STUDY ON ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP PROJECT

IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN FY 2012

STUDY ON MUSIRIVER CROSSING BRIDGE PROJECT

IN THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

FINAL REPORT

SUMMARY

February 2013

Prepared for:

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

Ernst & Young Shin Nihon LLC

Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)

Prepared by:

Mitsui Consultants Co., Ltd.

Chodai Co., Ltd.

Infrastructure Development Institute- Japan

1 Background and Necessity of the Project
1.1 Background and Necessity of the Project
Due to the petroleum, gas, palm oil, rubber and other abundant resources and growth of key industries, Palembang City in
the province of South Sumatra in Indonesia is positioned as a priority development area in the Indonesia Economic
Development Corridor (IEDC) concept. Because of this, the population of Palembang City is increasing every year (Rate of
increase in population: 2.07% [Average increase in Indonesia: 1.18%]), with the population exceeding 1.5 million in 2011,
making it the second largest city in Sumatra. Urban functions are expanding from the old urban area in the north part of the
city with the building of residential properties, plants, and commercial areas in the south and east parts of the city.

However, there are only two bridges which cross the Musi River that flows from the west to the east through the center of
Palembang City, the Ampera Bridge and Second Musi River Bridge, with the city divided in a north-south direction.
Therefore, traffic is concentrated on the Ampera Bridge, which is the only bridge in the center of the city, and the resulting
traffic jams are the foremost problem for the city, causing enormous economic losses.

Due to these circumstances, construction of a new bridge crossing the Musi River is a very high priority project for not only
Palembang City but for Indonesia as a whole, and this project has been listed on the Blue Book 2011 2014 by
BAPPENAS. In addition, a ring road with a total length of 25 km that includes this project has been planned by BINA
MARGA, and a FS was conducted for this project with Indonesian funds in 2010, with detailed design started in November
2011. Implementation of this project is of something that is of high necessity for Indonesia.

1.2 Current Status and Issues of Musi River Bridges

Currently, there are two bridges that are in service on the Musi River, the Ampera Bridge in the center of Palembang City
(completed in 1965), and the Second Musi River Bridge in the western part of Palembang City (completed in 1994). The
Ampera Bridge was built 50 years ago, but extentive repair work was performed in 1992, at which time the concrete deck
slabs were replaced and repair and reinforcement were also performed on the bridge piers.

The results of a visual survey of the Ampera Bridge and Second Musi River Bridge indicated that the paint has deteriorated
to a certain extent, but no damage that may require urgent cares was found. In addition, the volume of traffic on both
bridges was found to be high high, and the observation revealed that an alternate bridge is required when repair work is
performed on these bridges in the future.
2 Basic Policy for Determining Project Content
2.1 Location, Topographic Features and Natural Conditions for Project
The geography, geological conditions, climate, weather and river conditions of the target region are shown in Table i.

Table i Geography, Geological Conditions, Climate, Weather and River Conditions in Target Area
Overview

Geography / The area around Palembang City is flat, and there are many lowland swamps.
Geological According to a boring study that was implemented this time, there is tightly packed ground at a
Conditions depth of 20m or more (N value at depth of 20m or more is 30 or higher).
Climate / The area has a tropical rainforest climate, with high temperatures and humidity throughout the
Weather year.
(Monthly average temperature ranges from 26C to 28C, monthly average humidity ranges
from 78% to 87% and yearly average rainfall is approximately 2,500mm.)
Rainfall volume is relatively low during the dry season from June to September
(Monthly average rainfall: Approximately 100mm)
Winds are generally mild (Monthly average wind speed of 3 m/s or less).
Musi River In the target region for this study, the gradient of the Musi River is flat, the river width is wide,
Overview with a tendency for sand drifts to be deposited.
The water level is influenced by the tides, and periodically fluctuates. However, saltwater
intrusion does not occur.
Since the land in the Palembang City region is low lying, the city is easily inundated with water.
Shipping There are petroleum and other plants in the target area on the Musi River for this study, with
Channel tanker and other large ship traffic on the river (Channel width: 240m, Min. height: 50m)
The Musi River bed is dredged to prevent sediment from impeding ship traffic.
Palembang City is in an area that has a comparatively low level of impact from earthquakes.
Source: Prepared by Study Team

2.2 Transport Demand Forecast

2.2.1 Transport Demand Forecasting Methods
After reviewing the traffic volume forecast conditions and the results of the FS for the Musi III Bridge conducted in 2010,
the reduction ratio in traffic volume on the Musi III Bridge due to toll resistance (reluctance to pay toll) was calculated.

2.2.2 Traffic Demand Forecast Results

The traffic volume on the Third Music River Bridge and ring road in each year in which an estimate was made in the traffic
demand forecast results in the FS for the Third Bridge conducted in 2010 are shown in Figure i.
The traffic indicates increases in accordance with the increase in OD traffic volume, and in particular, since six bridges to
cross the Musi River (Total of 9 bridges including two existing bridges and Musi III Bridge) will be built by 2025, traffic
volume will exceed 40,000 vehicles.
 Figure i Transition in Traffic Volume on Musi III Bridge

(pcu/d)

45,000 40,759
40,000
35,000
26,649
30,000
25,000 20,723
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2016 2020 2025

Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on STUDI KELAYAKAN JALAN DAN JEMBATAN MUSI III PALEMBANG

2.2.3 Setting of Traffic Volume Reduction Ratio by Changing into Toll Road
The reduction ratio due to toll resistance that was calculated using the ratio of use calculated for each toll settings and OD
traffic volume that will use the Musi III Bridge is shown in Table ii.
The results of the reduction ratio calculations are shown in Table ii.

Reduction ratio = Toll setting traffic volume Traffic volume when free (= Case 0)
Toll setting (case) traffic volume = A + (B x Musi III Bridge usage ratio)
A :OD that use MusiIII Bridge regardless of toll B :OD for which Musi III Bridge usage varies depending on toll

Table ii Results of Musi III Bridge Reduction Ratio Calculation Due to Toll Resistance
Toll Setting Musi Musi
Case A B Reduction Ratio
(Rp/Numberkm) usage ratio Traffic Volume
Case0 0 100 % 9,197 100.0 %
Case1 300 89 % 8,765 95.3 %
5,268 3,929
Case2 600 79 % 8,372 91.0 %
Case3 900 61 % 7,665 83.3 %
Source: Prepared by Study Team

2.2.4 Change in Traffic Flow with Building of Musi III Bridge

(1) Calculation Method
Due to the fact that the traffic volume crossing the Musi River on each bridge cannot be determined from the traffic
demand forecast results in the FS for the Musi III Bridge conducted in 2010, the change in traffic flow in the event that
the Musi III Bridge is built was predicted based on the OD table from 2010.

(2) Change in Traffic Flow Caused by Building of Musi III Bridge

The results of calculation of the traffic volume using each bridge to cross the Musi River are shown in Figure ii.
 Figure ii Change in Traffic Flow Caused by Building of Musi III Bridge Route

Without Musi III bridge

110,000pcu/d

48,000pcu/d

With Musi III Bridge

67,000pcu/d

43,000pcu/d

48,000pcu/d

Traffic Shift from Ampera Bridge

to Musi III Bridge

Source: Prepared by Study Team

2.2.5 Route Plan
(1) Basic Policy for Route Plan
In the FS for the Musi III Bridge project that was conducted in 2010, the routes shown in Figure iii were planned.
In the route plan that was studied at this time, the route plan used in the FS 2010 was taken into consideration in an effort
to match it with the east ring road plan for the roads other than Musi III Bridge and the approach section. The route used
in the FS 2010 will be adhered to, a comparative review with Musi III Bridge and the roads in the approach section will
be performed, thereafter the route will be selected.

However, since it is necessary to perform project evaluation for the entire east ring road, a comparative review will be
performed for theMusi River crossing bridge and the approach section, with all sections of the east ring road.

Figure iii Route Plan

Proposed Route 1
Proposed Route 2
Proposed Route 3
Proposed Route 4
Proposed Route 5 (Adoption Route)

Source: STUDI KELAYAKAN JALAN DAN JEMBATAN MUSI III PALEMBANG

 (2) Comparative Review
The evaluation results of the routes are shown in Table iii.

Table iii Route Selection Comparison

BINA MARGA Original
Route Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3
Plan
Crosses Musi River at Crosses Musi River at Crosses Musi River at a Crosses Musi River at a
Overview an angle from Northeast an angle from Northeast right angle in center of right angle at upstream
to Southwest to Southwest Kemarau Island side of Kemarau Island
Plane View

Connection with ring road

Musi River Existing road

Oil terminal
Plant
Kemarau Island

Built-up area

Plant Temple

BINA MARGA FS plan Connection with ring road

Existing road

Alternative plan 1 Built-up area

Under Development Built-up area Connection with ring road
Alternative planplan2
BINA MARGA
Alternative plan
Alternative
Alternativeplan
plan 3 Plant

Main Bridge
Cable-Stayed Bridge / Cable-Stayed Bridge / Extradosed Bridge / Extradosed Bridge /
Type /
L=3.8km L=3.8km L=3.8km L=3.9km
Bridge Length

Good
Traffic Volume Fair Fair Fair
Coloser to center of
Palembang city
Land Usage Good Good Good Good

Fair Fair
Social
Good Good
Considerations Pass near Chinese Pass near Chinese
temple and industrial temple and industrial
facilities facilities
24.5 billion yen
(2.8780 trillion Rp)
3
26.2 billion yen 24.0 billion yen 30.3 billion yen
Cost *DD(Detail Design) Plan
(3.0750 trillion Rp) (2.8170 trillion Rp) (3.5570 trillion Rp)
(Under Implementation)
24.5 billion yen
(2.8780 trillion Rp)
Evaluation Fair Good Good Fair
Source: Prepared by Study Team
3 Overview of the Project
3.1 Project Content
This project includes construction of a bridge with a total length of 3.3 km. Efforts will be made during the project to match
the Plan for a bridge that crosses the Musi River which is part of the Palembang City east ring road plan, located
approximately 5 km on the downstream side of the road bridge (Ampera Bridge) over the Musi River, in the center of
Palembang City, which shows significant extent of deterioration. Figure iv shows a general plan for the bridge.

[Alternative plan 1]
This bridge type is Cable-Stayed Bridge. The length of 360.0m was selected as the main span in order to provide a
shipping channel width of B=240.0m due to the influence of the bridge crossing the river at an angle. The economic span
on the left bank side of the Musi River is approximately 110m due to the placement of bridge piers in the river since
coffering and pier works are required.

[Alternative plan 2]
This bridge type is Extradosed Bridge. The length of 270.0m was selected as the main span which satisfies shipping
channel width of B=240.0m. The economic span on the left bank side of the Musi River is approximately 110m due to
the placement of bridge piers in the river since coffering and pier works are required.

[Alternative plan 3]
This bridge type is Extradosed Bridge. The length of 270.0m was selected as the main span which satisfies the shipping
channel width of B=240.0m. The bridge is positioned at a located where a tributary of the Musi River branches off.
Furthermore, since ships navigate on the tributary, a span length of 270m was selected.
 Figure iv General Plan for Bridge

Alternative
Plan 1

Alternative
Plan 2

Alternative
Plan 3

Source: Prepared by Study Team

3.2 Total Project Cost
The approximate construction costs at this junction for this project are shown in
Table iv, which amounts to approximately 21.2 billion yen. When it is assumed that fee for consultants and contingency
funds will each amount to 10% of construction costs, the total project costs including these fees and expenses added amount
to approximately 30.8 billion yen.

Table iv Estimated Construction Costs

Item Consultant Consultant Remarks
Cost Cost
(Million Rp) (Million Yen)

Main Bridge Superstructure 1,096,000 9,340 Bridge Length1460m

(PC Cable-Stayed Bridge Substructure 917,000 7,810 Max Span 360m

+ PC Box Girder Bridge) Subtotal 2,013,000 17,150

Superstructure 417,000 3,550 Bridge Length 600

Approach bridge
Substructure 558,000 4,750 Span 40+70+140+70+7x40m
(PCT Girders Bridge
Subtotal 975,000 8,300 Bridge Length 1320
+ PC Box Girder Bridge)
Span 33x40m
Construction of Temporary Structures 235,000 200 material yard ,
Girder Production Yard etc.
Construction Cost (1) Total 3,223,000 25,650

Consultant Cost (2) 322,000 2,570 10% of

Contingency Fund(3) 322,000 2,570 10% of
Total Construction Cost (123) 3,867,000 30,790 About 30.8 Billion Yen
Source: Prepared by Study Team

3.3 Result on Financial and Economic Evaluation

3.3.1 Costs
The costs that were included in the preliminary financial and economic analyses include land acquisition, resettlement
relocation of utilities, construction, and operation and maintenance costs. Out of these costs, the land acquisition cost,
resettlement cost and cost for relocation of utilities were not included in the preliminary financial analysis since it was
assumed that the government would cover these costs. On the other hand, all of the above mentioned costs were included
for the preliminary economic analysis.
 (1) Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Relocation Cost
The costs for land acquisition, resident resettlement, relocation of utilities and other items in the area that is influenced
by this project (bridge and road development work) are estimated to be approx. 733.3 billion Rp.

(2) Construction Costs

The costs for construction of the bridge and for a road length of approximately 25 km are included in the construction
costs. Table v shows a comparison of the construction costs for BINA MARGA FS, Alternative plan 1, 2 and 3.

Table v Construction Costs

(Unit: billion Rp, Values in parentheses are 100 million yen)
BINA MARGA FS Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3
Structure (Bridge) 2,878(245) 2.987(254) 2,698(230) 3,379(288)
Road 555(47) 555(47) 555(47) 555(47)
Total 3,433(292) 3,542(302) 3,253(277) 3,934(335)
Note: Converted at Rp = 0.008519
Source: Prepared by Study Team

(3) Operation, Maintenance and Other Costs

An amount equal to 2% of the construction costs/y is estimated for the daily maintenance and management expenses,
and an amount equal to 2% of the construction estimated per five years is estimated for periodic repair costs. It is
thought that periodic repair costs will be incurred every five years after the bridge is placed in service / operation.

3.3.2 Traffic Volume

Table vi shows the estimated traffic volume used as the basis for the preliminary financial and economic analysis. The
traffic volume in 2014 is 29,885 pcu, 35,595 pcu in 2020, and 49,776 pcu in 2025. The assumption was made that the traffic
volume would increase at a yearly rate of 6.5% from 2025 to 2040, reaching the saturated level of approximately 100,000
pcu in 2038, and assumed to remain constant thereafter.

Table vi Estimated Traffic Volume

2014 2020 2025

Northbound Southbound Total Northbound Southbound Total Northbound Southbound Total

a, Bina Marga
9,932 9,992 19,924 11,992 11,738 23,730 17,054 16,129 33,184
FS(Vehicles/Day)
b, pcu(a X1.5) 14,898 14,988 29,885 17,989 17,607 35,595 25,582 24,194 49,776
Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalandan Jembatan Musi III Palembang, Average/PCU (1.5)
Prepared by Study Team
3.3.3 Overview of Preliminary Financial Analysis
The financial analysis used 2016 as the base year when the bridge is placed in service for evaluation purposes. Table vii, it
is assumed that the yearly rate of inflation from 2010 when the FS that was conducted by BINA MARGA until 2016 when
construction is scheduled to begin will be 8.5%, and rates were converted to the price level as of 2016, with the financial
internal rate of return calculated for the BINA MARGA FS, alternative plan 1, 2 and 3 at the respective toll settings of 500
Rp (approx. 4.3)/km, 1,000 Rp (approx. 8.5)/km and 1,500 Rp (approx. 12.8)/km.

Due to the fact that a financial rate of return of approximate13 15% which is generally expected in Indonesia cannot be
achieved for any of the rates or any of the plans or alternative plans, it means that this project does not qualify itself as a
genuine private sector toll expressway (BOT project). In order to make this project viable, in addition to the government
funding intend for site acquisition, resettlement and facility relocation, financial support for the project such as government
assistance measures that consist of government subsidies, tax incentives or low-interest loans are essential arrangements.

Table vii Financial Internal Rate of Return

BINA MARGA FS Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3
500Rp/km 4.1% 3.9% 4.4% 3.3%
1,000Rp/km 9.6% 9.3% 10.0% 8.5%
1,500Rp/km 12.8% 12.5% 13.3% 11.6%
Source: Prepared by Study Team

3.3.4 Overview of Preliminary Economic Analysis

The economic analysis consisted of an evaluation based on the year 2010 which was used as the basis for the FS conducted
by BINA MARGA. The vehicle travel costs with different vehicle types and at travel speeds in 2010 are shown in Table viii,
and a list of the time reduction benefits per vehicle in the respective vehicle types is given in Table ix, referring to the BINA
MARGA FS. In this FS, the time reduction benefits were converted into the price level as of 2010, and the economic
feasibility of this project was evaluated.

Table viii Vehicle Travel Cost for Each Vehicle Type and Travel Speed (2010)
(Unit:Yen/Vehicle km, (Rp/vehicle km))
Velocity (km/h) Car Truck Bus
20 21.8(2,557) 72.1(8,469) 55.1(6,472)
30 18.7(2,195) 61.9(7,268) 47.3(5,554)
40 16.2(1,906) 56.4(6,619) 41.8(4,906)
50 14.4(1,693) 52.5(6,160) 37.7(4,428)
60 13.2 (1,554) 50.4(5,918) 35.2(4,134)
70 12.7 (1,490) 50.4(5,921) 34.4(4,033)
80 12.8(1,501) 52.8(6,200) 35.2(4,133)
90 13.5(1,587) 57.7(6,774) 37.8(4,441)
100 14.9(1,747) 65.3(7,665) 42.3(4,967)
Note: Converted at Rp = 0.008519
Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalandan Jembatan Musi III Palembang, Yen conversion made by Study Team.
 Table ix Travel Time Reduction Benefits
(Unit: Yen/VehicleHour,(Rp/VehicleHour))
Study Agency / Study Name Study Year Vehicle Truck Bus
104.7 157.9 117.3
PT JasaMarga 1996
(12,287) (18,534) (13,768)
60.2 125.0 31.2
JIUTR northern extension (PCI) 1989
(7,067) (14,670) (3,659)
Note: Converted at Rp = 0.008519
Source: Pekerjaan Studi Kelayakan Jalandan Jembatan Musi III Palembang

During the evaluation of economic feasibility, externality (external effects) was taken into consideration. The increase in
land prices in the area surrounding the development sections (bridge, road), expansion of the urban area, stimulation of
economic activity and other benefits are included in externality (external effects).

Table x shows the economic internal rate of return when the said project is implemented as a free road or a toll road (with
toll charges of 300Rp (2.6/km), 600Rp (5.1/km) and 900Rp (7.7/km)) for BINA MARGA FS, alternative plan 1, 2 and 3.
The economic internal rate of return of this project exceeds the opportunity cost of capital in Indonesia (about 13 15%) in
all cases, and is at a level that exceeds the hurdle rate of 15-16% that is the general standard requirement of yen loans and
STEP projects as well

Table x Economic Internal Rate of Return

BINA MARGA FS Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3
Free 17.2% 17.0% 17.7% 16.1%
300Rp/km 16.7% 16.5% 17.1% 15.6%
600Rp/km 16.2% 16.0% 16.6% 15.2%
900Rp/km 15.3% 15.1% 15.7% 14.3%
Source: Prepared by Study Team

Table xi shows the net present value for each route (FS, alternative plans) and each toll setting (including free) when a
discount rate of 12.5% is used, and Table xii shows the cost-benefit ratio.

Table xi Net Present Value

(Unit: 100 million yen, Values in parentheses are 100 million Rp)
BINA MARGA FS Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3
Free 19,275(164) 17,968(153) 19,681(168) 14,776(126)
300 Rp./km 16,902(144) 15,596(133) 17,309(147) 12,403(106)
600 Rp./km 14,732(126) 13,425(114) 15,138(129) 10,233(87)
900 Rp./km 10,845(92) 9,539(81) 11,252(96) 6,346(54)
Note: Converted at Rp = 0.008519
Source: Prepared by Study Team

Table xii Cost-Benefit Ratio

BINA MARGA FS Alternative Plan 1 Alternative Plan 2 Alternative Plan 3
Free 1.62 1.58 1.68 1.46
300Rp/km 1.54 1.51 1.60 1.39
600Rp/km 1.47 1.44 1.53 1.33
900Rp/km 1.35 1.32 1.40 1.22
 Source: Prepared by Study Team
3.3.5 Consideration
Judging from the results of the preliminary financial and economic analyses hereof, materialization of this project as a toll
road project coupled with appropriate participation by the private sector is more realistic solution than doing it as a public
project free road should this project are provided with suitable financial assistance. In addition to reducing the financial
burden on the government by utilizing private sector funds in case the parties agree to implement it as a private sector toll
road, one can expect higher quality services in O&M by utilizing private sector knowhow and experience in maintenance
and management.
Development of the legal system related to utilization of the private sector has shown progress in recent years, and work is
proceeding on quite a few projects that utilize the private sector to develop toll roads. Although there are fewer cases in
which road projects have been developed using PPP compared to cases in which development has been performed using
BOT, many project candidates will be qualified on the PPP project list such as the Palembang Indralaya Toll Road which
is adjacent to this project. Also, there are cases in which work has already began, such as the Solo Kertosono Toll Road.
This project therefore can be developed under PPP scheme should suitable support by the government be provided.

3.4 Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts

3.4.1 Analysis of Current Situation (Environmental/Social)
Current situation of the area surrounding the project site is shown in Figure v.

Figure v Current Conditions Surrounding Project Target Site

1. Center of the City 2. Pagoda in Kemaro Island 3. Swamp Area

3
4
1

2 5

6
4
Project Site

6. Industrial Facilities
4. Residential Area 5. Settlements along the along the Musi River
Musi River
Source: Prepared by Study Team Based on Study Results
(1) Air Quality
The levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and other air pollutants along the roads in the center of
Palembang City satisfy the environmental standards of Indonesia.

(2) Water Quality

The level of organic substances and hazardous substances in the Musi River that flows through the center of Palembang
City all exceed the levels prescribed by environmental standards, and tend to be higher in the downtown and
downstream areas.

(3) Noise / Vibration

Noise along the road in the center of Palembang City exceeds the levels prescribed by the environmental standards of
Indonesia.

(4) Natural Environment

The target area for this plan does not contain protected region and is not the habitat for a precious species that requires
protection as prescribed by the laws of Indonesia, international treaties or other conventions. However, due to the fact
there are swamps (Figure. v) surrounding the access road (northeastern area) for Palembang City, it can be inferred that
there are ecosystems for a diverse range of animals and plants in these swamps. Accordingly, an adequate review of the
impact on these swamps and the ecosystems that are there needs to be performed during project implementation.

(5) Presence of Residences

It has been confirmed that there are squatters along the banks of the Musi River (Figure. v). There are not any ethnic
minorities or indigenous people in the target area for this project.

(6) Historical / Cultural Assets

There are not any historical or cultural assets / heritages that have been designated for conservation by law in the target
area for this project, but certainly there is a Pagoda (Chinese temple) at the west end of Kemarau Island which will be
crossed by the Musi III Bridge (Figure. v). A review needs to be made to ensure the erection construction site so that the
bridge will not have an impact on this Pagoda. In addition, due to the fact that the mosques that are in each village are
precious facilities from historical, cultural and religious view point, appropriate consideration must be paid by the
implementing organizations/authorities concerned the project.
3.4.2 Environmental Impact Mitigating Effect
(1) Reduction of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases
The capacity of the second bridge that crosses the Musi River which flows through the center of the Palembang City is
inadequate, and this has resulted in heavy road congestion which pose serious constrains. Therefore, the construction of a
new alternate route will alleviate traffic jams in the center of the city, suppress exhaust gas emissions which are caused by
road traffic, and will reduce the volume of fuel consumed, all leading to the enhancement of a low carbon environment.

Here, the reduction in exhaust gases (NOx), greenhouse gases (CO2 (carbon conversion) and fossil fuel usage volume
caused by idling in traffic jams was estimated from the predicted traffic volume (in 2014) on the Musi III Bridge based on
the traffic demand forecast results in the FS for the Musi III Bridge conducted in 2010. Those assumed conditions for
calculation are described below.

Emissions volume is increased by traffic jams (idling) on the main arterial road that runs through the center of the city
in a north-south direction.
Traffic jams on the main arterial road that runs through the center of the city in a north-south direction will be
alleviated by the traffic volume that is predicted to use the Musi III Bridge in the FS that was conducted in 2010,
eliminating emissions due to idling.
The traffic volume obtained from the results of a field study (Ampera Bridge) during this work was used as the traffic
volume on the arterial road.
The estimated traffic volume in fiscal 2014 in the FS was used as the traffic volume on the Musi III Bridge.
The emissions volume due to idling was calculated using the basic unit prescribed by a study of the Tokyo
Metropolitan Research Institute for Environmental Protection and the formula shown below.

g vehicles
Emissions due to idlind in traffic jams ( h) = Traffic volume per hour ( ) basic unit (g)
10 min h
)
The above results estimate that the implementation of this project will reduce emissions/fuel usage due to idling per 10
minutes in peak hour traffic by the following respective amounts: 65% for nitrogen oxide emissions, 43% for carbon
dioxide emissions and 43% for fossil fuel usage volume.

(2) Other Environmental Mitigating Effects

The Traffic shifting to the Musi III Bridge from existing bridges will alleviate traffic jams in the center of Palembang City,
and the flow of automobiles at a constant speed is expected to improve the noise emitted by automobiles.

3.4.3 Impact of Project Implementation upon Environmental and Social Aspects

The environmental and social impact involved with the implementation of this project is shown in Table xiii.
 Table xiii List of Envisioned Environmental and Social Impacts
Environmental
Envisioned Impact, etc. Measures to Avoid/Alleviate Impact
Items
Smoothing of work processes / use of good quality
fuel, Implement adequate inspection /
Exhaust emission by maintenance of construction machinery and ships,
construction Observe speed regulations for vehicles
Air Pollution machinery/ships transporting materials / Implement idling stop
Concern regarding further policy / Provide guidance to construction
increase in traffic volume companies on prohibition of overloading
Promote modal shift and further develop current
public transport organizations (buses)
Muddy water from Provide settling pond to alleviate discharge of
Water Pollution
construction site muddy water
Smoothing of work processes and prohibit
construction at night, Implement adequate
inspection / maintenance of construction
machinery and ships, Observe speed regulations
for vehicles transporting materials / Implement
Noise due to operation of
idling stop policy / Provide guidance to
Environmental construction
construction companies on prohibition of
Considerations equipment/ships
overloading, Placement of noise insulation sheets,
Noise/Vibration Concern about low -
Placement of noise mufflers
frequency sound from
Provide sound insulating walls and plant trees
bridge and further
along road as necessary, Adopt pavement with
increase in traffic volume
good drainage properties, Use of no joint system
on bridge section, improve joints, minimize
pavement level difference
Promote modal shift and further develop current
public transport organizations (buses)
Byproduct of construction Reuse byproducts of constructions as much
Waste
process as possible, implement recycling program
Implement measures to deal with following issues:
Noise, vibration, muddy water, dust, exhaust
gases. Dispose of waste in appropriate manner
Ecosystem Causing change in habitat
Minimize alteration of landscape (select routes
utilizing existing roads, etc.), Create alternative
habitat as necessary
Social Resettlement of Need for resettlement of Implement measures to deal with following issues:
Considerations Residents residents Noise, vibration, muddy water, dust, exhaust
Living and Traffic restrictions / traffic gases. Dispose of waste in appropriate manner,
Livelihood jams in construction area Formulate construction plans that reflect traffic
Land usage and means of conditions and establish alternative routes
livelihood will be changed Minimize alteration of landscape (select routes
Landscape Causing change in view / utilizing existing roads, etc.)
landscape
Source: Prepared by Study Team
3.4.4 Items to be Achieved by the Government (including implementation agencies and related organizations) for
Implementation of Project
(1) Implementation of EIA According to Project Category
The project implementation agency shall implement the KA-ANDAL (Environmental Impact Analysis Implementation
Plan), ANDAL (Environmental Assessment Analysis) and other environmental impact assessment procedures, and obtain
an approval letter from the BLH ([Regional Environmental Management Agency]: Approval agency the government,
province governor or mayor depending upon project content), which is the agency that approves projects. The RPL
(Environment Monitoring Plan) and RPL (Environment Management Plan) shall be prepared and submitted to the BLH.

(2) Review of Alternative Plan

The environmental impact and number of residents that need to be resettled will vary subject to the line form of the
bridge section and access route. Therefore, the project implementation agency shall review these alternative plans from
the standpoint of environmental and social impact at the stage of full-fledged FS that is to be performed in the future.

(3) Implementation of LARAP

The project implementation agency shall comprehend the number of residents that need to be resettled during the
research in the EIA, and at the same time shall formulate a LARAP (Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan).
Then, compensation policy shall be specified.

(4) Consensus Building with Area

When this plan is implemented, tIt is very likely that this project will have environmental and social impact/effect on
the surrounding area, such as the resettlement of residents, interference with existing traffic flow, removal of structures,
generation of noise / vibration and in various dimensions. Therefore, the project implementation agency shall carry out
public consultation at an early stage of project implementation in order to build consensus with the area.

4 Implementation Schedule
The implementation schedule for this project that is programmed at this point is shown in the table below assuming that this
project is developed as a public project and that it is developed as a PPP project. And, should this project be realized under
PPP scheme, a detailed and precise feasibility study must be made on top of the study that has already been completed by
BINA MARGA, the FS that has already been completed by BINA MARGA.( Refer to Table xiv, Table xv )
Table xiv In case of Implemented as Public Project

Source: Prepared by Study Team

Table xv In case of Implemented as PPP Project

Source: Prepared by Study Team

5 Project Location Map
Figure vi Project Location Map

Indonesia

South Sumatra Province

Palembang City

Project Site

Source: Map of Indonesia Prepared by Study Team

South Sumatra Province Map
National Land Survey Institute (BAKOSURTANAL: Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan Nasional) /
Palembang City Map and Planned Site for Construction of Bridge Crossing Musi River
DINAS PERHUBUNGAN KOTA PALEMBANG