1 / 14

Georgia Secondary and Local Roads Project

Georgia Secondary and Local Roads Project. “Reconciling Growth and Poverty Impact Objectives in Rural Roads Selection”. Situation in Rural Roads Sector in Georgia. Traffic volumes a fraction of that in the early 1990s Extreme rural poverty (30%) linked to collapsed infrastructure

rio
Download Presentation

Georgia Secondary and Local Roads Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Georgia Secondary and Local Roads Project “Reconciling Growth and Poverty Impact Objectives in Rural Roads Selection”

  2. Situation in Rural Roads Sector in Georgia • Traffic volumes a fraction of that in the early 1990s • Extreme rural poverty (30%) linked to collapsed infrastructure • Roads in very poor condition – 15 kmph • High construction costs - $100k-$50k/km • Negligible maintenance – expenditures of about $600/km – with most of it spent on the primary network • Roads Department influenced by political and geo-political considerations in road selection.

  3. Georgia Secondary and Local Roads Project Location of the 16 Roads to be Evaluated

  4. The Selection Problem • Utility of standard approaches (HDM/RED) limited due to uncertainty on traffic – present poor indicator of future. • Need to pay attention to poverty AND growth impacts. • No real basis for weighting growth vs poverty in a multi-criteria function. • Rather than rank projects, need to separate “good” from “not as good” projects – i.e. separate wheat from chaff.

  5. Growth and Poverty Impact Possibilities Frontier • Growth characterized as NPV(@12%)/$1000 invested • Poverty impact as #Poor Served/$1000 invested • Both indicators are better the higher their value • Each road plotted on scatter diagram of growth vs poverty • In the scatter plot, points furthest from the origin have high “NPV/$1000” and/or high “Poor/$1000” • Points near the origin considered inferior to points farther away. • Points farthest away form the “Growth and Poverty Impact Possibilities Frontier”

  6. Georgia - Secondary and Primary Roads Project

  7. Road sections with Zone of Influence

  8. Expert Opinion Survey • To address the high risk in traffic forecasts • Four experts (2 agriculture, 1 tourism, 1 transport) • Each road rated on a scale of 1-10 for agricultural potential and off-farm employment opportunity • Results based on NPV were checked against ratings by the experts • Out of 8 roads selected using NPV, 5 also emerged in the expert opinion

  9. Georgia - Secondary and Primary Roads Project

  10. SH043 SH068 SH022 SH002 SH031 SH006 SH008 SH014 SH030 102 353

  11. SH031 SH030 SH043 SH002 SH068 SH022 SH006 SH014 SH008 SH008 102 353

  12. NPV/$1000 + 50 X Poor/$1000 = 500 NPV/$1000 + 300 X Poor/$1000 = 3000

  13. Participatory Input to Selection • As a final check we visited roads in the first year program • Conducted a meeting of local representatives at each place • The value of this was clearly demonstrated in the case of Tianeti road

More Related