development of guidelines, standards and technical...

Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan

Final Consultative Workshop Report

Infra Africa (Pty) Ltd

ReCAP Reference number: AFG2155A

February 2020

ReCAP | Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan ii

Preferred citation: Pinard, M I., et al, Infra Africa (Pty) Ltd (2019). Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan, Inception Report, AFG2155A. London: ReCAP for DFID.

For further information, please contact: Mike Pinard, [email protected]

The views in this document are those of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Research for Community Access Partnership (ReCAP) or Cardno Emerging Markets (UK) Ltd for whom the document was prepared

Cover photo: Infra Africa (Pty) Ltd

Quality assurance and review table

Version Author(s) Reviewer(s) Date

1 M I Pinard and J Hongve M Abedin (ReCAP PMU) 29th February 2020

N Leta, ReCAP PMU 24th March 2020

2 M I Pinard M Abedin (ReCAP PMU) 27th March 2020

ReCAP Database Details: Development of Guidelines, Standards and Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan

Reference No: AFG2155A Location Home Base and Delhi, India for Workshops

Source of Proposal Infra Africa (Pty) Ltd Procurement Method Open Tender

Theme Infrastructure Sub-Theme Low Volume Rural Road Design

Lead Implementation Organisation

Infra Africa (Pty) Ltd Partner Organisation

Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD), Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Total Approved Budget GBP120,000.00 Total Used Budget GBP90,000.00

Start Date 16th September 2019 End Date 1st May 2020

Report Due Date 28th February 2020 Date Received 29th February 2020

ReCAP | Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan iii

Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... v Keywords .................................................................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... v Acronyms, Units and Currencies ............................................................................................................................... vi Executive summary .................................................................................................................................................. vii 1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Motivation for Project .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Project ................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Date and Venue of Workshop .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Workshop Objectives and Programme ................................................................................................................ 2 1.6 Workshop Attendance ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.7 Workshop Outputs ............................................................................................................................................... 3 1.8 Structure of Report .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Workshop Preliminaries ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Welcome and Opening Remarks .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Opening Remarks by MRRD ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Introduction of Workshop Participants ................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Workshop Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3 Workshop Presentations and Deliberations ...................................................................................................... 5 3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Outcome of Discussions on 1st Draft Guidelines .................................................................................................. 5 4 Site Visit ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Feedback from Site Visit ..................................................................................................................................... 10 5 Workshop Summary, Way Forward and Closure ............................................................................................. 11 5.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Workshop Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 11 5.3 Way Forward ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.4 ReCAP Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................................................... 12 5.5 Service Provider’s Closing Remarks .................................................................................................................... 12

Workshop Programme ........................................................................................................................... 13 Workshop Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 16

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Workshop participants ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2-1: Workshop structure ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 4-1: Workshop participants on PMGSY field trip ................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4-2: Cross section details of PMGSY roads ............................................................................................................ 11

Figure 4-3: Use of poor quality shoulder material ............................................................................................................ 11

Figure 4-5: Development of crocodile cracking and potholes .......................................................................................... 11

ReCAP | Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan iv

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Members of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) ....................................................................................... 4

ReCAP | Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan v

Abstract

The development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan has been identified as a priority project by the country’s Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD). The main goal of the project is to reduce poverty in rural areas by facilitating improved access to economic and social services for rural communities. This second and final Consultative Workshop Report presents the outcome of the discussions held, and agreements reached, at the workshop that was held in Bangalore, India from 24 – 27 February 2020.

Keywords

Low Volume Rural Roads, Rural Road Classification, Pavement Design, Geometric Design, Hydrology and Drainage, Road safety, Roadside Stabilisation.

Acknowledgements

The Consultants acknowledge the support provided by MRRD in providing the project documents sent via the National Project Coordinator.

Research for Community Access Partnership (ReCAP)

Safe and sustainable transport for rural communities

ReCAP is a research programme, funded by UK Aid, with the aim of promoting safe and sustainable transport for rural communities in Africa and Asia. ReCAP comprises the Africa Community Access Partnership (AfCAP) and the Asia Community Access Partnership (AsCAP). These partnerships support knowledge sharing between participating

countries in order to enhance the uptake of low cost, proven solutions for rural access that maximise the use of local resources. The ReCAP programme is managed by Cardno Emerging Markets (UK) Ltd.

www.research4cap.org

ReCAP | Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan vi

Acronyms, Units and Currencies

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials

ADT Average Daily Traffic

AsCAP Asia Community Access Partnership

DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

DFID Department for International Development

GoIRoA Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

IRC Indian Roads Congress

LVRR Low Volume Rural Road

MRRD Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development

NRIDA National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency

PMGSY Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana

PMU Project management Unit

ReCAP Research for Community Access Partnership

RRTM Rural Roads Technical Manual

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

ToC Table of Contents

ToR Terms of Reference

TSC Technical Steering Committee

UK United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

UKAid United Kingdom Aid (Department for International Development, UK)

WBM Water Bound Macadam

ReCAP | Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan vii

Executive summary

At the request of the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD) in Afghanistan, the UK Department for International Development (DFID), through the Research for Community Access Partnership (ReCAP), is supporting the development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in the country.

The project commenced on the 16th of September 2019, has a 33-week duration, and is scheduled for completion by the end of April 2020. The key activities in the work programme include the holding of 2 consultative workshops prior to finalising the LVRR guidelines.

The project is being carried out in six stages of which the first four stages have now been completed, namely:

1) The Project Inception, including the preparation of an Inception Report 2) The 1st Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, including the preparation of a Workshop Report 3) Preparation and submission of the Interim Progress Report 4) The 2nd (final) Consultative Workshop, including the preparation of a Workshop Report

The main objectives of the 2nd Stakeholder Consultation Workshop that was held in Bangalore, India were to: • Present the outcome of the First Draft of the Guideline to stakeholders. • Discuss and agree on the necessary updates and revisions of the contents of the First Draft

Guidelines. • Agree on the way forward to the remaining phases of the project.

On the third day of the workshop a site visit was made to two typical LVRRs that had been implemented in the outskirts of Bangalore under the PMGSY programme.

The workshop programme afforded an opportunity for members of the MRRD’s Technical Steering Committee (TSC) to consider the scope and content of each chapter of the two Guidelines that were presented to them and to provide feedback on their perceived adequacy for their purposes.

Following the Service Provider’s presentations of the various chapters in the First Draft Guidelines, wide-ranging discussions were held on them and general agreement reached on the necessary updates and revisions of their contents, as well as the timeline for submitting the future deliverables on the project.

ReCAP | Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan 1

1 Background

1.1 Background

As a result of decades of conflict, the road network in Afghanistan was largely destroyed. In recent years, however, with the help of various international partners, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GoIRoA) has launched major programmes for improving its road network. In support of this initiative, and based on the outcome of a scoping study that was carried out in 2017 under the auspices of the Asian Community Access Partnership (AsCAP), a research area that was identified as a priority for support was the Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan (hereafter referred to as the LVRR Guidelines).

Some of the key findings of the AsCAP scoping study that highlight some of the major challenges faced in the roads sector in Afghanistan are as follows:

• Although massive investments have been made in Afghanistan’s infrastructure over the past 15 years, 90% of transportation modes are unconnected and in poor condition.

• No nationwide mapping of roads has been completed.

• Road network lengths are estimates only.

• Ministerial capacity is lacking at every level to manage the current road network.

• Lack of proper design codes, lack of skilled labour, corruption and insecurity.

Other pertinent background information mentioned in the Afghanistan Transport Sector Master Plan Update (2017-2036) that will have a bearing on the development of the LVRR Guidelines includes:

• Afghanistan is characterized by varied geography, rugged terrain and dispersion of population over a large area which results in high transport costs.

• Afghanistan is struggling to provide a rudimentary transport network that would enable it to harness the country’s natural resources and connect scattered rural communities.

• The majority of Afghans, some 72%, live in rural areas where access to basic road infrastructure, services and markets remains unsatisfactory and adversely affects their incomes and quality of life.

• Rehabilitation, reconstruction and maintenance of the tertiary road network using labour-based techniques to facilitate employment creation is a priority.

• Traffic safety on Afghanistan’s roads has emerged as a serious problem.

• Afghanistan’s transport sector is vulnerable to climate change impacts. Thus, climate change adaption and climate proofing are viewed as key priorities.

1.2 Motivation for Project

From the above, it is apparent that GoIRoA faces a massive challenge in fulfilling one of its key developmental goals - reducing poverty in rural areas by facilitating improved access to economic and social services for rural communities. However, one of the limiting factors to the attainment of this goal is the lack of appropriate technical standards, specifications and design Guidelines for LVRRs. For this reason, within the remit of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between AsCAP and the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD), AsCAP is providing support for the Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads (LVRR) in Afghanistan.

The new guidelines will, as far as possible, retain those aspects of the existing MRRD documents that are relevant for application to LVRRs. In addition, they will address those gaps that have been identified from the evaluation of the existing MRRD documents to produce new, self-standing guidelines that will supersede the existing ones.


1.3 Scope of Project

The project is being carried out in six stages with related activities as indicated below:

Stage 1: Project Inception 1.1: Undertake Literature Review 1.2: Prepare and submit the Inception Report 1.3: MRRD/PMU review of Inception Report

Stage 2: 1st Stakeholder Workshop

2.1: Hold 1st Stakeholder Consultation Workshop 2.2: Prepare and submit the Stakeholder Consultation Workshop Report

Stage 3: Interim Progress Report

3.1: Prepare and submit Interim Progress Report Stage 4: 1st Draft Guideline, Standards and Specifications

4.1: Prepare and submit 1st Draft Guidelines, Standards and Specifications 4.2: MRRD/PMU review of 1st Draft Guidelines, Standards and Specifications 4.3: Hold 2nd (Final) Stakeholder Consultation Workshop 4.4: Prepare and submit Final Stakeholder Consultation Workshop Report

Stage 5: Final Draft of Guideline, Standards and Specifications 5.1: Prepare the final draft of Guideline, Standards and Specifications on LVRRs 5.2: MRRD/PMU review of the final draft of Guideline, Standards and Specifications on LVRRs

Stage 6: Production of Final Guideline, Standards and Specifications 6.1: Prepare final Guideline, Standards and Specifications on LVRRs 6.2: Undertake Desktop publishing of final Guideline, Standards and Specifications on LVRRs 6.3: Undertaking to print and provide USBs of final Guideline, Standards and Specifications on LVRRs

The submission of this 2nd Stakeholder Consultation Workshop Report marks the completion of Stage 4 of the project.

1.4 Date and Venue of Workshop

The 4-day workshop was held from Monday 24th to Thursday 27th February 2020, 3 weeks later than originally scheduled due to the deferment of the 1st Consultative Workshop which was caused by high levels of air pollution that prevailed in Delhi in early November 2019.

The venue for the workshop was the Hilton Embassy Golflinks Hotel in Bangalore, India.

1.5 Workshop Objectives and Programme

The main objectives of the 2nd Stakeholder Consultation Workshop were to: • Orally present the First Draft Guideline to stakeholders.

• Discuss and agree on the contents of the Guidelines and necessary updates and revisions of their content to be included in the Final Draft Guidelines.

• Conduct a site visit to two typical LVRRs constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY or Prime Minister’s Rural Roads Scheme) to discuss aspects of the PMGSY roads which could be of relevance to the Afghanistan environment.

• Agree on the way forward to the remaining phases of the project.

The workshop programme is presented in Annex A.


1.6 Workshop Attendance

The following organisations participated in the workshop:

1) MRRD – All 7 members of the TSC (see Table 2-1 below). 2) ReCAP PMU – Nkululeko Leta 3) AsCAP Asia Technical Manager – Maysam Abedin 4) ReCAP Technical Panel – Dr. Subhamay Gangopadhyay 5) Cardno – Daniel Ackers – Programme Manager (Days 1 and 2) 6) Service Provider’s project team – Messrs. Mike Pinard (Team Leader) and Jon Hongve (Senior Author),

John Rolt (Senior Author), Phil Paige-Green (Materials Specialist), Hubrecht Ribbens (Road Safety Specialist).

Figure 1-1: Workshop participants

1.7 Workshop Outputs

The main outputs of the workshop include a consolidated list of comments that emanated from deliberations amongst stakeholders following the Service Provider’s presentation of the First Draft Guidelines; agreement on the remaining stages of the programme, including the dates for submission of written comments by the TSC, and submission of the Final Draft Guideline for final review by the TSC and PMU.

1.8 Structure of Report

This Final Stakeholder Consultation Workshop Report documents the outcome of the workshop proceedings and is structured as follows:

Section 1 (this section): Provides the background to the project and the details of the workshop.

Section 2: Presents the workshop preliminaries including the welcome remarks made by representatives of the stakeholder organisations, as well as the outline of the workshop process and programme for the workshop.

Section 3: Summarises the outcome of the deliberations on the various chapters of the Guidelines, some 33 in all, that was presented to the workshop participants, and the agreements reached on the manner of addressing the TSC comments.


Section 4: Presents the outline details of the two PMGSY roads visited, and the outcome of the feedback discussions on them.

Section 5: Summarises the main outcomes of the workshop and the agreed way forward to the next stages of the project.

2 Workshop Preliminaries

2.1 Welcome and Opening Remarks

The welcome and opening remarks were made by Nkululeko Leta, the ReCAP Deputy Team Leader - Infrastructure Research Manager, and may be summarised as follows:

• Thanks to all participants for coming to the workshop, despite the challenges posed by the Coronavirus.

• Special thanks to the entire team from MRRD who have made it to the workshop.

• Welcome also to the member of the Technical Panel, Dr. Subhamay Gangopadhyay.

• Looking forward to the full participation of the MRRD Technical Steering Committee (TSC) in the discussion on the 1st Draft Guidelines.

• Need for the TSC members to interact with the experts and take advantage of their presence at the workshop.

• Afghanistan is an integral member of the ReCAP family and the MRRD has an important role to play on all ReCAP-supported projects, including the on-going LVRR Guidelines project.

He concluded his opening remarks by stressing the importance of all participants engaging fully and constructively in the workshop deliberations.

2.2 Opening Remarks by MRRD

The opening remarks by MRRD were made by Eng. Javid Ahmid Shirzad, Technical Adviser to the Minister and Deputy Program Director of Regional Programs. His remarks may be summarised as follows:

§ Special thanks to DFID and to ReCAP for supporting the LVRR Guidelines project.

§ There was a need to translate the Guidelines into local languages.

§ He hoped the workshop would be a productive one.

The members of the MRRD’s TSC who are participating in the workshop are listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Members of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC)

Name Designation Javid Ahmid Shirzad Technical Adviser to the Minister and Deputy Program Director of

Regional Programs Ziaulhaq Pashwak Road and Bridge Engineer Allah Mohammad Khairkhwah Infrastructure Specialist

Mohammed Khalid Mayar Road Design Engineer

Sayid Karim Wardak Chief Technical Project Engineer

Ahmad Amal Din Technical M & E Specialist

Ebadullah Sultana Road and Bridge Engineer


2.3 Introduction of Workshop Participants

Following MRRD’s opening remarks, the chairperson for the workshop, Maysam Abedin, requested all participants to introduce themselves. A total of 17 persons participated in the workshop.

2.4 Workshop Structure

The workshop structure is illustrated in Figure 2-2 which is self-explanatory. It was designed to be as interactive as possible and to facilitate interaction between the TSC and the Service Provider’s team as well as encourage discussion both during and after any presentation. The workshop also included a site visit to some typical PMGSY roads.

Figure 2-1: Workshop structure

3 Workshop Presentations and Deliberations

3.1 General

PowerPoint presentations were made by the Service Provider on each of the chapters in the Guideline, which were followed by a discussion period during which either clarifications were sought or comments made by the TSC members. On that basis, an agreement was reached on a consolidated list of comments to be taken into account in the updating of the Guidelines, as summarised below:

3.2 Outcome of Discussions on 1st Draft Guidelines

3.2.1 Volume 1 – Pavement Design

General - TSC sees a need for the Guidelines (GLs) to be translated into local languages(s). Matter to be

taken up with Cardno for their consideration.

- TSC confirmed that the GLs are to be used on a day-to-day basis by practitioners, as well as a reference document.


- Need to mention that the GLs will replace current MRRD documents on various aspects of LVRR provision.

- TSC to provide high-resolution photos for the front covers of the GLs by 10th March 2020. Agreed that the MRRD logo will be retained at the bottom left-hand corner of the front cover.

- The Service Provider (SP) to ensure complete and consistent sourcing of all tables throughout GL.

- SP to ensure that language is authoritative but easy to understand and in simple English and avoids terms that may be difficult to understand in Afghanistan.

- GL to be written in US English.

- National legal axle load limits appear too high for use on LVRRs. Need for TSC to confirm what they are and how they will be enforced on LVRRs. TSC to provide the SP with a copy of the current vehicle load limits in Afghanistan.

- SP to ensure that all figures conform with right-hand side driving in Afghanistan.

- SP to remove or blur all photos with identifiable faces on them, as well as any photos showing foreign army personnel.

- The following road classes proposed by the TSC will be included in the GLs:

Class 1: LVRR1 <50 Class2: LVRR2 50 - 150 Class 3: LVRR3 150 - 250 Class 4: LVRR4 250 - 350 Class 5: LVRR5 >350

- All table headings with road classes are to comply with the above road classes. Chapter 1 – Overview - No significant comments

Chapter 2 – Approach to Design - No significant comments

Chapter 3 – Physical Environment - SP to obtain soil maps from Geonode website: http://disasterrisk.af or from Afghanistan GIS

System.

- TSC uncertain as to whether calcrete occurs in Afghanistan. Agreed to use the term “calcareous soils”.

- SP to explain terms Thornthwaite Index and N value in footnote and to include in Glossary of Terms.

Chapter 4 – Site Investigations - No significant comments

Chapter 5 – Geotechnical Investigations and Design - Retain section on Roadside Slope Stabilisation but emphasise in Introduction that aim is to

provide broad guidance only and recourse to more detailed texts and references may be necessary.

- SP to modify/explain the statement that Fill Slopes should not be constructed on slopes above 30 degrees and add source.

- SP to explain when to use retaining walls rather than fill slopes.


Chapter 6 – Materials - SP to discuss implications of permeability on design and to include permeability values for

different material types; Cross-ref to Ch. 9.

- SP to provide a reference for sample sizes required for various tests (in accordance with standard test method requirements).

- SP to explain shaded area in Ternary Diagram.

Chapter 7 – Traffic - SP to indicate how to derive AADT from ADT figures.

- SP to provide reference for seasonal adjustments of ADT.

- TSC agreed to retain the Vehicle Classification System with additional classes which is based on the international classification system.

- SP to recheck examples for calculation of VEF

Chapter 8 – Hydrology and Drainage - SP to include the SCS method which accommodates larger catchment areas than Rational method.

- Manning’s equation needs to be numbered. Use hydraulic radius rather than depth.

- Minimum size of a circular culvert to be 750mm.

- Agreed that Figure 8-13 adequately illustrates the procedure for selecting different types of water crossing structures. Reference to be to Ethiopia Manual Part E – Design Manual for Small Structures which deals in great detail with drainage issues.

- Agreed that culvert design nomographs are self-explanatory and do not need to be amplified.

- Agreed to use term long bridge (more costly) instead of long-span bridge.

- Noted that the GL does not deal with the design of bridges – reference text to be given.

Chapter 9 – Drainage and Erosion Control - Regarding the TSC query on the appropriateness of minimum longitudinal Gradient of 0.5% for

side drains, SP will clarify that 2% longitudinal gradient is desirable unless topography does not allow. Can also raise formation; install capillary cut-off; use of equalizing culverts in flat areas to allow water to move either way. Add more mitre drains leading to soakaways.

- SP to Explain the means of protection of downstream culverts on steep slopes.

Chapter 10 – Structural Design – Paved Roads - SP to add cross-section profile of pavement structure with layer values;

- SP to standardize use of term NG (natural gravel) in all tables.

Chapter 11: Structural Design: Unpaved Roads - SP to mention unpaved roads typically expected to carry up to 150 vpd only, but don’t change

table for LVRR5;

- SP to include the Treton Test and the Linear Shrinkage details in Annex.

- SP to consider the impact of frost action and freeze-thaw on gravel roads and remedial measures.

- Fig 11-6 Performance of unpaved road materials – subgrade strength in mountain passes important?? Clarify issues with TSC as subgrade is likely to be typically relatively strong.

- Keep G45 table for strong gravel for the time being.


Chapter 12: Surfacing - SP to indicate when to use different types of discrete/non-discrete surfacings in terms of

advantages/disadvantages; also, indicate life span for discrete/non-discrete surfacings.

- SP to add concrete strip design and concrete slab design with important construction details. Cross-ref to C & CA document on LVR Concrete roads.

- SP to consider concrete thickness in relation to climate (hot/cold) and subgrade strength in relation to frost action?? Address in the section on freeze-thaw – applies to all types of pavements – rigid/non-rigid.

Chapter 13 – Life-cycle Costing: - SP to explain the determination of discount factor for a particular year in simple language. Use

6% or 12% instead of 8% in example.

- SP to include a section on Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) in chapter 13 (remove from chapter 3 – Route Selection, in Geometric Design GL.

- SP to explain the difference between economic and financial analysis, explain real prices (economic) vs nominal prices (financial).

- SP to consider changing title of chapter to reflect broader contents now included.

Chapter 14 – Practical Considerations: - SP to emphasise implications of overloading Ch. 14 – Practical Considerations, citing a typical

example of say overloading by 2 tons;

- SP to remove term labour “in” labour “out” and rephrase;

- SP to add a section on cross-section in sand dune areas, including aerodynamic profile, sand traps or catch fences;

- In the section on maintenance, SP to mention a desirable approach of ensuring dedicated component in project sum allocation for maintenance as on PMGSY roads.

3.2.2 Volume 2 – Part A: Geometric Design Chapter 1 – Overview - No significant comments

Chapter 2 – Approach to Design - No significant comments Chapter 3 – Route Selection and Design Considerations - The section on MCA to be removed to Ch. 13 – Life-Cycle Costing

- SP to indicate in the chapter that either MCA or monetized approach can be used for screening alternative alignments.

- SP to consider alignment in sand dune areas – aerodynamic profile.

Chapter 4 – Traffic - SP to explain the derivation of Car Equivalent Factor (CEF) and source. Explain why CEF rather

than PCU is used.

Chapter 5 – Traffic: Cross Section - Keep Table 5-1, but revise Traffic bands.


Chapter 6 – Alignment - Design speed and operating speed only to be considered – not permissible speed.

- Passing Sight Distance to be based on the abort option.

- Two parameters to be considered for gradient: max gradient 10% and length of the gradient.

3.2.3 Volume 2 – Part B: Road Safety

Chapter 1 – Overview - No significant comments

Chapter 2 – Approach to Road Safety - SP noted that independent Road Safety Audits not currently carried out in Afghanistan.

- SP to try and obtain IRC Safety During Construction to include a reference.

Chapter 3 – Factors Affecting Road Safety - SP to mention the use of road safety barriers where appropriate

- SP to indicate the use of humps 6 – 8 m from a main road

- Safety during winter – maintenance issue. SP to mention the use of marker poles to guide drivers, clearing of snow, use of salt to de-ice – why? Lowers freezing point.

- SP to replace “black spot” with “critical points”

Chapter 4 - Operational Aspects - TSC to provide Traffic Sign Regulations.

Chapter 5 – Education and Road safety - No significant comments, except for removal or blurring of any photos with identifiable faces in

them (applies to all chapters in both the Volume 1 and Volume 2 Guidelines).

3.2.4 Way Forward

Programme

- TSC to provide comments on the current version of GL by 10 March 2020 for incorporation in updated GLs.

- Updated GLs to be submitted to TSC by w/e 03 April and TSC to provide final comments by w/e 17th April 2020.

7) Remaining timeline for final deliverables to be discussed with the AsCAP Regional Technical Manager – Maysam Abedin

4 Site Visit

4.1 General

By courtesy of the Technical Director of the National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency (NRIDA), Dr. I.K.Pateriya, a visit was made to two typical PMGSY roads that are located in rural areas of Bangalore. The workshop participants were met by PMGSY representatives on site and were briefed on the technical details of the roads being visited. About one hour was spent at each site and this afforded the participants an excellent opportunity to discuss a number of issues pertaining to the pavement and geometric design and road safety aspects of the roads.


Figure 4-1: Workshop participants on PMGSY field visit

4.2 Feedback from Site Visit

The feedback discussions on the site visit focused on the efficacy of the typical cross-section details of PMGSY roads as presented in Figure 4-2:

Figure 4-2: Typical cross section details of PMGSY road

Some of the key observations made from the site visit include:

• The use of unsealed earth/gravel shoulders of poor quality (soaked CBR < 15%) (Figure 4-3) over relatively poor subgrade support which could lead to:

o Deformation of the shoulder area adjacent to the paved carriageway.

o Development of a depression (“bird bath”) adjacent to the carriageway (Figure 4-4) which allows water to collect in it after rainfall and to subsequently infiltrate into the outer wheel track of the carriageway, generally leading to rutting, cracking, development of potholes, etc. (actually noticed on site – see Figure 4-5).

• The use of a too-narrow carriageway (3.75m) (LVRR1 traffic class) for a 15-year design traffic loading of 1 MESA which could lead to:

o Development of edge-break, edge drop, and deformation of the trafficked shoulder area adjacent to the carriageway. This is likely to lead to water collecting in the depression and to then infiltrate in the outer wheel track of the carriageway, leading to rutting, crocodile cracking and eventually potholing (actually noticed on site – see Figure 4-5).


o The use of a constant carriageway width (3.75 m), regardless of the design traffic loading, i.e. the carriageway width should increase as the design traffic loading increases. In other words, there should be a number of traffic classes within a traffic range up to 1 MESA).

• The efficacy of using a Macadam type pavement rather than a crusher-run material (approximately USD2000.00/km more expensive than water bound macadam) which, from international experience, offered potential economic benefits (reduced roughness, scope for using a bituminous surface treatment rather than a generally more expensive premix AC carpet, etc. and, ultimately, offering lower life cycle costs).

• Lack of edge road markings on a relatively narrow road – a significant road safety shortcoming.

In summary, the site visit and subsequent feedback discussions were very instructive in terms of the variety of technical issues that were observed on site and actually addressed in the LVRR Guidelines in terms of good and poor design practice.

5 Workshop Summary, Way Forward and Closure

5.1 Summary

Based on the deliberations arising from the presentation of the 1st Draft Guidelines described above, the outcome of the workshop may be summarised as follows:

• The workshop provided an excellent opportunity for the key stakeholder parties to comment on, discuss and get clarifications on the contents of the First Draft Guideline.

• The views of the TSC were noted and will be taken into account, together with the written comments, in preparing the Final Draft Guidelines.

• The site visit to the PMGSY roads was very informative in showcasing an approach to LVRR provision, aspects of which could be considered for emulation in Afghanistan.

• All copies of the PowerPoint presentations will be shared with the TSC coordinator.

5.2 Workshop Evaluation

At the end of the workshop, the participants were asked to evaluate the presentations, discussions and field visits. The results of the evaluation are presented in Annex D. A recurring comment that was repeatedly mentioned was that the workshop duration was too short to allow all the issues that were included in the 1st Draft Guidelines to be adequately addressed. In terms of specific issues relating to the workshop, the views expressed by participants are summarised below:


(a) How could the workshop have been improved?

• Extend the duration of workshop/longer workshop/not enough time/more time for discussions • More site visits.

(b) What did you like about the workshop?

• Technical education obtained from the discussion of chapters/Technical discussions on LVRRs. • Good workshop facility

(c) Any other comments you wish to make on the workshop?

• More time required for finalising chapters/time too short/longer workshops. • More site visits and exposure to the construction of LVRRs. • Further technical review required before finalising Guidelines/more technical review required. • Some presentations were not adequate for issues discussed/Some information not sourced. • Prepare Guidelines according to Afghanistan Guidelines.

5.3 Way Forward

In terms of the way forward, the following was agreed:

- The TSC to provide comments on the 1st Draft Guidelines by 10 March 2020 for incorporation in updated GLs.

- The updated GLs to be submitted to the PMU and TSC by w/e 03 April and the TSC to provide

final comments by w/e 17th April 2020.

5.4 ReCAP Closing Remarks

The ReCAP closing remarks were made by the AsCAP Regional Technical Manager – Maysam Abedin and may be summarised as follows:

• The workshop deliberations were very informative and a large number of issues were discussed and agreements reached on the way forward.

• The feedback provided by the TSC was above average and they must be commended for their contributions to the discussions.

• The need for a 4-day workshop, although not originally envisaged, was justified.

• Thanks to the TSC and the SP for engaging in a constructive manner during the workshop proceedings.

5.5 Service Provider’s Closing Remarks

The Service Provider’s closing remarks were made by the Team Leader, Mike Pinard, and may be summarised as follows:

• Thanks to the TSC for their valuable comments which will be taken into account in producing the updated version of the 1st Draft Guideline.

• He hoped that the TSC now had a better appreciation of the alternatives to the AASHTO method of design which, although commonly used in Afghanistan, has been shown from research evidence to be generally inappropriate for the design of LVRRs.

• Looked forward to receiving the remaining written comments from the TSC on the 1st Draft Guideline by 10th March 2020.


Workshop Programme

Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications for Low Volume Rural Roads in Afghanistan

Final Stakeholder Workshop

Programme

Day 1: Monday 24 February, 2020

08.45 – 09.00 - Registration of Participants

09.00 – 09.20 - Welcome and Opening Remarks - ReCAP Representative

- MRRD Representative 09.20 – 09.30 - Introduction of Participants

09.30 – 09.40 - Workshop Structure, Objectives and Programme - Infra Africa

Low Volume Rural Roads Guideline and Standards – Volume 1: Pavement Design 09.40– 10.00 - Chapter 1: Overview

Discussion 10.00 – 10.30 - Chapter 2: Approach to Design Discussion 10.30 – 11.00 - Coffee/Tea Break

11.00 – 11.45 - Chapter 3 – Physical Environment Discussion

11.45 – 12.30 - Chapter 4 - Site Investigations Discussion

12.30 – 13.30 - Lunch 13.30– 14.15 - Chapter 5 – Geotechnical Investigations and Design Discussion 14.15– 15.00 - Chapter 6 – Materials Discussions 15.00– 15.30 - Chapter 7 – Traffic Discussions 15.30 – 16.00 - Coffee/Tea Break

16.00 – 16.45 - Chapter 8 – Hydrology and Drainage Discussion 16.45– 17.30 - Chapter 9 – Drainage and Erosion Control Discussion 17.30 End of Day 1


Day 2: Tuesday 25 February, 2020

08.45 – 10.00 - Chapter 10 – Structural Design: Paved Roads Discussion

10.00 – 10.45 - Chapter 11 – Structural Design: Unpaved Roads Discussion 10.45 – 11.15 Coffee/Tea Break 11.15 – 12.00 - Chapter 12 – Surfacing Discussion 12.00 – 12.45 - Chapter 13 – Life-cycle costing Discussion 12.45 – 13.45 - Lunch 13.45 – 14.30 - Chapter 14 – Practical Considerations Discussion

14.30 – 14.45 - Wrap-up Discussions on Volume 1 – Pavement Design

Low Volume Rural Roads Guideline and Standards – Volume 2: Part A - Geometric Design 14.45 – 15.05 - Chapter 1 – Overview Discussion 15.05 – 15.30 - Chapter 2 – Approach to Design Discussion 15.30 – 16.00 Coffee/Tea Break 16.00 – 16.45 - Chapter 3 – Fundamental Design Considerations Discussion 16.45 – 17.15 - Chapter 4 – Traffic Discussion 17.15 End of Day 2

************************************

Day 3: Wednesday 26 February, 2020 08.30 – 16.30 Field trip to PMGSY LVRRs Day 4: Thursday 27 February, 2020


08.45 – 09.30 - Chapter 5 – Cross Section Discussion 09.30 – 10.15 - Chapter 6 – Alignment Discussion 10.15 – 10.45 - Coffee/Tea Break 10.45 – 11.00 - Chapter 7 – Design Standards Discussion 11.00 – 11.15 - Wrap-up Discussions on Volume 2: Part A - Geometric Design Low Volume Rural Roads Guideline and Standards – Volume 2: Part B – Road Safety 11.15 – 12.05 - Chapter 1 – Overview Discussion

12.05 – 12.30 - Chapter 2 – Approach to Road Safety Discussion 12.45 – 13.45 - Lunch

13.45 – 14.30 - Chapter 3 – Factors Affecting Road Safety Discussion

14.30 – 15.15 - Chapter 4 – Operational Aspects Discussion 15.15 – 15.45 - Chapter 5 – Education and Road Safety Discussion 15.45 – 16.00 - Coffee/Tea Break 15.15 – 15.45 - Wrap-up Discussions on Volume 2: Part B – Road Safety 15.45 – 16.15 - General Wrap-up Discussions/Way Forward (All participants) 16.15 – 16.45 - Closing Remarks/Workshop Closure Recap MRRD Infra Africa 16.45 - End of Workshop


Workshop Evaluation Development of Guidelines, Standards and Technical Specifications

for Low Volume Rural Roads in Afghanistan 2nd Stakeholder Consultation Workshop

Hilton Embassy Golf Links Hotel, February 2020 EVALUATION FORM

Please fill in this evaluation form so we can learn from your experience and opinions. Tick the cells as appropriate. The feedback you provide will remain anonymous.

Item to be Evaluated Fully

Agree

Agree Partially

Agree

1. Presentations

(a) The presenters’ delivery and conduct of the workshop session in terms of level of discussions and interaction with the participants was satisfactory

5 1

(b) The presenters provided adequate information on the proposed chapters of the LVRR Guidelines 1 5

(c) There was adequate time for discussion on the contents of each chapter of the LVRR Guidelines. 6

2. Filed Trip

(a) The field trip and discussions on site were informative and useful. 3 3

(b) The feedback discussions on the field visit were useful. 4 2

3. Organisation

(a) The logistical arrangements for attending the workshop were satisfactory. 6

(b) The organisation of the workshop was satisfactory 6

4. Venue

(a) The hotel accommodation and facilities were satisfactory 5 1

(b) The workshop facilities were satisfactory 5 1

How could the workshop have been improved? (1) Extend the duration of workshop/longer workshop/not enough time/more time for discussions (2) More site visits.

What did you like about the workshop? (1) Technical education obtained from the discussion of chapters/Technical discussions on LVRRs. (2) Good workshop facility

Any other comments you wish to make on the workshop? (1) More time required for finalising chapters/time too short/longer workshops. (2) More site visits and exposure to the construction of LVRRs. (3) Further technical review required before finalising Guidelines/more technical review required. (4) Some presentations were not adequate for issues discussed/Some information not sourced. (5) Prepare Guidelines according to Afghanistan Guidelines.

development of guidelines, standards and technical...

Documents