at C (4 Km before next toll Plaza i.e., Gudipada Toll Plaza) and travelling Length upto & beyond X-X will be paying toll free up to X-X i.e., 77.630 Km approx. 2 User entering Bhubaneswar Bypass at C (4 Km before next toll Plaza i.e., Gudipada Toll Plaza) and exiting from intermediate access before X-X will have to pay for actual length travelled. Page 18 of 24Page 19 of 24Annexure-II Replies to observations to PPPAC committee for Paramakudi to Ramanathapuram Project Observations of 120th PPPAC Compliance/ Reply by MoRTH a. Project rationale: The proposal seeks to 2-lane with paved shoulder is the basic and bare demolish the road section completed barely 6 minimum facilities for National Highway and as such no years back. traffic parameter exists for providing 2-lane highway and I. The upgradation of this section to 2-lanes no traffic assumption was made for this project that time. with paved shoulders was completed in The current traffic in the project highway is 12,700 2019. MoRTH may review whether the PCU/day, therefore the existing road cannot handle the current traffic far exceed the assumptions traffic for another 7 to 8 years with acceptable service in that project to require 4-laning now by quality in light of changing socio-economic conditions in demolishing that work. the country and in order to ensure safe and comfortable II. MoRTH may examine if the existing road mobility of road users along with reduction in road can handle the traffic for another 7 to 8 accidents being prime concern for everyone. As per the years with acceptable service quality. The 2-lane manual (IRC-SP-73-2018) when the design current traffic on this section appears to service volume of two-lane highway exceeds 10,000 suggest that. PCU/day, the congestion increases necessitating its upgradation to 4-lane. Therefore 4-lane of the stretch is required. In the initial proposal demolition of existing stretches in around 21 Km was proposed as per the design requirements of IRC-SP-84-2019, whereas the 2-laning with paved shoulders (constructed 6 years back) was based on IRC-SP-73-2007. During appraisal by PPPAC on 04.02.2025, it was suggested to review and emphasis was given to utilize the existing highway to the possible extent. Accordingly, the proposal was modified by avoiding the demolition of existing pavement to the possible extent. III. The land has been acquired (as per the The land acquisition was done in the project as the proposal) and tenders have been called (as project was earlier included under Bharatmala Scheme per newspaper reports), even before approval and majority of land have been acquired between 2018- of the project by the competent authority. 2023(Refer table below). However, no land acquisition MoRTH may examine if that is the appropriate has been done after MoRTH OM dated 23.11.2023 way of committing and using public funds. (regarding non creation of liability under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I). Tenders are normally invited after Page 20 of 24Observations of 120th PPPAC Compliance/ Reply by MoRTH the appraisal of the project by PATSC in NHAI so that the bidders get sufficient time to get familiar of the project; so that they can correctly design and competitive quotes may be submitted. Accordingly, the bids were invited in anticipation of approval of the project. However, it is submitted that tenders will be received only after getting its approval and sanction of project from Competent Authority. 3A published (185.59 Ha) 3D published (185.59 Ha) Date Area (Ha) Date Area (Ha) 17.04.2018 124.74 09.04.2019 124.74 10.05.2018 9.15 09.05.2019 9.15 23.08.2022 6.17 24.11.2022 6.17 05.01.2023 45.53 17.04.2023 45.53 b. Project design: I. As the land has been acquired, it may be Yes, as the majority of land has already been acquired too late to consider any alternate design. as brought out above. 2-lane with paved shoulder is the Nevertheless, MoRTH may verify if the basic and bare minimum facilities for National Highway option of building a new 2-lane road and as such no traffic parameter exists for providing the abutting the existing 2-lanes was same and also the same is done within the available considered, instead of designing for land without much improving the existing geometry and demolition of the road completed 6 years changing the alignments. Earlier, complete back. reconstruction of existing highway was proposed as the 2-lane highway constructed 6 years ago was based on standards of IRC:SP:73-2007, however the IRC specification got upgraded and the submitted proposal was based on IRC SP: 84-2019 wherein the geometric standards got upgraded, due to which it was not possible to accommodate existing 2-lane carriageway in 4-lane design. As brought above in response to the project rationale, after the deliberation and suggestion during appraisal by PPPAC on 04.02.2025, the proposal was modified considering the suggested option of building a new 2- lane road abutting the existing 2-lanes with adopting the design parameters as per existing vertical profile to the Page 21 of 24Observations of 120th PPPAC Compliance/ Reply by MoRTH possible extent. Accordingly, around 13 Km (out of 21Km) existing stretch has been utilized and now the reconstruction length is proposed only in around 8 Km which is inevitable at approach locations of grade separators. II. A much higher embankment of 2.5 meter The embankment height varies from project to project. throughout the project length has been 1m embankment height in Normative calculations is planned instead of the normative 1 meter. taken as an assumption for calculation purpose only as MoRTH may examine if the project section per MoRTH Circular dated 19.01.2022. However, the passes through a flood-prone area requiring same being dynamic in nature changes as per design the higher embankment requirement. The normal construction, the embankment height is also decided in such a way that the bottom of the sub-grade is kept 1m above the HFL/NGL. Therefore, the minimum height of embankment including sub-grade is around 1.5m. In the instant project, there are 9 Nos. of VUPs, 3 Nos. of LVUPs & 5 Nos. of SVUPs provisions in the project. The minimum clearances for these structures are 4-5m which causes increase in the height of embankments in its approaches. III. The above aspect becomes even more As in the instant project the lead of Earth is around 45km prominent as the lead distance for the required (being higher due to non-availability of suitable earth in earth is large at 45 km. vicinity), as brought out above, after deliberation in PPPAC meeting on 04.02.2025 the proposal has been modified to optimize the quantities of earth and accordingly cost have been reduced considerably. IV. A recently awarded (March 2024) package The per km cost in earlier submission was Rs. 32.09 on Chennai-Tirupati NH has entailed civil Cr/km as it was designed based on currently prevailing construction cost of Rs. 22.71 Cr./km. The civil IRC specifications. However, in the revised proposal, the cost of the proposal is almost 50% higher at per km cost is now Rs. 21.4Cr/km arrived based on Rs. 32.09 Cr/km. MoRTH may examine if the adopting the existing vertical profile to the possible proposal is over-designed requiring higher extent for utilization of existing highway recently cost. completed (6 years ago), which is now comparable (lower) to recently awarded package on Chennai- Tirupati (March 2024- Rs. 22.71 Cr./km). Both the projects are widening projects of 2 to 4-lane. Page 22 of 24Annexure-III Comments on MoRTH Proposal 1. Development of 4 Laning of Rajapalayam to Shenkottai Section of NH-744 from Km 71+600 to Km 139+900 (Design Chainage) in Tamil Nadu on Hybrid Annuity Mode (Project Length-68.3Km) a. Who is the competent authority to approve new NH alignment? What will be the status of the existing alignment after the construction of the greenfield alignment? b. The proposed project is part of the Madurai–Kollam corridor and the Shenkottai–Kollam stretch currently remains a 2-lane road. As the corridor from Shenkottai towards Kollam passes through Western Ghats and involves construction of tunnels for which obtaining clearance is tough task and uncertain. c. What is the feasibility of constructing proposed tunnels in the Shenkottai– Kollam section? d. As getting the environmental clearances are uncertain, what is the rational for the proposed project of construction of 4 Laning of Rajapalayam to Shenkottai? e. How does the Rajapalayam–Shenkottai project align with NH development goals such as Bharatmala Pariyojana f. What is the current status of land acquisition and clearances for the entire corridor? Page 23 of 24Annexure-IV List of the participants of the 123th meeting of the PPPAC a) Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance 1. Shri Ajay Seth, Secretary, EA- In Chair 2. Ms. Anuradha Thakur, OSD(EA) 3. Shri Baldeo Purushartha, JS (ISD) 4. Ms. Arya Balan Kumari, Joint Director 5. Ms. Anmol Waraich, AD (PIU) 6. Shri Rajender Singh, SO (PIU) 7. Shri Manjeet Yadav, ASO b) Department of Expenditure 1. Shri Ranganath Audam, Deputy Director c) NITI Aayog 1. Shri. Partha Reddy, Programme Director d) Department of Legal Affairs 1. Shri Kasibhatla, Deputy Legal Adviser e) Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 1. Shri V Umashankar, Secretary (RTH) 2. Shri Puneet Agarwal AS&FA 3. Shri Alok Deepankar, Member 4. Shri Harish Sharma, CGM 5. Shri Anil Choudhary, Member 6. Shri Wathore, CGM 7. Shri Manoj Kumar, Ministry 8. Shri Vinay Kumar, AS(H) 9. Shri Vinod Choudhary, Dy Manager 10. Shri Surya Manivannan, AT Kearney f) National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) 1. Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Chairman 2. Shri KM Sharma, NHAI 3. Shri K Venkatramana, Member (PPP) *** Page 24 of 24