Costa Rica - Highway Project

Report No. b CIRCULATING rwy '" " CONFIDENTIAL TO BE RETURNED To REPRTS nrn, Eil C rnDV FILm L.UI48F I INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT 0TTM4MADV ATTTt1T' AL PAC'A DTPA 1VTDCT UTOUTAV DATLOP October 20, 1972 Programming and Budgeting Department Operations Evaluation Division  PREFACE The summary audit of the first highway project in Costa Rica (Loan 229/Credit 10) is the first of its type to be carried out by the Operations Evaluation Division. As a technique of post evaluation, the summary audit is the simplest being tested by the Division, designed to answer the question: were the principal physical objectives of the proj- ect attained and, if not, why not? To the extent possible, partial answers or impressions are also sought as to whether or not Bank institu- tion-building objectives were met and whether or not the lending activity itself might have been improved. The first Bank-supported highway project in Costa Rica was chosen for summary audit from the group of Bank/IDA projects for which disburse- ments ended in FY1968. The interim period of five years is considered adequate for the project's outcome to be fairly fully visible, although much of the benefits should still lie in the future. To prepare the audit relevant Bank files and documents were briefly reviewed and the project was discussed with staff who had been involved. The Bank stopped receiving information on the project early in 1969, since disbursements had been completed. A one-week mission was undertaken to update data and to gather impressions about the project from the Costa Rican Highway Department. The considerable assistance provided by the staff of the Costa Rican Highway Department is gratefully acknowledged. Note: Currency Equivalent i(S 19 = 6 1 Cnlnn1 ) (From 1961 to 1971) CTTMMA DV Loan-299 anU Creuit-10, appruved concurrently in 1-01 in amounts or US$ 5.5 million each, were extended to Costa Rica to finance the foreign exchange costs of a USz 13.2 million highway project--including b4U Ia of improvement works and 31 km of new construction. In addition, provisions were included for the purchase of maintenance equipment and for consultant services for supervision of construction/improvement works and for assist- ance to the Highway Department in implementing improved administrative and maintenance procedures. With investment roughly the same as projected, the length of high- ways constructed or improved amounted to only half that planned in the original project and the period of implementation was twice as long. Nonetheless, the project was economically sound: an approximate "first year" rate of return calculated for 25 roads on which works were completed and comparable to planned was 27% as compared to the 23% originally esti- mated for the full project, and a check using more up-to-date internal rate of return procedures, allowing for the time dimension, confirmed that the project very largely fulfilled Bank economic criteria. Cost over- runs, averaging 75% on the 25 road sections,were compensated by an increase in direct benefits (120% higher than expected), mainly the result of traf- fic growth more rapid than forecast. However, it is not clear that all the roads retained in the program were of higher priority than those that were dropped--and possibly some others. Delays in implementation of the construction/improvement works which were eventually completed under the project averaged some 3-4 years and were largely due to: (a) Inadequately detailed engineering studies prior to start of the project; (b) over-extension of Highway Department financial resources: (c) failure to attract foreign contractors and insufficient capacity of local contractors. Cost overruns resulted from the delays themselves and from the ad- ditional works found necessary to bring the roads un to the standards planned. The maintenance equipment was purchased at about the expected cost between 163 and 195 and is Still in usem Consultant serviceS were sat- isfactory, although progress in the improvement of maintenance was slow. - 3 - The most important lesson of this audit has to do with Bank flexi- bility. The Bank should have been more flexible in its approach when major deviations from appraisal estimates began to occur. Probably the project should have been reappraised after three years to verify its con- tinuing priority. Supplementary financing could have been considered and supervision missions should have played a more active role in project modification. The Bank might also usefully have designed more detailed terms of reference for the consultant in regard to maintenance. including specific implementation targets which could have been periodically reviwe~d AgainAt nerfnrMance, SUMMARY AUDIT OF FIRST COSTA RICA HIGHWAY PROJECT The Project In December 1958, the Government of Costa Rica began to plan a com- Financial assistance was requested from the Bank and a mission was sent to Costa Rica in DecembDer 15.The prj too--+--Ik - lhaefuin 190 wit further Bank missions, and final details were supplied to the Bank in the first half of 1961 Tann Agreemebt 2900-C and Credit Agreement 10C were concluded October 13, 1961. The loan and credit, each in the amount of UT01 5.5, Millin,- were to- finance the foreign exchange cos ts of a three- year highway program. The original closing date was April 30, 1965, but the final A-sburseet was made in -11160 =- ap closing date. The project comprised the first stage of a seven-year National High- way PLUidt[ (hL1 rli Vidl), an1u ULsLeU UL LhLe part LUL WhICh eLI mated and actual costs are presented below: Estimates Actual Fnr - For. Total Cost Exchange Total Cost Exchange (nTTZ, min1 (TTq.A% e (TTRA m1n) (ITS ) (mln) ( equiv.) (mln) (mln) ( equiv.) (mln) Part A - Highway CoMtrucUun! Improvement Original Program improvement ot 51 ruads (640 km) and construc- tion of 3 new roads (31 km) 87.70' 13.20a 7.2e-a Final Program improvement of 32 roads (314 km) and construc- tion of 2 new roads (39 km) 86.33 13.08 6.58 Part B - Purchase of mechanical equipment, spare parts and materials for high- way construction and maintenance,and sur- veying equipment ZU.46 3.10 ..Lu L0.0.L .OJ .0 Part C - Consulting services 1.95 U.JU U..U 4.u U.62 U.6z Additional contingency 2.64 0.40 0.40 Total 112.78 17.00 11.00 109.23 16.55 10.05 a/ Including 15% construction contingency allowance - 5 - The major objective of the project, accounting for more than three- quarters of projected costs, was the improvement of 54 roads which, according to the appraisal report, were in poor condition and built to inadequate standards for actual and future traffic volumes. It was assumed that two-thirds of the improvement works would be undertaken by contractors and that about one-half of the contract works would be awarded to foreiRn firms after international competitive biddine. The improvement works were justified in terms of expected savings in vehicle operating costs and in road maintenance costs: a "first year rate of return" was estimated for each of the roads based on cumulative costs of imnrovement works (undiscounted) and 1963 rnnd m1'r nnrl mqintPnnrp y- ings.1/ Returns ranged from 8.0% to 92.0%. The major new road, Tres Rnuiis-Rinui rres- wnq iiiRti fiPed P. n nPrP.qqru 1link hpfw.ppn qin,iiiirrPq An__ the rest of the country due to the poor condition of the existing railway. Twnr~ QmAller new roads, to bep located in thep San Tose sUburbs, were neces- sary to relieve urban traffic congestion. In a supplementary letter to the Loan/Credit Documents, Costa Rica agreed that the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads (BPP ) WoUldArvd ehia assistance for the implementation of construction/improvement works, denveopent 4 of a 1-4 -k--ir,. -,-,4- -- ., ,-19 1,- ,.-. accounting system of the Highway Department, and preparation of feasibil- particularly important covenant (Section 5.09 of Loan Agreement, Section priority in the application of local currency funds and that funds would be mue availaue IUo the auequate mainenance or tne entire nigway sys- tem. The Loan/Credit became effective only on May 2, 1962, seven months after signing, due to delay in the preparation of requisite legal opin- ions by the Costa Rican Government. Disbursements began in 1963. Table 1 kiinwug LtXL) 5IUW5 L1ia major disbursements under Part A -- construc- tion/improvement -- were made in the period 1966-1967, after the original closing date, due to delays in implementation. At the time of the rinal closing date (December 30, 1967) US$ 950,000 -- mainly the undisbursed balance under Part A -- was cancelled from the Credit account. Only 25 roads totalling 266 Km were improved and two roads total- ling 39 km constructed with Bank/IDA financing -- 260 km by contract at a cost of 65.6 million and 45 km by force account at a cost of 0l6.3 mil- lion. During the Loan period, an additional 48 km were improved by force account without Bank/IDA reimbursement, and to much lower standards than originally planned, at a cost of C4.4 million. To date, only a few improvement works with a total cost of about 05.0 million have been car- ried out on the remaining 318 original km, of which 140 km had been offi- cially dropped from the final revised project in 1965 at the request of 1/ The roads were expected to be completed between 1962 and 1964. 1963 was chosen as the middle year. the Highway Department. Two of the three planned new roads were construc- ted, Tres Equis-Siquirres and Radial-Zapote. The third, Circunvalacion, was deleted from the project. Table 2 (following text) shows the actual period of construction, means of execution, length, traffic and cost for each project road section. In sum, with investment roughly the same as estimated, highway construction and improvement financed by the Bank amounted to only half that planned in the original project and the period of implementation was twice as long. The quality of the construction and improvement works under Part A was satisfactory. Maintenance on roads improved or constructed under the prolect has been adeanate and all are now in vood condition with one exception, Villa Colon-Puriscal, where the contract work was poor and qlides havP ner'rirrPd (Ridding for n c7.- millinn contract for rpanirs has recently begun.) All roads dropped from the program are in poor con- Thp hiilw n~t-f nrt-iinl r-nnq~trirt-in 'n/improvemeITnnt wonrks we-re conmpled after the original project closing date, between 1966 and 1968. Works scheduled for completion by the end of 1962 were delayed by an average of about 3.8 years; delays averaged 3.8 and 2.5 years respectively for those of the roads planned fo copeto n 1963 and 1964 which wer atually improved under the project. Major reasons for delay were: (a) Lack of detailed engineering studies prior to loan signa- consulting staff; (b) over-extension of Highway Department financial resources. Le local currency shortage was acute during the early years of project implementation, and in spite of the priority" covenant previously mentioned, work was simul- taneously undertaken on the San Jose-San Ramon Highway, and from 1965 on, on an DB-assisted Feeder Road Project. The total amount of local currency provided for these two projects was equivalent to -US$ 8.5 million; (c) failure to attract foreign contractors, due to the rela- tively small scale of project works, and insufficient capacity of local contractors. Only one toreign contrac- tor, Rawcon of Texas, showed interest and was awarded two contracts for a total of 25 km of works. Costs The total cost of the construction/improvement works was 986.33 mil- lion -- close to the original estimate of 087.70 million -- but with works - 7 - completed on onlv 5% of the original 670 project km. Cost overruns were con- siderable averaging about 75% in terms of current prices for those roads -- a totanl of 25 -- imp-rmypr f-n QfnnidnrdP romparable i-o tbhnq planned ar- the t-ime of appraisal. These 25 roads showed the following overrun distribution: Investments (9 millions) 0 - 50 6 11.7 15.3 Cn inn r1, 3 L:1)4 n J V .UVv V .L....U - . 100 - 200 6 7.8 19.5 Over 300 3 0.8 3.9 For the two new roads the combined overrun was 90/, though combined length increased by 35%, mainly due to extension of the new road, Siquirres-Tres Equis, to Pavones. Cost overruns on construction and improvement were largely due to: (a) Underestimation of the quantity of physical works required to bring roads up to standards planned, due to the sketchy nature of original engineering data; (b) delays in construction amd improvement works. (During the years 1962-1968 unit construction costs averaged annual increases of about 3%.) Analysis of Costs and Benefits At the time of appraisal it was estimated that road traffic in Costa Rica would increase 3 to 4% annually;1/ however, the actuil growth rate was much higher -- about 10% per year between 1961 and 1971..L/ This rapid growth of road traffic paralleled a steady economic growth of about 6% per year. As seen from Table 2, traffic on the project roads grew far more rapidly than expect9d -- in general the increase being faster for light vehicles than heavyl -- largely because many of the improved roads were in the vicinity of the urban zone of San Jose (see map at end of audit). 1/ The estimate of traffic increase appears to have been based on past trends in the total number of motor vehicles registered in Costa Rica. Their annual rate of growth had declined sharply from 15-20% in the early 1950s to 5-7% in the late 1950s. The average growth from 1950 to 1960 was 13% per year compared with an economic growth of 7%. 2/ Vehicle-km increased from 239 million in 1961 to 597 million in 1970; pas- senger-km from 957 to 2,146 million; ton-km from 216 to 517 million; total number of vehicles from 26,423 to about 69,347 (Source: Ministry of Trans- portation - Planning Department). 3/ Light vehicles include passenaer cars and light trucks (panels and pickups). Heavy vehicles include buses and trucks other than panels and pickups. For each of the 25 project roads improved to standards comparable to those contemplated during appraisal, "first year (1971) rates of retuyn" have been calculated using the method of the Appraisal Report and are shown in Table 3 (following text). Actual construction costs, actual 1971 traffic (for light and heavy vehicles) and the actual improved length of each road were.taken into account in calculating 1971 road user savings, and the actual improved length was considered for 1971 maintenance savings. 1971 data were used to calculate the "first year rate of return" in order to make use of the most recent traffic information. By not allowing for the time dimension this tended to yield an exaggerated rate of return, pos- sibly slightly compensated by the fact that it was necessary to use 1963 estimates of road user costs per km on improved and unimproved roads. Actual savings alone appear to justify the entire project investment with a first year return (in 1971) of 27% as compared to the appraial estimate for 1963 of 23% for the original 54 roads to be improved.!! Cost overruns (75%) on the 25 roads were compensated by the important increase (120% higher than expected) of the direct benefits for these roads, mainly a result of the rapid traffic increase. Today, the Bank justifies most highway projects by use of internal rates of return. For the 7 roads with the lowest first year rates ,of return on Table 3, internal rates of return have been calculated.-- The results of this test confirm the general economic validity of improvement investments, with the exception of San Joaquin-Santa Barbara (Priority No. 5), as seen below: Priority No. 5 25 53 56 34 2 32 First Year ROR (1971) 9 13 14 14 15 16 19 IRR (%) 5 11 10 13 15 10 15 No quantification of direct benefits for the new road construction was attempted by the Appraisal Mission and there is no quantitative infor- mation available on the indirect benefits of the major new road, Pavones- Siquirres, though according to Highway Department officials both the road improvements and new construction have had very little impact on agricul- tural development. On the positive side, the project undoubtedly contributed to the build-un of the local contractinp indiitrv. The IDB-financed feeder road project has benefited greatly from this development. 1/ Total 1971 savings for the 25 roads was p22.9 million as compared with the 10 * - millon esti4mated 1963 savinS for the, originl 54h roas Total project investment was 086.3 million opposed to the original / Ai . a [ 15-e esti aeoal 2/ Assuming a 15-year economic life of each road and a 6% annual increase -9- Maintenance Most of the Loan/Credit funds under Part B of the project were to be used to purchase maintenance equipment and spare parts for the Highway Department. The equipment was purchased between 1963 and 1965, at about the expected cost, and is still in use. Road maintenance, barely existent at the time the Loan and Credit Agreements were signed, has improved. All project roads have been satis- factorily maintained although maintenance for the rest of the system remains inadequate. Annual budget allocations for highway maintenance have averaged about 4c6,150/km annually since 1963. Under normal Costa Rican conditions (including heavy rains and typical vehicle overloading) this amount of expenditure on maintenance would be satisfactory, but costs are high due to use of old equipment with high operating and repair costs, generally poor standards of roads not designed to support present traffic and some diversion of funds and equipment to other uses such as force account construction. In 1969 US AID extended a US$ 7.0 million loan (mainly for new equip- ment) to assist in financing a US$ 10.5 million maintenance improvement program. With this program, the opportunity for improving maintenance pro- cedures in Costa Rica has increased. Consultants BPR consultants were retained to provide technical assistance through- out project implementation. On the whole they did a good job, though, as alreadv mentioned, there was some delay in staff build-up. The final cost of the consultants' services was US$ 620,000 -- twice as much as projected -- due to the prolonged implementation period. The consultants were princi- pally involved with the supervision of construction/improvement works on the project roads. They also assisted in the revision of methods used to cost force account items and in the preparation of feasibility studies for roads to be included in a second stage of the Plan Viall and for the Siquirres- Limon Highway, for which an IBRD Loan was made in 1970. The relevant sup- nlementarv letter to the 1961 Loan and Credit Agreements stated that the consultants were also to assist in the preparation and execution of a pro- gram of highway maintenance but they completed a renort on maintenance, includ- ing major recommendations, only in 1968. The US AID-financed maintenance pro- grnm iQ the rPqnonnq to those recommendations althmngh different consultants. Capital Engineering and Salas, are implementing the project. T1 In .b . cfn c o-f the Pln VTinl T.n rnnt- i1nti--:1cn eiiip ton q qWtr1i in Government priorities to construction of new major highways. Presently, Plans a g u wt impl ment--i-n Of V ciarl. pliqp nf thp Plan Vial. - 10 - One of the most positive contributions of the consultants, and of the project itself, was the transfer of knowledge to the Highway Depart- ment. Experience gained through implementation of the Bank/IDA project has enabled the Department, in recent years, to design roads and supervise works without assistance, although consultant's services are still neces- sary for more complicated or newer types of projects, such as the Siquirres- Limon Highway. The Highway Department also now has effective contracting procedures. Project Adjustments The Loan/Credit condition calling for priority in the application of funds was somewhat rigid considering the prolonged period of project imple- mentation. The Bank succeeded in persuading the IDB and the Government to delay undertaking the feeder road project until 1965 but, as noted previ- ously in the section on delays, another highway project was also undertaken during implementation of the Bank/IDA project. During proiect execution Supervision Missions of some one-two weeks were carried out by one or two staff members on an average of once a year. The timing and frequency of the missions appears to have been satisfactory except at the time when major project adjustments became necessary, but their scope and composition seem to have been too narrow. From the supervi- sion reports it appears that efforts were largely limited to reporting on the progress of project works. As it became evident that the full original 670 km project could not be carried out by the final closing date nor within the limits of financing provided by the Loan and Credit, the Highway Depart- ment, in agreement with the Bank, chose to delete some roads from its pro- gram entirely and to relegate others to force account financing -- without reimbursement. According to Highway Department staff, the criteria used to delete proiect roads were priority order as established at the time of Appraisal (listed in Table 2) and actual traffic. No roads were dropped from the first 14 nriorities all included in the First Year Program. For the Second Year Program, 1971 average daily traffic (ADT) on the group of -rnnr]Q irnnrmTPfA vqn~c nhnijt pniin,l to tbat- on the grolir, of roads irnnnp( -__nw .- - - - - - - - r r - ___ ever, for the Third Year Program, 1971 average daily traffic was 25% less on the grU-0p imprOved thanl o theq group d1ronped as shor)n below: Roads Improved to Stnards Plane Roads not inmroved No. of No. of D-aA 1071 AT)T Un aAs 1071 AnT 0 ea rg o 0 1u1 Thirdi Year Programu ZJ+00 OL_ U-) - 11 - Eary n 196t1 -be forarmeft -f 0--c,- V4n- -U-bA -TItocn sider financing five feeder roads included in the work program for the £C L_L V tat_ U U U ta. - L UI AL LIC UJ JLLLLLr "C~LLLM F'- UJ CL. - %LL 6tL4Ut . ULEL engineering and feasibility studies were not sufficiently advanced. The DBa suggcsLeU LhaL LUL Ur L Uds ue juLLr invCbigatdCU Uy Lotbult ants under the first Bank project and that the fifth, actually comprising several- road sections in the Nicoya PeninLLsu_la, bef conidre by-thB-DB This suggestion launched the planning stage for the larger IDB feeder road project begun in 1965. While the Bank did not reject the idea of financing the feeder roads, it appears that the mainly reconstruction program chosen for a first Bank project was preferred partly due to the greater ease of quantifying direct economic benefits. This summary audit does not permit to answer the ques- tion whether the construction/improvement program adopted was the highway project of highest priority in 1961. The priority of the project actually executed, three or four years late, is quite another question, but aIso unanswerable within the scope of this study, although some doubts arise from the more rapid traffic increases that have occurred on some of the roads which have remained unimproved, as noted above. Lessons Two main lessons for the Bank emerge from this summary audit: 1. Bank flexibility - As the project was in many ways a type of "highway program loan," the Bank should have been more flexible in its approach when major deviations from appraisal estimates began to occur. Probably the project should have been re-appraised after three years to verify its continuing priority. Supervision Missions should have played a more active role in project modification, by care- fully considering possible major changes in the project or supplementary financing -- as opposed to simple deletion of project road sections. 2. Institution-Building - As assistance with development and implementation of an improved maintenance program were included among the consultant's responsibilities under the Loan Agreement, the Bank should have provided more detailed terms of reference including specific time-related targets in the maintenance field against which implementation could have been measured.  TABLE I COSTA RICA: FIRST HIGHWAY PROJECT DISBURSEMENTS SCHEDULE: EXPECTED VS. ACTUAL (US$ million) Construction/Improvement Equipment Consultants Contingency Year Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual (Expected) 1962 1.40 2.50 0.10 0.20 1963 2.40 0.50 0.60 1.38 0.10 010 1964 3.40 0.79 0.88 0.10 0.10 1965 1.47 0.56 1966 1.65 0.03 1967 2.17 Total 76.58 3.10 29R. 0.30 0.622a 0.40 a/ Disbursed in approximately equal portions over the six year period. Source: Appraisal Reports TO-294a; PTR-26 V 4LO D-CV4 fT t s TABLE 2 COSTA RICA: FIRST HIGHWAY PROJECT ROAD W~RKS AND TRAFFTC: 1971 ACTUALS vs. APPRAISAL ESTIMTES Actual 5 Actual/Eatimated original Name of Road and Period of Actual Distance (Km) Cost (éillia ) Traffic Priority Expeotad Year of Cssatruction or M.ans of Original Actual Original Actual Light (~. p. d.) Heay . Light H-avy (No.) Execution Re.oost.ruction Eution b/ Estimate 1971 Estirat. f/ 1971 Est. 1971 t dot. 1971 Est. 1971 1/ Act. 1971 Km. COt Traffic Traffic Fir.t ysar 1962 I San Jose-Sto. Domingo-Pirro 63-65 F,X 9.9 11.1 2.00 1.6 2711 6429 819 1230 112 8o 231 150 2 Alajuela-San Isidro 63-66 F 8.4 8.1 o.47 2.47 521 634 281 222 96 525 122 79 3 Sam Jose-Giadalupe-Ranho Redondo 63-65 P,X 16.4 11.7 1.89 2.49 1299 4816 700 1314 71 132 370 192 4 Sabana-Favas 63-65 C,F 4.5 4.1 o.4o 0.98 1057 2598 521 687 91 215 26 132 5 San Joaquin-Sta. Barbara 63-66 F 5.0 3.79 .l46 1.54 g./ 658 30 355 170 76 33 65 49 6 Y Griega-San Antonio 64-66 c 3.8 3.1 o.52 1.32 1184 4098 394 911 82 251 346 231 7 Curridabat-San Antonio 63-66 0,F 2.3 1.6 0.18 0.28 220 66 70 496 70 156 275 708 8 Desparados-Acosta 64-69 0,F 22.8 22.6o 2.39 6.15 1' 335 1121 164 351 99 257 335 214 9 lao Jos-Paso -Anho 65-65 x 1.9 1.85 0.56 o.16 1043 2747 562 615 97 30 263 109 10 Curridabat-Tres ios 63-65 F 5.8 1.5 3.74 1.04 2551 4424 1374 1807 26 28 173 132 11 Zapote-Ourridabat 61-62 p 2.1 2.0 0.32 0.38 2320 3314 42 96o 95 n9 143 217 12 Tras Equis-SIquirres 63-65 G,Fj / 27.3 36.49 4.20 7.46 167 239 133 178 13 Radial-Zapotm 6-68 0 2 1.3 2.38 1.23 2.73 4545 798 183 222 14 Liberia-ouardia 63-66 c 18.7 18.3 1.70 3.16 128 680 109 320 98 186 531 294 Second Yoer 1963 15 Fuentes Lourdes (F) d 2.0 0.22 1421 6375 - 29 0003 149 4l 16 San Sebastian-San Jusn de Dos Rios 3.7 o.36 350 2737 445 772 782 173 17 San J.os-villa Colon 66-69 F 18.4 9.02 2.18 2.57 1610 1869 451 447 49 118 116 98 18 Laguna-Ciudad Qusada (X) 24.o 1.4h 313 371 117 25h 118 173 19 La Marina-Pital 17.1 1.48 103 206 68 ikh 200 212 20 Cartago-Volcwa-Irazu 29.1 1.13 239 35h 129 167 148 129 21 Interamericana-Las Junts 65-67 0 6.4 6.4 0.54 1.14 120 142 -51 65 109 267 118 127 22 SaM Josecito-Ataos 64-67 0 15.9 20.0 1.76 3.16 31 715 133 286 126 196 210 215 23 Uruca-Incorables 3.3 o.47 1085 5590 362 2283 5 6 24 Cartago-Cervantes 66-71 x 19.0 19.0 2.4o 2.63 530 875 285 425 lao 110 165 19 25 Ipis-san Isidro-Casajal 66-67 F 13.9 2.17 1.26 1.23 41 1192 224 531 16 98 288 238 26 Sam Jose-nlajuelita 2.5 1.90 731 2283 450 690 311 153 27 Alajuela-Oarrlzal 64-65 c 11.2 9.19 .o5 1.10 95 336 63 121 82 105 351 192 28 Sam Jos.-D.samparados 65-65 x 2.1 2.1o 1.20 0.44 2740 6018 1349 1625 100 37 220 120 29 Sam Jose-Curridabat 65-65 F,X 4.8 2.3 2.57 0.92 2740 7553 1349 2354 48 36 276 17 30 Lourdes-San Ramon de Tres Rios 10.9 1.29 485 1168 153 292 241 191 31 Oircunvalacion (San Pedro-Guadalupe-Calle Blancos) - 2.5 1.25 32 Goardia-Santa Crus 65-68 0,0 38.3 38.9 7.10 13.5 !/ 128 623 109 151 102 190 488 138 Third Year 1961 33 Betania-Guadalupe 64-65 F 1.7 1.7 0.13 o.60 lo 5573 473 689 100 62 392 146 31 Interamericaa-Miramar 66-68 c 7.2 7.2 0.23 0.87 120 209 51 55 100 378 171 108 35 La Argentina-Grecia 64-66 c 7.9 7.8 0.93 1.04 126 219 84 108 99 112 174 128 36 Narano-j.Lguna (X) 21.0 1.50 313 370 17 216 118 147 37 Ciudad Quesada-Florencia (0) 9.7 0.78 10 31 150 192 391 128 38 Flaoncia-Muele de San Carlos 66-68 0 14.7 14.4 2.01 4.05 87 157 71 113 97 198 180 159 39 Cervantes.Turrialba 71- 0 x 22.0 2.47 375 584 230 308 156 131 lo Lo Suiza-Mrsai 9.4 1.10 105 157 105 178 150 170 41 Ciudad Quesada-La Marina 11.0 1.20 134 218 89 151 163 170 42 Turrialba-Tres Equis 63-67 F 19.7 3.55 0.43 h/ 137 561 74 271 409 366 43 Santa Barbara-Alajusla 66-67 0 6.1 6.1 0.78 1.53 213 274 n6 69 10 196 129 59 u1 Sam Jose-San Sebastian 2.0 o.49 763 6080 167 1356 797 290 45 Tiba-San l.idro (x) 8.2 0.99 668 1181 200 283 177 142 46 Desanparados-Patarra 1 (x) 5.6 0.77 335 80 164 151 264 92 47 Zapot-San Franciso de Ros D R. 64-66 0 1.0 1.02 0.18 o.86 389 3416 209 556 102 478 878 266 4a Tibas-Llorente (x) 2.2 0.31 530 1253 167 244 236 146 l9 Heredia-El Gallito (x) 8.0 o.88 247 356 131 142 i4 106 50 Harodia-Vara Blan.a (x) 29.4 4.50 21 298 167 160 121 96 51 Tilaran-Arenal 6-64 x i5,o 15.0 1.86 o.58 39 176 26 50 100 27 151 192 52 Vara Blanca-Poas (X) 15.2 0.90 29 5 37 1L 186 38 53 Villa Colon-Puriscal 65-68 0 16.0 18.0 1.76 1.48 1h2 290 95 167 113 25 2o4 176 51 Ataa-San Mateo 1.9 2.57 103 155 42 53 150 126 55 Canas-Tilaran 66-67 0 / 22.8 22.8 2.18 5.16 67 271 25 82 100 237 409 328 56 Santa Cra-~Nicoya 66-68 c / 31.8 21.2 5.30 7.76 V 118 421 53 107 61 146 357 202 57 Sam Francisco-Belen-El Cooo 9.7 0.63 462 493 248 113 107 58 TorALS 671.0 353.21 åLO 86.33 a/ 56% of work complete as of Kay 1972 b/ C - Contract, F - Forsa donat with raiburement, X - Foroe acount without reimbursement. o/ Now onsatructio; all other work was reconstruction. d/ Parontheses in thIs column indicata meas of eution under revised project for road, where work has not yet been carrled out. (priority roads listed with no Metry ander "Actual Hemas of Execution" vare droped fficially frm the reviaed progr.:) a/ Work carried out by foreign contractor. (all other contract work was local). f/ Inclads 15% contingency allo~ance. / Atual coeat. include bridge works shich were not planned for st the tim appras i acost estimates ere made. h/ Work dans Included the building of one bridge, only. I/ Estimated 1971 traffic data are baned on the 1963 estimtes presanted in the Appraisal Report nultiplied by on expected ann-al increase of 3.5% for the interi. period. Sourse, Appratsal Report 10-294. (e.timatsd data) Hini.terio do Obra Publiea. y Tranaportes (1971 data) TABLE 3 COSTA RICA: FIRST HIGHWAY PROJECT ANNUAL DIRECT ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: ACTUAL FOR 1971 vs. APPRAISAL ESTIMATES FOR 1963 Annual Road User Savings Annual Original Name of Road and Light Heavy Maintenance Total Annual Savings % Return Priority Expected lear of (W Savings Mst. Actual ) Actual/ 1963 a/ 1971 h/ No. Execution Eat. Actual Est. Actual (V000w (000) ($000) Eat. Est. Adtual First Year 1962 2 Alajuela-San Isidro 133 204 169 169 34 337 407 120 76 16 3San jose-Guadalupe-ianco Redondo 532 1839 668 1200 9 1269 30188 24 71 1 4 Sabana-Pavas 105 312 12? 194 17 246 593 213 68 53 5 San Joaquin-Sta. Barbara 100 65 128 61 16 249 142 57 58 9 6 1 Griega-San Antonio 136 507 103 257 13 p2 777 35 o 7 Curridabat-San Antonio 41 101 30 191 5 79 297 376 48 107 8 Desamparados-Acosta 445 1978 501 1417 92 1037 3487 336 48 57 10 C..r.aa+ .c Rios 2nC 12? ?4 1oo 6 471 937 q0 13 23 U Zapote-Curridabat 62 111 27 73 8 97 192 198 16 50 1 Liberia-Guardia 119 817 232 877 65 417 1759 340 27 56 Second Year 1963 17 San Jose-Villa Colon 739 55h 487 690 38 1303 1282 98 63 50 21 Interamericana-Las Juntas 89 139 88 147 22 199 308 155 41 21 22 San Josecito-Atenas 301 1047 275 981 78 638 2106 330 40 61 25 Ipis-San Isidro-Cascalal 128 77 137 69 9 324 155 48 27 13 27 Alajuela-Carrizal 68 p60 104 215 32 211 507 240 22 46 32 Guardia-Sta. Cruz 245 1604 475 682 137 854 2623 307 13 19 Third Year 1964 33 Betania-Guadalupe 46 237 56 107 7 109 351 329 87 58 34 Interamericana-Miramar 29 66 30 42 25 84 133 158 40 15 35 La Argentina-Grecia 118 266 183 306 28 329 600 182 39 58 38 Florencia-Muelle de San Carlos 144 332 276 559 50 472 941 199 26 23 43 Sta. Barbara-Alajuela 104 176 132 103 21 257 300 117 39 20 47 Zapote-San Fco. de Dos Rios 12 141 15 54 4 31 199 642 19 23 53 Villa Colon-Puriscal 76 228 122 317 63 254 608 239 16 14 55 Canas-Tilaran 115 618 99 428 80 294 1126 383 15 22 56 Santa Crus-Nicoya 228 651 240 392 74 590 1117 189 12 14 Note on Methodology: In this tabie actual savings were derived directly from the 1963 estimated savings (Appraisal Report) taking into account changes in traffic and distance in km. a/ 1963estimated % return 1963 est. total savings 10oAm .,+ +,,+.1 ,ra.+ (na chn,rv, 4., *Pahh1 b/ 1971 actual % return = 1971 actual total savings actnal +n+nl -n.t. (As Lhn T., able 21 Source AnnAiAl Renort - 'ID99in, Annex Table 1. (est. 1961 data) Ministerio de Obras Publicas. (actual 1971 data)  一 FELRUARY ］り70 ]BRIJ 25ア7R