Concept Paper on Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana II (PMGSY-II)

1.

Background- Rural Roads for Inclusive Growth:

In the endeavor of growth and alleviation of poverty, a high level of contribution

of public spending on rural roads is underscored in a number of studies. In India roads
other than National Highways, are in the State List under the Constitution. However, with
a view to improve rural connectivity, the Central Government had launched PMGSY
(referred as PMGSY-I in this concept paper) under which, against the target of 1,64,849
habitations, over 72% have been sanctioned and over 53% connected till March, 2012. The
programme also has an element of upgradation per se by Government of India under which
against a target of 2,24,000 km, over 73% have been sanctioned and over 61% upgraded.
2.

Need for Consolidation of Rural Road Assets- Justification of the Scheme:

At the start of XII Five Year Plan, many States have substantially completed new
connectivity and upgradation under PMGSY and many other States are likely to be in the
same position within a year or two.
Stressing the need of proper maintenance, it may be recalled that the 12th Finance
Commission had stated as follows:It is far more important to ensure that assets already created are maintained and yield
services as originally envisaged than to go on undertaking commitments for creating more
assets.
The 13th Finance Commission had reiterated the same concerns as follows:There is evidence to show that road networks lead to, among other things, improved
teacher attendance, quicker medical assistance and a greater number of institutional
deliveries. We hope that the enhanced provisioning for maintenance, including the focus
on the newly created Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) roads, will help in
sustaining road connectivity.
The 12th Plan Working Group on Rural Roads Chaired by Secretary (Rural
Development) has also expressed as follows:balance between road building and maintenance has to be achieved.
During the 10th and 11th Plan periods, huge investments, of over Rs.1,04,000 crore
have been made in expanding the roads network. This creates a need to maintain and
preserve the assets created so as to sub-serve the purpose of transportation access through
good all-weather roads. Accordingly, this paper focuses on Consolidation of existing
network, so as to ensure that it fulfills the primary aims of mobility and connectivity for
community, and also enable more economic transportation of goods and services to
1

provide livelihood opportunities and effect poverty reduction. The requirements of a

country of our size and growing aspirations of our people, due to all-round economic and
social development, demand that while we continue our momentum in accelerating the
pace of progress under the on-going PMGSY programme, upgradation of selected existing
Through Routes connecting the rural hubs and other growth centres and ensuring smooth
and seamless flow of traffic at the interface of Through Routes and Major District Roads
particularly those which are experiencing comparatively higher volumes of traffic, is
vitally necessary to get optimum returns on the investment, because where such roads are
structurally inadequate, burden of higher operating costs get passed on to public exchequer,
the road user and the rural community. The Scheme would include Consolidation by
upgradation, renewal and maintenance of the vast network already created. Thus, such a
programme, called PMGSY-II, is conceived in this Concept Paper. In order to formulate
the draft policy for the PMGSY-II, the discussion was held with experts in Rural Roads
sector on 24th April, 2012. The Minutes of the meeting are enclosed as Annexure-I.
3.

Objective of the proposed PMGSY-II Scheme:

It is proposed that PMGSY-II consolidates the existing rural road network. It would
cover upgradation of existing selected rural roads based on a criterion to make the roadnetwork vibrant. The selection of routes would be with the objective of identification of
rural growth centres and other critical rural hubs, rural places of importance (connectivity
to other growth poles, market, rural hub, tourist places etc.). Development of Rural Hubs &
growth centres are crucial to the overall strategy of facilitating poverty reduction through
creating rural infrastructures. Growth centres/rural hubs provide markets, banking and
other service facilities enabling and enhancing self employment and livelihood facilities.
They also help ensure raw materials and labour inputs for off-farm activities. They will
also help bring the benefits of economic growth to the rural hinterland, including white
goods, automobiles etc. PMGSY-II, by recognising growth centres/rural hubs and
facilitating their connectivity to the hinterland will catalyse livelihood based programmes,
including the Nation Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) launched in the 12th FYP.
4.

Eligibility and Targets:

All the States and Union Territories would be eligible to participate in PMGSY-II.
A State/UT can join once substantial number of its PMGSY-I projects are awarded and
commitments towards updation of OMMAS, maintenance and renewal of rural roads have
been implemented. The programme will focus on upgradation of through routes within the
State specific targets.
Under PMGSY-II, the length covered for upgradation can be linked to a certain
percentage of the upgradation per se target funded by GoI (this does not include renewal
target funded by the States which is 2/3 of this target) under PMGSY-I. A suggestive
percentage of upgradation could be 25% of the PMGSY-I upgradation per se target for
each State and UT in the country. This would put the PMGSY-II cap at around 50,000 km.
It should be mandatory that the State/ UT is not under arrears for annual maintenance and

renewal of the PMGSY-I network and also renewal target (2/3rd of Central upgradation per
se target) under their maintenance responsibility as per PMGSY-I guidelines.
The selected through routes to be upgraded after evolving a proper criteria, will
include some of the through routes constructed under PMGSY-I (if found eligible for
upgradation to higher width), selected remaining eligible through routes still not upgraded
under PMGSY-I and new through routes to be identified on revision of District Rural
Roads Plan (DRRP) already prepared as part of PMGSY-I. The length of Through Routes
to be upgraded would be based upon actual requirement and within the State/UT-wise
limits fixed. It is essential that if a through route is being upgraded the higher category
road that it leads on to, say a Major District Road (MDR), should have Geometrics not be
lower in width, specifications, etc, and the State Govt will need to include a project
component funded out of its own budget for the purpose if necessary, as an adjunct to the
programme. If a through route is upgraded on the basis of traffic projections to MDR
standards, it should either be executed by the agency responsible for MDRs or be handed
over after the project period to the State Agency responsible for MDRs, i.e. PWD etc. for
future maintenance, renewal, etc. A formal understanding to this effect should be agreed
upon beforehand.
In order to ensure full synergy, before the commencement of PMGSY-II, a
standard traffic study would be done up to the MDR of the DRRP, and the State would
have to ensure that the MDR is of a specification which conforms to the projected traffic
requirements, by taking it up as a separately funded project where necessary.
It is proposed that the Central allocation for this programme during the 12th Plan
may be limited to say 15-20 percent of the annual PMGSY budget of the Ministry of Rural
Development so that completion of the ongoing programme under the PMGSY-I including
the coverage of Selected Tribal and Backward districts under Integrated Action Plan(IAP),
can be run smoothly.
5.

Project Design:

(i)

Management Standards:
To transit to PMGSY-II, States must be fully compliant with requirements of the
online Management Monitoring & Accounting System (OMMAS). OMMAS, as
part of PMGSY-II will be made fully work flow based, so as to become a paperless
management programme by the end of the 12th plan.

(ii)

Advance Preparation of Manuals etc.:

Preparation of Operations Manual, Guidelines etc. needs to be taken upfront with

the help of IRC etc. Procedures will incorporate internet and mobile based technologies to
the extent possible. Wherever required World Bank may be associated under the Technical
Assistance (TA) programme to help in developing these and building up capacity.
3

(iii)

Categorisation of growth centres:

A scientific criterion would be evolved in consultation with the States to

categorise growth centres. It would include parameters like existence of Panchayat
headquarter, agro processing facilities, medical facilities (bedded hospital, primary health
centre, maternity and child welfare centre), veterinary facilities, education facilities (degree
college, pre-university course, higher secondary, high school, middle school, primary
school), transport and communication infrastructure (bus service, railway station, allweather road, post-telegraph office, PCO, petrol/diesel outlet), market facilities (mandi,
retail shops selling agricultural inputs and items of daily consumption), electricity substation, agriculture ware house, bank, post office, railway station, bus stand and others (,)
etc. Weigthages can be assigned on the basis of a level of facilities, in order to rank and
prioritise growth centres.
(iv)

Reclassification of selected Through Routes:

Reclassification of selected Through Routes as Major District Roads (MDRs) will

be done at the start of the programme based on a Traffic Study so as to respond to the
needs of establishing and achieving a smooth interface with the total transport chain to the
community.
Rural transport is a part of the chain with one end in the farm and the other in the
local market. It is also the chain from the main highway network to the local market.
Development of rural roads, as such, cannot be viewed in isolation from the point of view
of integration with higher categories of roads and even changes leading to urbanization.
Some of the Through Routes developed under the PMGSY-I might justify their
upgradation to secondary level. States need to review their DRRPs and State level road
development plans accordingly and make an assessment of the length of Through Routes
that should be elevated to the category of MDRs.
A scientifically designed traffic survey will be implemented in consultation with
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, CRRI and IRC. Also, a traffic survey software
for rural area may also be developed.
(v) Capacity augmentation of MDRs by States:
It is necessary to ensure that Through Routes of the rural roads function as proper
collectors of traffic of Link Routes and they do not become a bottleneck at the interface
with the MDRs due to inadequacies in the capacity of the MDR network. The DRRPs
would thus require review to evolve phased interventions by way of capacity augmentation
or rehabilitation/upgradation of the existing MDRs by States. Though, rural through routes
were considered as feeders to MDRs, they will have to be improved upon for interfacing
with MDRs or NHs or SHs. Only such through routes of rural roads category need to be
upgraded, where very high growth of traffic has been observed as they may be leading to
rural growth centres. The States may urgently undertake such reviews and formulate
strategies for the development of MDR network in tune with such needs.
4

6. Proposed Strategy:
With this background, it is appropriate to design a PMGSY-II to build and
consolidate the achievements under PMGSY-I. The strategic framework proposed for
addressing the issue is proposed as follows:
(i)
It is proposed to revise the main District Rural Roads Plans (DRRPs) rather than
limit the process only to Core-Network. DRRPs will be prepared on GIS platform to
undertake an assessment of existing traffic and its projections, importance of roads etc. It is
envisaged to undertake Upgradation to IRC Standards of Critical Through Routes that link
rural growth centres. The States may make a selection primarily of Through Routes, out of
the DRRPs based on the parameters such as:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Growth centre
Traffic volume and projected traffic growth after 5 years and 10 years as per
Traffic Studies.
Condition of the roads.
Importance of Roads (connectivity to other growth poles, market, rural hub,
tourist places etc.).
Micro-logistic networks encompassing cold chain, warehousing, transport
etc.

(ii) It is proposed to Upgrade selected through routes to PMGSY-I standards and some
selected Through Routes to MDR Standards based on traffic studies and projections.
(iii)
The projects in (i) and (ii) would comprise of upgradation, maintenance, renewal
and maintenance during the project life cycle.
(iv)
PMGSY-II works would be put under area based Batch Maintenance contracts
through a performance based Maintenance Management System.
Initially, the States which have substantially completed PMGSY-I could be given
priority on sharing basis of funding say, 50:50 basis i.e. half by the Centre and half by the
States, subject to their meeting maintenance, quality & Management bench marks.
(v)
A key condition would be that all other MDRs and Through Routes and at least
50% of Link Routes under the DRRP be put under area based Batch Maintenance and an
agreement by the States to provide the requisite funds will be an essential requirement to
participate in the programme.
7.

Proposed duration of the PMGSY-II Scheme:

It is tentatively expected to complete the PMGSY-II over a period of 16 years

starting 2012-13. This would include upgradation (year 1), 5-year maintenance (years 2 to
6), renewal (year 7) and another 5-year maintenance (years 8 to 12) totalling a 12-years
5

cycle for the first batch. It is proposed that the project would be divided into 5 batches,
commencing in years 1 to 5 and completing in years 12 to 16 as per cycle enunciated .
Tentatively, the project would be completed by the year 2027-28.
For each State for its various regions, components of first 5-year maintenance
requirement would be computed and added to the cost of construction. The tender for
construction should thus include the initial 5-year maintenance also, to check against
abysmally lower percentage of cost quoted for maintenance.
8.

Total Cost of the PMGSY-II Scheme over the proposed duration:

For this purpose a total outlay of about Rs. 47,000 crore would be required as per
Annexure-II. The cost of the project will cover cost of construction, maintenance cost for
initial 5 years, renewal cost after 5 year maintenance, another 5 year maintenance cost after
renewal and Administrative costs (limited to 2.0% of construction cost). The cost of the
project will be shared between Central Govt. and State Govt. on 50:50 basis, including the
entire project i.e. upgradation, 2 cycles of 5-year maintenance and one renewal in between.
Thus, out of projected funds requirement Rs. 23,500 crore would be share of States. The
financial implications have been worked out on the basis of average cost of upgradation
under existing PMGSY-I programme including Maintenance for 10 years and one renewal
at prices of 2012-13. An element of inflation has been included in the estimates.
PMGSY-I does not provide for any staff costs and same will be applicable for
PMGSY-II also. However, the expected funds required for Administrative & Travel
expenses for PIUs/SRRDAs, Independent Quality Monitoring 2nd tier etc. will be around
2% of project cost and will be included in project cost. This cost will also be shared by
Centre and State in the same proportion as the total project cost.
9.

Mobilization of Additional Funds by States:

States may levy additional taxes, utilize Mandi/mining related revenues, etc. for
funding of the MDRs. States may also approach multilateral bodies and NABARD for
loans. NRRDA would extend technical support to the States, wherever required. As
revenue is not earned on PMGSY roads, PPP model has not yet been tried. A pilot project
would be framed after deliberations with the Stakeholders.
10.

Execution and monitoring of programme:

(i)
National Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA) would be strengthened to
provide technical support to the Programme. The structure of PTAs and STAs would be
further strengthened to provide technical and management support to NRRDA and in
particular the PTAs will be further developed as the extended arms of NRRDA.
(ii)
The projects under the Programme would be executed by the State Governments
through their agencies i.e. State Rural Roads Development Agency (SRRDA) for
monitoring, financial management and coordination at the State Level and Programme
6

Implementation Units (PIUs) for the Programme implementation at the district level. There
is a need for institutional strengthening especially of REOs, SRRDAs, and PIUs. States
will be incentivised to establish or strengthen dedicated REOs to implement PMGSY-II,so
as to enable them to emerge as the owners and managers of the Rural roads network and
also provide technical support to the other Schemes of Ministry of Rural Development,
Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation and the State level concerned departments.
(iii)
The State Level Standing Committee, Chaired by Chief Secretary/Additional Chief
Secretary including all the main stakeholders of the programme viz., Secretaries of the
Departments of Rural Development, Panchayati Raj, PWD, Forests, Finance, Revenue,
Transport and REO, State Technical Agencies, State Informatics Officer etc. would be
closely involved for various stages of planning and execution .
(iv) In PMGSY-I the efforts to involve PRIs were focused mainly on planning and project
selection. This will continue in PMGSY-II for the revision of the DRRP and categorization
of roads and identification of growth centres. During PMGSY-I, under the World Bank
component of the project, assistance has been taken from the ILO to develop community
based maintenance methodologies and in PMGSY-II,PRIs would be involved in the
process of managing the maintenance regime with the aim of building capacity over time
to take over the maintenance function for rural rods network.
(v)
The monitoring framework for the project/scheme and the audit arrangements for
PMGSY-II, will continue to be similar to PMGSY-I, with incorporation of technical
improvements. In particular, the DRRP will be GIS based, the Online Management,
Monitoring and Accounting System (OMMAS) which under PMGSY-I was developed as a
fully functional MIS will be upgraded to a Decision Support System (DSS) and integrated
with the GIS based DRRP so as to provide a paper-less management and accounting
system. The GIS based DRRP will also include a maintenance management module for
online maintenance management.
11.

Land acquisition and Forest clearances:

(i)
It will be the responsibility of the State Government / District Panchayats to ensure
that additional width of land is available for taking up upgradation of the proposed road
works. No funds will be provided by Central Government for Land Acquisition by the
States under the programme. The State Government may also lay down guidelines for
voluntary donation, exchange or other mechanisms to ensure availability of land. Similarly,
Ministry of Rural Development would not share any cost on account of compensatory
afforestation, net present value etc., however, it would assist in follow up of cases pending
with Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).
(ii)
As part of PMGSY-II, a practical and implementable Environmental and Social
management framework (ESMF) will be developed for use in the roads sector as part of
the effort to improve social acceptance for roads projects. Funds from CAMPA, Minerals
cess and other similar sources will be dovetailed and projectised and funds under PMGSYII will be available for gap filling upto an extent of 30% of the project cost.
7

12.

Responsibility of State government for Construction, Maintenance and

Renewal:

Rural Roads are owned by the State Governments and would remain to be owned
by them. Similar to PMGSY-I, road works under PMGSY-II will be executed by the State
Governments and owned by them during as well as after the implementation of the project.
Main features inbuilt in the PMGSY-I for maintenance would be suitably modified
and adopted, are as follows:(i)
All PMGSY-II roads would be covered by a single contract for upgradation and
initial 5-year maintenance, to be entered in accordance with the Standard Bidding
Document to be evolved.
(ii)
On expiry of 5-year post upgradation maintenance period, renewal of these roads
would be undertaken by a single contract for renewal and 5-year maintenance
(iii)
A big thrust will be the capacity creation in the District level PRIs for maintenance.
The goal will be to ensure that by the end of the programme, all Batch Maintenance
Contracts are awarded and maintained by the districts Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).
13.

Funds Flow to SRRDAs:

As soon as the project is sanctioned, the Central Government and State

Government will release the funds to SRRDA as per following procedure in proportion of
sharing cost as agreed for PMGSY-II:
(i)

The funds for the cleared upgradation portion will be made available to the SRRDA
in two instalments for the upgradation and initial 5-year maintenance.

(ii)

The first instalment amounting to 50% of the cleared upgradation portion of

projects shall be released subject to fulfilment of requisite conditions.

(iii)

Release of second instalment of 50% of upgradation portion and initial 5-year

maintenance of project cost would be subject to utilisation of 60% of the available
funds and fulfilment of requisite conditions.

(iv)

Central share of post upgradation 5-year maintenance funds would be subject to

proper maintenance, which can be suitably reduced otherwise.

(v)

Similar procedure would be adopted for release of renewal funds and post renewal
5-year maintenance.

(vi)

All accounting and fund flows will be done on-line only, and will be Central Plan
Schemes Monitoring System (CPSMS ) compliant .
8

14.

Delivery of PMGSY-II Programme including Capacity Building:

(i)
Before launch of the scheme, manuals, guidelines etc., would be put in place to
make the scheme effective.
(ii)
The rural road agencies should enhance competence in core processes such as soil
investigations, topographical surveys, drainage studies, environment assessment, geometric
and pavement design, bridge design, contract administration, asset management,
maintenance planning, on-line management monitoring accounting system and safety
measures etc. For this, a comprehensive training strategy may be formulated with the
support of IAHE, CRRI, NIRD, NAC, PTAs, STAs etc. The World Bank can also be
approached under its Technical Assistance to supplement these efforts.
(iii) Concrete steps are suggested for capacity building and imparting training to all the
stakeholders. The example of National Academy of Construction (NAC), Hyderabad
needs to be replicated in different regions of the country for skill development of
construction workers. Vocational training in relevant road related trades should also be
introduced in a few ITIs in each district. SIRDs could be requested to formulate a skill
development strategy for construction workers for rural infrastructure including rural
roads.
(iv)
The STAs and PTAs can be entrusted with the additional task of providing guest
faculty for training of the REOs so as to provide support to IAHE, CRRI, NIRD and
SIRDs.
(v)
While PMGSY-I focused on building capacity at State level, PMGSY-II should
focus on capacity building at district level seeking an active participation of District
Panchayats the capacity of which also needs to be enhanced to handle rural roads related
works in collaboration with the States. Some capacity building is also required in the
consultancy sector, where works of project preparation are outsourced to them by the
SRRDAs.
(vi)
Another issue requiring deliberations in this regard is enhancement of contracting
capacity. While there has been reasonable growth of contractors undertaking the works of
PMGSY, the problem of inadequate capacity still persists in several States. The experience
on the ground is that in such States, sub-contractors need considerable training and other
handholding support by way of facilitating in providing equipment etc. As part of
PMGSY-II a planned development of contracting capacity will be taken up, including
appropriate elements of the SANRAL model etc.
(vii) ILO has gathered considerable experience in training of small scale local
contractors and ground level site engineers and field workers. They would also assist in it
as well as involvement of community in maintenance of rural roads.
15.

R&D, New Construction Technology and use of light equipment:

9

(i)
R&D and use of new technologies and new designs will be encouraged to push new
and local and marginal materials and new techniques to construct better roads. Alternatives
to WBM and to Hot mix surfacing will be a thrust area and R&D related and new items
would also be included in the Schedule of Rates (SoR) by the States. The bidding
documents will make special provision to reduce and mitigate failure risk for the contractor
and project engineer in all R&D projects. Under PMGSY-I, NRRDA has also set up a
Standing Committee of Experts to provide guidelines for promotion of research and
technology initiatives in construction and maintenance of rural roads, the report of which
would also be shared with the States.
(ii)
As an add on layer to the GIS for DRRP, an inventory of local and marginal
materials will be created, to encourage their use.
(iii)
A small group of technical experts on road equipment, and some selected
equipment manufacturers will be involved to study use of modern equipment such as
vibratory rollers, pneumatic tyred rollers, paver finishers, etc. The concept of equipment
bank particularly to support small contractors on wet/dry lease will also be explored.
16.

Miscellaneous:

(i) Upgradation of bridges will be permitted on Through Routes

(ii) Road Safety will be a component in each project and a rural road safety policy will be
implemented through the State and District Road Safety Councils.
(iii) Avenue Tree planting will be an essential component under the upgradation and
CAMPA/mineral cess funds may be utilized for the purpose.
(iv) DPRs for upgradation of MDRs and Through Routes will make provision for optical
fibre cable access.
(v) Works will be packaged so as to attract competent contractors with modern machinery
and equipment, capable of nurturing small contractors.

*****

10

Annexure-I
MINUTES OF MEETING OF CONSULTATION MEETING ON PMGSY-II
HELD ON 24th April, 2012 AT KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI
A Meeting was called by the Secretary, Department of Rural Development
on 24 April, 2012 at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi for consultation with experts in Rural
Roads sector and Ministry officials on PMGSY-II. The following were present in the
meeting:
th

S No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Name & Designation

Sh. S. Vijay Kumar, Secretary (RD)
Dr. P.K. Anand, Joint Secretary (RC)
Dr. Manoj Singh, Adviser (Tpt).
Sh Piyush Srivastava, Director
Sh. A. K. Pandey, Sup. Eng
Dr. B. K. Durai, Head PME
Dr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Scientist
Sh. D. P. Gupta, Retd. DG
Prof. P.K. Sikdar, President
Prof. B.P. Chandra Sekhar,
Sh.Y S Dwivedi
Sh. S R Meena
Mr. R K Chauhan
Sh N C Solanki
Dr.I K Pateria

Organization
M/o Rural Development
M/o Rural Development
Planning Commission
D/o Expenditure
M/o Road Tpt. & Highways
CRRI
CRRI
RD&AS
ICT
APSRRDA, Hyderabad
Director (RC), MoRD
Director (RC), MoRD
Director(F&A), NRRDA
Director (P-I), NRRDA
Director (P-II &Tech),NRRDA

Secretary, Rural Development, welcomed the participants and opined that as

PMGSY-I is likely to be substantially over by the end of XII Plan, it was high time to start
thinking what to focus next. He added that the assets created should not be allowed to
fritter away and emphasised the need for optimization of net value of assets. He endorsed
the need of maintenance stressed by XII Finance Commission, XIII Finance Commission
and the Working Group for XII Plan. He also added that DRRP is a wider concept than
Core Network, and it should be the basis of any future intervention.
2.
Dr. Sikdar also endorsed that the concept of DRRP should be the basis of an
efficient road network rather than Core Network. He suggested that DRRP may be revised
and digitised for improved mobility and connectivity. He added that there is need to
consolidate Through Routes by upgradation of routes selected as per scientific criteria. He
added that sufficient funds should be earmarked for maintenance and the concept of batch
maintenance, based on assessment of parameters, should be introduced to cover both
preventive and periodic maintenance. He emphasised that States should fully adhere to the
IRC specifications for MDRs to make these an efficient part of the network.
11

3.
Shri DP Gupta stressed upon the need for a vision to intervene for preservation of
assets. He suggested that there should be sharing of funds on 50:50 basis between the
Centre and the States. He opined that in the absence of proper maintenance, roads are
being subjected to build-neglect-build syndrome whereby the funds invested in PMGSY
roads are more or less of the same order as the loss of assets incurred, leading to a zerosum game. He suggested that 10-year maintenance period followed by periodic renewals
and upgradation should be the basis of asset management. He also pointed out the need for
improving geometrics to meet higher safety standards and that rumble-strips etc. should be
introduced on rural roads also. He added that interface of PMGSY roads with MDRs was
equally crucial.
4.
Shri B. K. Durai of CRRI suggested that DRRP should cover National Highways,
State Highways, MDRs and Rural Roads including PMGSY also for which instrument
based data collection should be introduced. He added that critical through routes should be
identified and ranked based upon Pavement Condition Survey.
5.
Shri Piyush Srivastava, Director, Department of Expenditure suggested that there
was need to maintain the assets created and States should be requested to contribute 50%
share for any increase in scope, though he was not in a position to assure his Departments
approval for any such proposal.
6.
Dr Manoj Singh, Advisor(Transport), Planning Commission, emphasised to focus
on the laggard States and ensure completion of PMGSY-I, while starting PMGSY-II.
7.
Shri AK Pandey, SE, MORTH, agreed that the idea of upgradation of some
Through Routes to better specifications and out of these some important roads to the MDR
standards would be useful. He emphasized upon safety standards right from Rural Roads
to National Highways.
8.
JS(RC) expressed that in order to consolidate the existing assets the States should
take care of renewal of 40% length against 60% length being up by the Centre as per the
targets. He added that as per para 8.6 of the Guidelines the States should ensure timely
renewal of the PMGSY Roads which were constructed more than 5 years back. He
emphasized the need to make a consolidated Zonal Maintenance Plan also and informed
that ILO was being consulted under the World Bank project for this purpose. He opined
that for assessment of Growth Centres some variables need to be selected which can prove
to be a proxy for growth centre potential.
9.
Director(YSD) emphasised on preventive maintenance and GIS mapping. He
added that the current system of grading as Satisfactory, Satisfactory requiring
improvement and Unsatisfactory needs to be modified to include Excellent, Very
Good and Good. He underscored the need for a grievance redressal system. He also
suggested that the level of maintenance by a contractor should be entered into record
maintained contractor-wise.
12

10.
Director(T) suggested that in future the alignment of incidental habitations should
not be through the habitation but be outside the habitation, so that roads can be upgraded
and widened in the long run. He suggested that roads should have a design life of 10 years
and a detailed Pavement Condition Survey should be undertaken. He suggested use of
local materials, new technologies and R&D.
11.
Director(P-I) endorsed that many of the States were not taking care of
maintenance and suggested that performance based outcomes should be recorded, as in the
ADB covered works.
12.
Director(F&A) suggested to adopt best practices from abroad for which ILO can
also help. The best practices may be viewed from the cost aspects. A little strengthening
of road standards and specifications may considerably enhance life of the roads which may
result in cost advantages in the long run.
13.
Shri BP Chandrasekhar from APRRDA endorsed the concept of DRRP over Core
Network and stressed upon the need to evolve classification of different categories of
roads. He suggested that some of the Through Routes as identified in DRRP should be
upgraded to PMGSY-I standards and some critical Through Routes should be upgraded to
MDR level and handed over to the States. He added that PIUs should not be awarded
works beyond their capacities and there should be proper staffing.
14.
After detailed deliberations the following course of action to evolve PMGSY-II
emerged:
i.

Consolidation of the existing road network is of paramount importance for

which maintenance, renewal and upgradation need to be focused upon to
ensure proper upkeep of the assets already created. An exercise for revision
of DRRP, rather than only core-network needs to be undertaken. Alongwith
stakeholders should be consulted to identify growth centers and an inventory
of important roads based on connectivity to other growth poles, markets, rural
hubs, places of tourist centers, needs to be created. Condition of roads,
especially through routes needs to be assessed by Pavement Condition Index
surveys. Traffic volumes and projected traffic growth, over say, next 5 and
10 years needs to be assessed.

ii.

Like PMGSY-I Operations Manual, Guidelines etc. need to be evolved for

PMGSY-II.

iii.

The selected through routes to be upgraded after evolving a proper criteria,

will include the through routes constructed under PMGSY-I, remaining
eligible through routes under PMGSY-I and new through routes to be
identified on revision of DR1RP. The length of Through Routes to be
upgraded would be based upon actual requirement and State-wise limits
fixed. Funding should be on sharing basis between the Centre and the States.
13

iv.

It is essential that if a through route is being upgraded upto the point it meets
a higher category road, say an MDR, the Geomatrics of such MDR should not
be lower in width, specifications, etc. Wherever a Through Route needs to be
upgraded to say, 3.75 meters only it need not be upgraded to a higher width,
so that more roads can be consolidated within available funds.

v.

Some of the Through Routes being upgraded would be upto PMGSY-I

standard. Some others may, if so justified could be of MDR standards. If a
through route is upgraded to MDR standards it should be handed over to the
State PWD for future maintenance, renewal, etc. A formal understanding to
this effect should be agreed upon beforehand.

vi.

Batch maintenance should be put in place to harness economies of scale and

ensure better maintenance. For each State for its various regions, components
of maintenance requirement should be computed and added to the cost of
construction.
The tender for construction should thus include the
maintenance also, to check against abysmally lower percentage of cost quoted
for maintenance.

15.
In order to implement PMGSY-II in an effective manner, the following felt
interventions to strengthen implementation also emerged:
i.

Road safety should be accorded a very high priority right from the design
stage. International best practices on road safety should be imbibed. Provisions
for road safety should be incorporated at the DPR stage itself.

ii.

Use of GIS needs to be deliberated upon to whether planning or construction or

post-construction stages should be focussed upon. Selection of layers should
be done accordingly.

iii.

Steps should be taken, in collaboration with IRC, to evolve a scientific method

for proper classification (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) and
graduation of various categories of roads.

iv.

There is need for development of small contractors through positive

interventions especially in Schedule-V, Tribal etc. areas. Best Practices from
SANRAL (South African National Roads Agency Ltd) should be analysed and
adopted.

v.

Pavement Condition survey should be carried out periodically through method

which is not very complicated. For the benefit of stake-holders a photo gallery
manifesting roads pertaining to different levels of PCI should be uploaded on
the PMGSY Web-site.

vi.

With the help of IRC, a methodology to assess future traffic growth, especially
for Rural Roads, should be evolved and put in practice.
14

vii.

Over the years under R&D, the same limited materials are being tried time and
again. This area needs a thrust to push new and local materials and new
techniques to construct better roads. R& D related items should be included in
the SoR and steps need to be taken to allay the fears of Engineers and
Contractors in case of any failures of pilot projects. The Standing Committee
of NRRDA on Technical Issues should make recommendations in this regard.

viii.

There is a need for institutional strengthening especially of PTAs, STAs,

REOs, SRRDAs, PIUs, PRIs and NRRDA.

ix.

In case the new Mining Bill is cleared, districts would get about Rs.12,000
crore per annum as royalty etc. Incidentally, this amount would be payable to
100 such districts which need it the most, due to extensive damage to road
network by plying of heavy tonnage vehicles. Steps should be taken to utilise a
portion of these funds for proper maintenance of roads. Wherever heavy
mining traffic exists or is envisaged, this fact should be internalised while
preparing DPRs for optimum utilisation of part of royalty, etc. that would
accrue to such districts.

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

***

15

Annexure-II
Estimates for PMGSY-II (Rs. in Crore)

Length
(km)

S.
No
1

Item
Improvement of select through routes already constructed or upgraded under PMGSYI, say, 55% of target length under this category, of which 20% of target length for
upgradation of balance width (3.75 to 5.5m) to be shared on 50:50 basis.

35,000

(a) Construction or upgradation of eligible Rural Through Routes which are part of the
Core Network and yet to be sanctioned under PMGSY-I, of which on 60% length as per
PMGSY-I specifications and balance 40% upto 5.50 metres, on 50:50 basis

15,000

Construction or upgradation of newly identified through routes, which are not part of
present DRRP, say, 20% of target length, of which 75% length to PMGSY specifications
and balance 25% to 5.50 metres on 50:50 basis
Total
Of which under PMGSY II

Calculation for Estimates

S. No.
1
2
3
4
5

Item

20,000

Cost per km (at 2012-13 prices)

Total
Central
State
Share
Share
PMGSY-II

0.4

0.2

0.2

4,000

4,000

8,000

To be fully covered under PMGSY-I

10,000

0.8

0.4

0.4

4,000

4,000

8,000

15,000

0.4

0.2

0.2

3,000

3,000

6,000

5,000

0.8

0.4

0.4

2,000

2,000

4,000

100,000

13,000

13,000

26,000

50,000

13,000

13,000

26,000

26,000
2,080
3,900
2,080
34,064
520
34,580

16

Total

Already fully covered under PMGSY-I

At current Prices

Upgradation cost
Initial 5-year maintenance @8% of upgradation cost
Renewal after 5-year initial maintenance @15% of Upgradation cost
5-year maintenance after renewal @8% of upgradation cost
Total
Administrative cost @2% of upgradation cost
Grand total

Central
Share
PMGSY-II

Amount
State
Share

At nominal prices (taking inflation @8% per

annum)
26,000x1.1733 = 30,506
2,080x1.4870 = 3,093
3,900x1.8618 = 7,261
2,080x2.3596 = 4,908
45,768
520x1.8962 = 986
46,754 Say Rs. 47,000 crore
Central share - Rs. 23,500 crore
States share Rs. 23,500 crore

17