Relooking at project

implementation and costs of

street projects
Healthy Streets Capacity Development Workshop 01
7th July 2022, Bangalore
Street project implementation issues

u Most street projects entail brownfield development with existing

underground utilities
u Key decision and balance lies in retrofitting, shifting or laying new
utilities (only where required) which has major impact on project cost
u Fine balance needs to be sought between Usability and Aesthetics
u Costs of retrofitting of streets need to be critically reviewed to make
projects cost effective for higher implementation in Tier 2, 3 cities
within limited resources
u Durability of materials with Strict Supervision for street projects very
important to provide service life of 12 -15 years without maintenance
Existing Electrical cables, Water Supply Lines, OFC Cables, Sewer, Storm lines
MAPPING OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND RELOCATION, RELAYING OF UTILITIES WHICH ARE
REALLY ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO CONTROL PROJECT COSTS
TYPICAL LAYOUT OF UTILITIES UNDER THE ROAD – RELOCATION/
NEW UTILITY LAYING TO BE VERY THOUGHTFULLY PLANNED
Photo

• Most street projects disturb

existing storm drainage pattern
due to raised walkways

• Survey & mapping of individual

property and levels

• Storm Water arrangement &

individual property connectivity

• Proper study may help in avoiding

complete new lines
Construction Process -Supervision and
Quality Control
u Strict Supervision of Street projects is most important to achieve
good workmanship and sustain the infrastructure for 12-15 years
u Poor/ neglected supervision reduces service life and usability of
infrastructure drastically
u Strict Control on concrete, mortar Mix – W/C ratio, Cement & Fly ash
content
u Maintaining Line and Level in street works- Consultant/ Client
Engineers role is crucial in rejection of poor work
u Standardized SoR, Construction guidelines and frequent training
workshops for Client, Contractor and Consultant Engineers
 POOR WORKMANSHIP
ACCEPTED BY CONSULTANT AND CLIENT ??
Major problems observed in Street and
Footpath works
u Poor quality of MORTAR- Mostly unchecked (1:3 mortar ???????)
u Poor curing for the Kerb joints and other footpath works
u Poor / complete Lack of supervision
u Poor compaction, lack of edge support to concrete blocks on all sides
u Poor finishing around utility chambers
u Poor concrete Grade (M20 instead of M30 at critical locations)
u Neglected Workmanship issues by Contractor, Consultant and CLIENT
u Unfortunately most Footpath / Street works do not last for more than 4
to 5 years
Poor ramp work

1. Poor concrete quality

2. Poor curing
3. Neglected Supervision from
Contractor/ Consultant/ Client
Properly finished and cured concrete RAMP
Poor finishing around
Trees using small blocks
Proper finishing using properly designed &
executed Kerb Blocks
Very poor finishing at corners,
Kerb – Lack of supervision, site control
Superior and longer lasting
finishing using appropriate design
elements and enforcing strict
supervision control
Poor supervision, Poor construction- VERY POOR MORTAR QUALITY
Poor supervision, Poor construction, Poor
workmanship around Utility Chambers
Proper supervision,
workmanship,
finishing of
Chambers with
proper design
elements
Poor Tree Grating, Poor Finishing around trees
Properly fitted Tree gratings
With strict supervision
Poor finishing or poor placement of
street furniture
Properly planned and executed street
Furniture
Same Utility trench required to
be filled 2 to 3 times-
POOR CONSTRUCTION procedure,
poor SUPERVISON
Trench filling with adequate watering, compaction and finishing at grade
Poor location and
Fixing of Trash Bins
on pedestrian space
Steel mesh
around
utility chambers
USE OF WALKBEHIND ROLLER FOR COMPACTIONOF NARROW AREAS
Street work execution strategies & Cost
aspects- Tier 1 cities
u Ongoing street works can be grouped into 3 Types
based on the execution method/ strategy
u Type A Street works – Complete reconstruction with
all utilities
u TypeB Street works – Partial reconstruction with
some utilities (most common)
u Type C Street works – Minimum reconstruction,
maximum utilization of existing infrastructure
without utility work
 DURING EXECUTION AFTER EXECUTION

• TYPE A STREET WORKS – COMPLETE REMOVAL OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECONSTRUCTION

FOCUSSING ON UTILITIES, AESTHETICS, USABILITY AND CARRIAGEWAY WORK

• WORK INCLUDES FULL ROAD CRUST, NEW UTILITIES, NEW FOOTPATHS & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES,
NEW STREET FURNITURE AFTER DISCARDING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

• TYPICAL COSTING PER KM FOR 18 M WIDE STREET- Rs. 17.50 Cr , RATE PER SQM – Rs. 9700
 DURING EXECUTION AFTER EXECUTION

• TYPE B STREET WORKS – PARTIAL USE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND REDEVELOPMENT

FOCUSING ON USABILITY AND ALSO ON AESTHETICS

• WORK INCLUDES NEW FOOTPATH WORK, PARTIAL UTILITY RELOCATION, NEW STREET FURNITURE

• TYPICAL COSTING PER KM FOR 18 M WIDE STREET- Rs. 10.80 Cr , RATE PER SQM – Rs. 6000
 DURING EXECUTION AFTER EXECUTION

• TYPE C STREET WORKS – MAXIMUM USE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOCUSING ON USABILITY ONLY

• WORK INCLUDES PROVISION OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES USING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

WITHOUT ANY AUGMENTATION OF UTILITIES & WITHOUT ANY WORK OF CARRIGEWAY

• TYPICAL COSTING PER KM FOR 18 M WIDE STREET- Rs. 6.50 Cr , RATE PER SQM – Rs. 3600
Primary reasons for higher cost of Street works

u Discarding existing infrastructure, material & instead procuring new material

u Integration of utilities with street work resulting in unwarranted utilities
demanded by concerned utility Departments
u Integration of carriageway/ crust development work in street project
u Costly street furniture items
u Focus on street aesthetics resulting is costly surface material requirement
u Planning and Design plays an important role in cost reduction – Better &
maximum utilization of available infrastructure required
u By adopting suitable execution strategy, 35 % to 60 % Saving (compared with
ongoing street projects) can be achieved for large scale implementation
Typical Street project cost breakup (Type B)
% of Total Per sqm
Sr Item description
Cost Cost effect
1 Main Carriageway work 9.30 562.96
2 Cross utilities, Storm, Water, Sewer 21.47 1292.40
3 Electrical utility work, Street Light 18.69 1128.68
4 OFC future utility pipes & chambers 13.51 815.76
5 Footpath, Kerb, base, surfacing work 15.71 935.27
6 Street Furniture 6.41 377.25
7 Road marking and signage 6.07 362.21
8 Ancillary civil works 7.59 453.71
9 Arboriculture Items 0.31 18.63
10 Design fees 0.92 55.56
Total 100 6002.44
Excess unwarranted excavation

Unwarranted excavation of existing

infrastructure results in 6 to 8 % increase
of project cost
 Concrete work/ PCC under walkway

Concrete work under pedestrian walkways, footpaths

results in 3 % increase of project cost
Extra/ oversize utility lines

Provision of extra size, extra numbers and unwarranted

utilities under the street project results in
8 to 10 % increase of project cost
Utilization of existing kerb, concrete blocks

Utilization of existing available good quality kerb and paver

blocks results in saving 4.5 to 6 % of project cost
Minimizing carriageway resurfacing work

Utilization of existing road surface with minor patchwork

results in 8 to 9 % saving in project cost
Percentage distribution of street length
(width wise)
u Typical distribution of street widths in Tier 1 City
u 48 % streets less than 9 m
u 22 % streets between 9 to 12 m
u 22 % streets between 12 m- 24 m
u Only 8 % streets above 24 m

u Tier 2, 3 cities, smaller towns have majority streets

below 12 m – Approx. 80 to 85 %
u Approx 4.50 lakh Km streets below 12 m width
Pedestrian facilities for narrow streets (Tier
2 cities, smaller towns)
u Low cost / sustainable options for narrow streets
u Primary objective of street development for narrow streets
should be
u Providing safe walking space by physical division between
vehicles & pedestrians through raised footpath
u Focus on direct walking connectivity on and between
streets, with usability aspect rather than aesthetics
u Explore low cost/ longer lasting material options to
minimize the construction cost
Typical pedestrian elements proposed
for narrow width streets
Raised
Footpath/ Vehicular
Street Pedestrian
Walkway on Carriageway
Width (m) Walkway width
Single/ Both side (m)
(m)
7.0 2.0 Single 5.0
9.0 2.5 Single 6.5
12.0 3.0 + 3.0 Both 6.0
15.0 3.0 + 3.0 Both 9.0
7 m wide local street 7 m wide local street
Without pedestrian walkway with walkway, road marking,
Signage
9 m wide local street 9 m wide local street
Without pedestrian walkway with pedestrian walkway, road
marking and signages
FUNCTIONAL EXAMPLE OF 9 M WIDE LOCAL STREET
WITH MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Sample 12 m wide local street 12 m wide local street with
Without pedestrian walkway pedestrian walkway signage
Summary of Cost for basic pedestrian
facilities
Cost of pedestrian
Street Construction
facility per Km
Width (m) rate (per sqm)
(Rs Crore)
7.0 0.70 1000
9.0 0.80 890
12.0 1.60 1300
15.0 1.60 1100
Some key issues in narrow street
development- To be addressed

u Non shifting / non provision of utilities may require excavation

at some locations in a few years
u Better & continued enforcement measures required to avoid
encroachments on streets especially parking of two wheelers etc
u Street work will not be visually appealing due to non inclusion of
street furniture, superior surface finishing items
u Resistance to development of raised footpaths due to removal of
parking spaces on narrow streets
YES- SOME UTILTY WORKS CAN BE SKIPPED

Footpath work completed 9 years ago (2013) –

Installation of water supply utility and reinstatement in 2022
Operation and Maintenance of the Street
projects
u Operation & maintenance upkeep of Street projects is most important to
provide maximum benefits to end user over extended period
u Basic items such as road markings, kerb painting, soft area and
plantation watering, trimming and maintenance, minor patch repairs to
be included in BoQ and tender for a period of at least 5 years
u Proper arrangement for watering of plantation in the form of underground
tanks, drip pipes, rain water harvesting arrangement, or use of waste
water from treatment plants
u Subsequently separate maintenance tender by clubbing multiple street
work can be implemented with these minor items
NEED TO LOOK AT CONVENIENCE & USABILITY
Thank You