1.3 14. Informe Tráfico SDG

Report
Co
January 2016
nf nfi
Traffic Study
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
Steer Davies Gleave
Co
nf nfi
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
Traffic Study Steer Davies Gleave
Report
January 2016
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Prepared by: Prepared for:
Steer Davies Gleave Steer Davies Gleave

Carrera 7 No.71-52 Torre A Oficina 904 [Company Address]
Edificio Carrera Séptima
Bogotá D.C. Colombia
+57 1 322 1470

la.steerdaviesgleave.com
Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for Steer Davies Gleave. This material may only be used within
the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or
whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this
material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their
agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave
has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the
time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made.
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Project Background............................................................................................................................. 1
Report Structure ............................................................................................................................... 10
2 Existing Conditions for 2014 .................................................................................................... 11

General Field Work Description........................................................................................................ 11
Site Visit ............................................................................................................................................ 11
34 m
Traffic Counts .................................................................................................................................... 24
6Z
:0 .co
3 Origin-Destination Surveys ..................................................................................................... 34
54 s
4: und
5.
4 Behavioral Research ............................................................................................................... 45
T1 af
Choice Model .................................................................................................................................... 47
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
5 Historical Traffic Analysis ........................................................................................................ 50
1- @
20 igue den
Analysis by Toll Plaza ........................................................................................................................ 50

Regional Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 64
nf nfi
Co
6 Urban Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 67

Segment 2 Arroyo Grande-Santa Verónica....................................................................................... 71
Analysis of Project Development Areas............................................................................................ 76
7 Traffic Model Development .................................................................................................... 78

Network description ......................................................................................................................... 79
Demand Matrices ............................................................................................................................. 81
Assignment ....................................................................................................................................... 83
Behavioral Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 83
Model Calibration ............................................................................................................................. 86
8 Traffic and Revenue Model Assumptions................................................................................. 90

Demand Growth ............................................................................................................................... 90
Traffic Demand Expansion Model..................................................................................................... 95
Future Road Network ....................................................................................................................... 96
January 2016
Other Model Parameters .................................................................................................................. 98
Additional Considerations ................................................................................................................ 99
9 Results ................................................................................................................................. 101

Demand Estimates and Projections ................................................................................................ 101
10 Sensitivities .......................................................................................................................... 112

Urban Developments ...................................................................................................................... 112
GDP + 25% and GDP – 25% ............................................................................................................. 115
34 m
Truck Restriction on Vía 40 ............................................................................................................. 118
6Z
:0 .co
Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla ............................................................... 121
54 s
Additional Lane FU 3 ....................................................................................................................... 125
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Figures
1- @
20 igue den
Figure 1.1: Project location and existing toll plazas ........................................................................... 2

Figure 1.2: Functional Units and Existing Toll Plazas .......................................................................... 6
nf nfi
Figure 2.1: Average Speed Map ........................................................................................................ 16

Co
Figure 2.2: Profile FU 1 ..................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 2.3: Profile FU 1-2 .................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.7: Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Malambo Profile.............................................................. 20
Figure 2.8: Malambo – Galapa Profile .............................................................................................. 21
Figure 2.9: Galapa – Bayunca Profile ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 2.10: Bayunca – Cartagena Profile ......................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.11: Circunvalar de Barranquilla (CIRC 1) Profile ................................................................. 22
January 2016
Figure 2.16: Traffic Count Locations ................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2.17: Movement coding......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.1: Location of OD Surveys ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.2: Trip purpose - Auto ......................................................................................................... 36
Figure 3.3: Trip Frequency – Auto .................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3.4: Trip length (in hours) - Auto ........................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.5: Cargo Type ...................................................................................................................... 40
34 m
Figure 3.6: Trip frequency – Cargo transport ................................................................................... 41
6Z
:0 .co
Figure 3.7: Trip Duration – Cargo Transport ..................................................................................... 42
54 s
4: und
Figure 4.1: Word Cloud - Automobiles ............................................................................................. 46
5.
Figure 4.2: Word Cloud - Trucks ....................................................................................................... 46
T1 af
Figure 5.1: Bayunca Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014. ........... 50
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Figure 5.2: Bayunca Toll Plaza: Distribution of Monthly Traffic by Category between 2004-2014.. 51
20 igue den
Figure 5.3: Galapa Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014 .............. 53
nf nfi
Figure 5.4: Galapa Toll Plaza: Monthly Traffic Distribution by Category between 2004-2014 ........ 53
Co
Figure 5.5: Marahuaco toll plaza: Annual growth rate by vehicle type between 2004-2014 .......... 55
Figure 5.6: Marahuaco Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic Distribution by Category between
2004-2014. ........................................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 5.7: Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 5.8: Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza: Monthly Traffic Distribution by Category between 2004-
2014 .................................................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 5.7: Papiros Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014. ............ 61
Figure 5.9: Papiros Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic by Category between 2004-2014 ........... 62
Figure 5.10: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Comparison by Toll Plaza ................................... 64
Figure 6.1: Map of Vía al Mar and Segments of Analysis ................................................................. 68
Figure 6.2: Segment 1 Cartagena-Arroyo Grande ............................................................................ 69
Figure 6.3: Real Estate Developments in Segment 1- Residential Buildings and Hotels .................. 70
Figure 6.4: Real Estate Developments in Segment: Suburban Residential Complexes Barcelona and
Barceloneta ....................................................................................................................................... 70
January 2016
Figure 6.5: Real Estate Developments in Segment 1: Puerta de Las Américas ................................ 71
Figure 6.6: Real Estate Developments in Segment 1: Karibana........................................................ 71
Figure 6.7: Segment 2 Arroyo Grande - Santa Verónica .................................................................. 72
Figure 6.8: Real Estate Development in Segment 2: Casa del Mar .................................................. 72
Figure 6.9: Real Estate Developments in Segment 2: Vista Mar ...................................................... 73
Figure 6.10: Real Estate Developments in Segment 2: Playa Iguana ............................................... 73
Figure 6.11: Real Estate Developments in Segment 2: Agua Marina ............................................... 74
Figure 6.12: Segment 3: Santa Verónica- Barranquilla ..................................................................... 75
34 m
Figure 6.14: Developments in Segment 3: Avenida Circunvalar Industrial Constructions ............... 75
6Z
:0 .co
Figure 6.15: Developments in Segment 3: Avenida Circunvalar Industrial Constructions ............... 76
54 s
4: und
Figure 6.16: Developments in Segment 3: Juan Mina Logistic Center ............................................. 76
5.
Figure 6.17: Developments around Circunvalar de Barranquilla and Juan Mina ............................. 77
T1 af
Figure 7.1: General Structure of the Transportation Model ............................................................ 79
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Figure 7.2: Model Network (General View and Details over the Concession Network) ................. 80
20 igue den
Figure 7.3: Zone System (Centroids)................................................................................................. 83

nf nfi
Figure 7.4: Alternative Route from Cartagena-Barranquilla ............................................................ 85

Co
Figure 7.5: Alternative Routes from Cartagena to Malambo ........................................................... 86

Figure 7.6: Model Calibration Process .............................................................................................. 87
Figure 7.7: Model Calibration for Autos for a Working Days During the AM Peak Hour – GEH
indicator ............................................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 7.8: Model Calibration for Light Trucks for a Working Days During the AM Peak Hour – GEH
Indicator............................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 7.9: Model Calibration for Heavy Trucks for a Working Days During the AM Peak Hour – GEH
Indicator............................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 8.1: Gross Domestic Product Behavior for Colombia and the Departments of Atlántico and
Bolívar ............................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 8.2: GDP Behavior and Vehicle Traffic for the Four Toll Plazas ............................................ 93
Figure 8.4: Road Network 2018 ........................................................................................................ 97
Figure 8.5: New Intersection to be developed on Circunvalar de la Prosperidad ............................ 98
Figure 9.1: AADT Projection for Marahuaco Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions) ........................... 103
Figure 9.2: AADT Projection for Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions) ................... 105
January 2016
Figure 9.3: Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza ................................................................................... 109
Figure 9.4: AADT Projection Circunvalar de la Prosperidad Galapa and Juan Mina (Both Travel
Directions)....................................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 10.1: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Marahuaco Toll Plaza ........ 112
Figure 10.2: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza 113
Figure 10.3: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Papiros Toll Plaza............... 114
Figure 10.4: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
Galapa Toll Plaza ............................................................................................................................. 114
Figure 10.5: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Marahuaco Toll Plaza ..................... 115
34 m
6Z
Figure 10.6: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza ............ 116
:0 .co
Figure 10.7: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Papiros Toll Plaza ........................... 117
54 s
4: und
5.
Figure 10.8: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Circunvalar de La Prosperidad (Galapa
and Juan Minas) Toll Plazas ............................................................................................................ 118
T1 af
Figure 10.9: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
........................................................................................................................................................ 119
1- @
20 igue den
Figure 10.10: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Puerto Colombia Toll
Plaza ................................................................................................................................................ 119
nf nfi
Figure 10.11: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Papiros Toll Plaza . 120
Co
Figure 10.12: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Circunvalar de la
Prosperidad: Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plazas ............................................................................. 121
Figure 10.13: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de
Barranquilla – Marahuaco Toll Plaza .............................................................................................. 122
Barranquilla – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza ..................................................................................... 123
Barranquilla – Papiros Toll Plaza..................................................................................................... 124
Figure 10.16: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements– Circunvalar de la
Figure 10.17: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza-......... 126
Figure 10.20: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Circunvalar de la Prosperidad:
Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plaza- ................................................................................................... 129
January 2016
Tables
Table 1.1: Route description ............................................................................................................... 1
Table 1.2: : Functional units description............................................................................................. 4
Table 1.3: Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 7
Table 1.4: Current tolls ....................................................................................................................... 8
Table 1.5: Vehicle categories for tolling according to ANI (Concesión Vía al Mar) ............................ 9
Table 1.6: Vehicle categories for tolling according to INVIAS (Concesión Ruta Caribe) ..................... 9
34 m
6Z
Table 1.7: Rate structure by vehicle type (COP 2014) ...................................................................... 10
:0 .co
Table 2.1: Typical Conditions dound during the Road Survey .......................................................... 12
54 s
4: und
5.
Table 2.2: Average Speed for Non-Urban Roads .............................................................................. 16
Table 2.3: Average Speed in Circunvalar de Barranquilla ................................................................. 18
T1 af
Table 2.4: Toll Cost for Trips between Cartagena-Barranquilla ....................................................... 24
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Table 2.5: Comparison of alternatives .............................................................................................. 24
20 igue den
Table 2.6: Traffic Volume by Day, Time Period, and Direction ......................................................... 28
nf nfi
Table 2.7: Traffic Distribution – Vía al Mar ....................................................................................... 30

Co
Table 2.8: Traffic Distribution – Circunvalar de Barranquilla ........................................................... 32

Table 2.9: Histograms of traffic volume–Bayunca toll (V9), Movements 1,2................................... 33
Table 3.1: Main Origin and Destination Pairs Automobiles ............................................................. 39
Table 3.3: Main Origin and Destination - Light Trucks ..................................................................... 43
Table 3.4: Main Origin and Destination – Heavy Trucks................................................................... 44
Table 4.1: Survey Sample by Type of Vehicle and Source ................................................................ 45
Table 4.2: Logit Model Cost Parameter Segmented by Category..................................................... 47
Table 4.3: Value of Time Discriminated for Trip Purpose - Automobile........................................... 47
Table 4.4: Auto Value of Time ($/hr) ................................................................................................ 48
Table 4.5: Project Value - Auto ......................................................................................................... 48
Table 4.6: : 2-Axle Truck Route Choice Model .................................................................................. 48
Table 4.7: More than 2-axle Route Choice Model ............................................................................ 48
Table 4.8: Truck Value of Time ($ COP / hour) ................................................................................. 49
Table 5.1: Bayunca Toll Plaza: Monthly Traffic ................................................................................. 52
January 2016
Table 5.2: Galapa Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic ................................................................... 54
Table 5.3: Marahuaco Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic ............................................................ 57
Table 5.4: Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic ................................................... 60
Table 5.5: Papiros Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic .................................................................. 63
Table 5.6: Comparative traffic in tolls in the region (AADT)............................................................. 64
Table 5.6: Average Annual Growth by Toll Plaza (CAGR 2004-2014) ............................................... 65
Table 5.7: Standard Deviation for Average Annual Growth by Toll Plaza (2004-2014).................... 65
Table 5.8: Percentage of Evaders and Exempts Vehicles ................................................................. 66
34 m
Table 7.1: Lane Capacity by Type of Road ........................................................................................ 80
6Z
:0 .co
Table 7.2: Demand matrices of vehicle type and trip purpose users. .............................................. 82
54 s
4: und
Table 7.3: Subjective value of time (VoT - $/hr) ............................................................................... 83
5.
Table 7.4: Vehicular Operating Costs ($/km).................................................................................... 84
T1 af
Table 7.5: Competing Roads Analysis ............................................................................................... 86
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Table 8.1: GDP Growth for Colombia and the Departments of Atlántico and Bolívar. .................... 91
20 igue den
Table 8.2: GDP projections ............................................................................................................... 92

nf nfi
Table 8.3: Estimated Regression Models Considered ...................................................................... 94

Co
Table 8.4: GDP and Traffic Growth Elasticities on intercity Roads ................................................... 95
Table 8.7: Future Road Network....................................................................................................... 96
Table 8.8: Expected Intersection for the Concession Cartagena- Barranquilla and Circunvalar de la
Prosperidad....................................................................................................................................... 97
Table 8.9: Consumer Price index ...................................................................................................... 98
Table 8.10: Toll Rate Structure which will Govern in the Concession (COP 2014) ......................... 99
Table 9.1: Projection for Marahuaco Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions)....................................... 102
Table 9.2: AADT Projection for Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions) .................... 104
Table 9.3: Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions) ............................................. 106
Table 9.4: AADT Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza traffic in Paying Direction (Cartagena-
Barranquilla) ................................................................................................................................... 107
Table 9.5: AADT Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza, Vehicles Paying the Toll at the Cartagena-
Barranquilla Payment Travel Direction (Traffic in One Direction) .................................................. 108
Table 9.6: AADT Projection Circunvalar de la Prosperidad for Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plazas
(Both Travel Directions) .................................................................................................................. 110
January 2016
Table 10.1: Projections Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Marahuaco Toll Plaza ........ 112
Table 10.2: Projections Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza 113
Table 10.3: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Papiros Toll Plaza ................ 113
Table 10.4 Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Circunvalar de La Prosperidad,
Galapa Toll Plaza: ............................................................................................................................ 114
Table 10.5: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Marahuaco Toll Plaza ...................... 115
Table 10.6: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza ............. 115
Table 10.7: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Papiros Toll Plaza............................. 116
34 m
Table 10.8: : Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Circunvalar de La Prosperidad (Galapa
6Z
and Juan Minas) Toll Plazas ............................................................................................................ 117
:0 .co
Table 10.9: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza
54 s
4: und
........................................................................................................................................................ 118
5.
Table 10.10: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Puerto Colombia Toll
T1 af
Plaza ................................................................................................................................................ 119
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Table 10.11: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Papiros Toll Plaza... 120
1- @
20 igue den
Table 10.12: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Circunvalar de la
nf nfi
Table 10.13: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de
Co
Barranquilla – Marahuaco Toll Plaza .............................................................................................. 121

Table 10.14: : Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de
Barranquilla – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza ..................................................................................... 122
Table 10.17: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza- .......... 125
Table 10.18: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza- . 126
Table 10.19: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Papiros Toll Plaza- ................ 127
Table 10.20: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Circunvalar de la Prosperidad:
Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plaza- ................................................................................................... 128
January 2016
Traffic Study | Report
=steer davies gleave

Co
nf nfi
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
January 2016 | i
1 Introduction
1.1 This report responds to the request by Concesión Costera Cartagena Barranquilla S.A. to Steer
34 m
Davies Gleave (SDG) to prepare a traffic and revenue study for the road project Conexión Vial al
6Z
Mar in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. To achieve this objective the following activities were
:0 .co
undertaken:
54 s

4: und
Data collection to understand current travel patterns in the study area: traffic counts,
5.
Origin-Destination (OD) surveys, Stated Preference (SP) surveys, and travel speed
measurements.
T1 af
 Construction and calibration of a network model representing the transport dynamics on
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
the area of study
1- @
 Analysis of traffic volumes and flows, both for current and forecasted years, which will be
20 igue den
used as the basis for the project’s financial processes.

nf nfi
1.2 The study was carried out at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015 and used the most credible
information at the time. This report, dated January 2016, presents the analysis, results and
Co
conclusions of the original study.

Project Background
1.3 This report introduces the fundamental aspects of Concesión Vía al Mar and Circunvalar de la
Prosperidad and future potential developments in terms of routes, tolls and competition. It is
not a detailed description of the functional and structural characteristics, nor of the specifics
contractual conditions. For such information the reader must refer to the contracts, official
documents and designs describing the project. The following are the main elements to consider.
Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
1.4 The length of this project is 146.6 km classified as follows:
Table 1.1: Route description
Agency
Route Origin Destination (Name Length Current
Segment in Observation
code (Name – km) – km) (km) state
charge
Link Avenida Road is
National
Santander administered
Cartagena – Barranquilla km road,
90A01 ANI with Anillo 109.9 by the
Barranquilla 109+133 bidirectional,
Vial al Concesionario
paved
Crespo Vía al Mar
January 2016 | 1
Agency
Route Origin Destination (Name Length Current
Segment in Observation
code (Name – km) – km) (km) state
charge
At the Las Flores
Circunvalar La Playa in An alternative
roundabout which
de la the bidirectional,
Carrera connects with the Does not
Prosperidad - intersection 36.7 untolled
10 Circunvalar and exist
(Barranquilla with Calle 7 paved route
Carrera 10
– Malambo) (K32+900) exist.
(K36+700)
Source: Based on the technical annex, Concession contract under the PPP No 004 of September 10th, 2014 between
National Infrastructure Agency and the concessionaire Concesión Costera Cartagena Barranquilla S.A.S
1.5 Figure 1.1 shows the alignment of the road between Cartagena and Barranquilla and the
34 m
proposed “Circunvalar”
6Z
:0 .co
Figure 1.1: Project location and existing toll plazas
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Source: Steer Davies Gleave
January 2016 | 2
Vía al Mar (Cartagena – Barranquilla)

1.6 The first segment, known as Vía al Mar, starts at the border of the city of Cartagena, finishing
in the city of Barranquilla. It is a high specifications road characterized by flat terrain. The road
between Cartagena and Puerto Colombia is one lane per direction; the segment between
Puerto Colombia and Barranquilla has two lanes per direction. The existing toll plazas are
Marahuaco (km 15+110), Puerto Colombia (km 93+600) and Papiros (km 103+600).
Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
1.7 The second segment of the projects is a greenfield, it aims to develop a high specification route
located west of Barranquilla, effectively linking long distance trips in the area. The route seeks
to connect the eastern area with Malambo and the port developments in Barranquilla . The
34 m
proposed road consists of two lanes per direction with a central divider, with a total length of
6Z
36,7 km with speeds of 80, 60 and 100 km/h at different parts of the corridor.
:0 .co
1.8 According to the contractual technical specifications, two new toll plazas will be introduced.
54 s
4: und
One located in Galapa (km 13+000) sector of the Concession, and a control booth located in
5.
Juan Mina (km 20+000).
T1 af
Functional Units
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1.9 The project is divided in six functional units (FU) shown in Table 1.2 and Figure 1.2.
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 3
Table 1.2: : Functional units description
Approximate
length Origin- Type of
FU Sector Origin Destination Observation
Destination intervention
(km)
Interventions begin at the
urban sector of
Conexión Urban sector Cartagena and Avenida
Operation and Santander with the Túnel
Avenida of Cartagena
Anillo Vial de maintenance of de Crespo and finish in
Santander connecting to 2.35
Crespo Anillo Vial de the km+350. Including
(Urban Avenida the operational and
Crespo
sector) Santander maintenance of routes
and existent road
connections.
34 m
6Z
FU1 Construction of
:0 .co
Bocana and Américas
La Boquilla km 0+350 km 1+905 1.555 additional lane
bridge
and two bridges.
54 s
Rehabilitation of
4: und
5.
existing lane and
La Boquilla km 0+000 Pkm 7+500 7.3 Rehabilitation
improvement of
T1 af
existing bridge.
24 lq
Service lane and
-0 do l
19 re tia
La Boquilla km 1+225 km 4+434 3.21 construction of a
1- @
bike path
20 igue den
Viaducts are
Construction of developed for traffic
nf nfi
FU2 La Boquilla km 1+905 km 7+500 5.395 double lane flow from Cartagena-
through viaduct Barranquilla, includes
Co
intersections
Operation and
Cartagena - Operation and
km 7+500 km 16+000 9.4 maintenance or
Barranquilla maintenance
existing lanes
Cartagena - Rehabilitation of
km 16+000 km 88+060 72.11 Rehabilitation
Barranquilla existing single lane
FU3
Rehabilitation of
existing lane.
Rehabilitation,
Cartagena - Operation and
km 88+060 km 97+150 9.07 operation and
Barranquilla maintenance of new
maintenance
lane which will be built
by current concession.
Improvement to
Puerto Law 105
FU4 Colombia – km 97+150 km 109+133 12 standards of Improvement
Barranquilla existing double
lane
km 68+000
Malambo – km 112+300 Double lane
FU5 of route 17
Galapa of route 9006 construction
2516
January 2016 | 4
Approximate
length Origin- Type of
FU Sector Origin Destination Observation
Destination intervention
(km)
Current route can be
km km 105+000 used to conform the
Double lane double lane. Includes
112+300 of of route 12
construction two intersections
route 9006 90A01
Galapa – Vía
FU6 al Mar – Las Current route can be
Flores km used to conform the
105+000 of Las Flores Double lane double lane. There is a
7.7
route roundabout construction transition curves
90A01 which increases length
34 m
in almost 1.7 km
6Z
:0 .co
Source: Technical Annex, Concession contract under PPP No 004 framework of September 10th of 2014 between
54 s
National Infrastructure Agency and the concessionaire Concesión Costanera S.A.S
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 5
Figure 1.2: Functional Units and Existing Toll Plazas
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Source: Steer Davies Gleave from Concession contract No. 004 of September 10 of 2014
1.10 In addition, the concession must build the following intersections in the functional units 1, 4, 5
and 6.
January 2016 | 6
Table 1.3: Intersections
Functional
Intersection Road crossing Route km
unit
FU1 Cielomar KM 1+650
Access link to Puerto
90A01 (route
Colombia and the
FU4 Puerto Colombia (ramp) Cartagena – km 91+150
Cartagena –
Barranquilla)
Barranquilla route
Access link to Salgar 90A01 (route
FU4 Salgar (ramp) and the Cartagena – Cartagena – km 100+720
Barranquilla route Barranquilla)
Circunvalar de La
km 68+000 of route
FU5 PIMSA Prosperidad with 2516
34 m
2516
6Z
route 2516
:0 .co
Circunvalar de La
km 112+300 of
FU6 La Cordialidad (ramp) Prosperidad with 9006
54 s
route 9006
route 9006
4: und
5.
Circunvalar de La
Prosperidad with West of the Juan
T1 af
FU6 Juan Mina (ramp) Carrera 38
road Juan Mina - Mina community
24 lq
Barranquilla
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Circunvalar de La
km 105-000 of
20 igue den
FU6 Vía al Mar (ramp) Prosperidad with Vía 90A01

route 90A01
al Mar
nf nfi
Source: Technical Annex, Concessions contract under PPP No 004 framework of September 10th of 2014 between
National Infrastructure Agency and c the concessionaire Concesión Costanera S.A.S
Co
Alternatives Routes
Ruta Caribe
1.11 Ruta Caribe belongs to Concesión Autopistas del Sol S.A. with an approximate length of 143 km,
is a single lane road with good specifications. Currently this route has two toll plazas named
Galapa and Bayunca. Compared to Vía al Mar, this route has significantly higher truck and bus
traffic as it provides a route for trips between intermediate municipalities between the two
cities.
Circunvalar de Barranquilla
1.12 Circunvalar de Barranquilla,approximately 20 km in length, crosses the western side of
Barranquilla, starting from the northern part of the city through Vía 40 finishing in the
intersection with Avenida Boyacá and Calle 19. This segment has three lanes in each direction
with good specification throughout the route.
Toll Plazas and Rates
1.13 As discussed above, both Vía al Mar and its competing road already have several toll plazas in
place. Following is a description of the toll plazas.
January 2016 | 7
Table 1.4: Current tolls
Name Segment km1 Charging direction

Marahuaco Vía al Mar km 15+110 Both directions
(Cartagena –
Barranquilla)
34 m
Puerto Vía al Mar km93+600 Both directions
6Z
Colombia (Cartagena –
:0 .co
Barranquilla)
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Papiros Vía al Mar km106+600 One direction,

nf nfi
(Cartagena – entering
Barranquilla) Barranquilla. Traffic
Co
paying in Puerto
Colombia does not
pay in Papiros.
Galapa La Cordialidad Both directions

(Cartagena –
Barranquilla)
1
km corresponding to the concession
January 2016 | 8
Name Segment km1 Charging direction

Bayunca La Cordialidad Both directions
(Cartagena –
Barranquilla)
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
1.14 The toll scheme for Concesión Vía al Mar is based on seven vehicle categories while the one for
Ruta Caribe is based on five categories. Each category has an associated rate by toll plaza.
54 s
4: und
5.
Table 1.5: Vehicle categories for tolling according to ANI (Concesión Vía al Mar)
Category Description
T1 af
I Automobiles, SUVs and wagons
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
II Small buses and buses
1- @
20 igue den
III Two axle trucks (small)

IV Two axle trucks (big)
nf nfi
V Three and four axle trucks (small)

VI Five axle trucks
Co
VII Six or more axle trucks
Source: Steer Davies Gleave from information taken from ANI, 2014
Table 1.6: Vehicle categories for tolling according to INVIAS (Concesión Ruta Caribe)
Category Description
I Automobiles, SUVs and wagons wagons
II Buses, and small buses with back axle double tire and two axle trucks
III Three and four axle trucks
IV Five axle trucks
V Six axle trucks
Source: Steer Davies Gleave from information taken from INVIAS, 2014
1.15 The following table shows the rates charged by category at the tolls by the Concession and in
Ruta Caribe for 2014 (year when data collection campaign took place). Worth noting is the
substantial difference from trucks in the toll plazas of the project compared to those on Ruta
Caribe.
January 2016 | 9
Table 1.7: Rate structure by vehicle type (COP 2014)
Category Marahuaco Puerto Colombia Papiros 1.10 Galapa Bayunca

I $9,000 $9,000 $4,100 $6,800 $6,500
II $13,400 $13,400 $4,700 $7,300 $7,100
III $9,900 $9,900 $9,400 $15,700 $15,800
IV $17,100 $17,100 $16,300 $20,100 $21,000
V $53,400 $53,400 $50,900 $22,700 $24,100
VI $71,300 $71,300 $67,900 - -
VII $79,000 $79,000 $75,300 - -
Source: Steer Davies Gleave from information taken from INVIAS, 2014
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Report Structure
54 s
1.16 The report contains seven chapters, excluding the introduction, and is organized as follows:
4: und
5.
 Chapter 2 describes the field work, including road description and operation characteristics,
traffic counts, Origin-Destination (OD) and Stated Preference (SP) surveys, and travel speed
T1 af
measurements. Additionally, the main traffic conditions on the project´s influence area are
24 lq
-0 do l
shown and a summary of the main findings of the field work is presented.
19 re tia
1- @
 Chapter 3 presents a user preference analysis of the road network, evaluated from the
20 igue den
stated preference (SP) survey.

 Chapter 4 focuses on the analysis of historical traffic at existing toll plazas in the area
nf nfi
affected by the project and the construction of the growth model.


Co
Chapter 5 focuses on the land-use analysis of the study area and the potential regional
growth from the planned developments .
 Chapter 6 presents the general considerations and characteristics of the transportation
model used for the traffic forecast. Conditions for the base scenario are defined.
 Chapter 7 contains the main model assumptions used for the traffic and revenue
projections.
 Chapter 8 presents the main results of traffic forecast and other considerations.
January 2016 | 10
2 Existing Conditions for 2014

2.1 In order to assess the traffic conditions for 2014 and use them as the basis for the projections,
34 m
Steer Davies Gleave carried out a site visit to collect data and plan the vehicle and pedestrian
6Z
:0 .co
traffic counts, origin-destination (OD) surveys and stated preference (SP) surveys.
54 s
General Field Work Description
4: und
5.
2.2 The field work was carried out between Friday October 24 and Monday November 3, 2014. The
road survey focused on various segments of the main roads of the Concession and other
T1 af
competing roads. The road segments considered were:
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
 Concesión Vía la Mar (Cartagena-Barranquilla)
20 igue den
 Circunvalar de Barranquilla
 Juan Mina Road

nf nfi
Concesión Autopistas del Sol / Ruta Caribe (also known as La Cordialidad)

 Vía 40
Co
 Carrera 10 (La Playa)

 Vía Santa Catalina – Lomita Arena
2.3 The selection of the routes and different points where surveys were conducted was made based
on the relevance for the study and feasibility of the data collection campaign.
Site Visit
2.4 The network used in this study was constructed by Steer Davies Gleave based on information
collected from the site visit and available documentation. During the visit we collected
information on:
 Number of lanes
 Conditions of pavement
 Existence of central separation
 Level of road interference (on road parking, pedestrian crossings, Traffic light crossings,
street sales, vehicular entry and exit points)
 Specific infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, ramps and roundabouts)
2.5 We used global positioning equipment (GPS) to reference the information that was being
collected. The following images exemplify some of the typical conditions found during the road
survey.
January 2016 | 11
Table 2.1: Typical Conditions dound during the Road Survey
Description
One single lane road per direction with well-

maintained pavement.
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Vía al Mar Cartagena - Barranquilla
54 s
4: und
5.
One single lane road per direction with well-
maintained pavement.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Vía Ruta Caribe / La Cordialidad

Multilane highway with three lanes per direction
with well-maintained pavement.
Current Circunvalar de Barranquilla intersection

with La Cordialidad
January 2016 | 12
Description
Multilane road with three lanes per direction
with poor-maintained pavement (pavement in
bad conditions)
34 m
Current Circunvalar de Barranquilla between Juan
6Z
Mina and Vía al Mar
:0 .co
Pedestrian crossing (at level)
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Circunvalar de Barranquilla with Carrera 20

Co
Pedestrian bridge
Circunvalar de Barranquilla with Carrera 56
January 2016 | 13
Description
Multilane road with three lanes per direction

with well-maintained pavement
Malambo traffic lane
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
Single lane road with one lane per direction with
4: und
uneven pavement.
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Vía Juan Mina

nf nfi
Co
Single lane road with two lanes per direction with

medium to well-maintained pavement .
Carrera 40
January 2016 | 14
Description
Single lane road with two lanes per direction with

well-maintained pavement .
Carrera 10
34 m
6Z
Transeversal local route between Vía al Mar and
:0 .co
Ruta Caribe. Several segments of the route are
not paved and are in precarious conditions, while
54 s
others are paved but conditions are bad.
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Vía Santa Catalina – Lomita Arena
20 igue den

nf nfi
Co
2.6 In order to collect travel speeds on the different segments, we conducted several continuous
journeys, guarantying several registry by segment and direction. This allowed to have various
measurements for different time periods. Based on the data collected, we estimated
operational speeds for the various roads. Figure 2.1 summarizes the main results, showing the
daily average operational speed.
January 2016 | 15
Figure 2.1: Average Speed Map
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
2.7 The following table shows in greater detail the average speed for each homogenous segment
analyzed in Vía al Mar and La Cordialidad.
Table 2.2: Average Speed for Non-Urban Roads
Route Segment Distance (km) Average Speed (km/h)

Vía al Mar FU 1 4.20 33
Vía al Mar Shared segment between FU1 and FU2 2.47 57
Vía al Mar FU2 2.87 63
January 2016 | 16

Average Speed 113.02 81
Circunvalar de
Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Malambo 7.65 42
Barranquilla
Ruta Caribe Malambo - Galapa 16.52 54
Ruta Caribe Galapa Bayunca 83.97 61
Ruta Caribe Bayunca - Cartagena 24.08 55
Average Speed 124.57 59
2.8 As observed in the previous table, Vía al Mar has speeds above 70 km/h between the functional
34 m
6Z
units 3 and 4, while lower velocities are observed in units 1 and 2 closer to Cartagena. The
:0 .co
segments with higher speeds have good road conditions with some segments being multilane
roads allowing for overpassing maneuvers. Ruta Caribe or La Cordialidad have much lower
54 s
4: und
5.
speeds, making Vía al Mar a faster option for journeys between Cartagena and Barranquilla,
with an average speed of 81km/h. The three main factors for the observed speeds at La
T1 af
Cordialidad are the higher presence of heavy vehicles, poorly maintained segments along the
24 lq
route and through passes along towns and cities in the route.
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
2.9 The next table shows the average speed for each homogenous segment analyzed in Circunvalar
20 igue den
de Barranquilla.
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 17
Table 2.3: Average Speed in Circunvalar de Barranquilla
Route Segment Distance (km) Schedule Average Speed

Morning (8 - 9 am) 51
CIRC1 –From
Circunvalar de
roundabout Las 3.32 Afternoon (1 - 2 pm) 48
Barranquilla
Flores to Carrera 40
Night (6 - 7 pm) 34
Morning -
CIRC2 – From
Circunvalar de
Carrera 40 to Juan 3.43 Afternoon (4 - 5 pm) 51
Barranquilla
Mina
Night (7 - 8 pm) 33
Circunvalar de CIRC3 – From Juan
4.45 Afternoon (4 - 5 pm) 44
Barranquilla Mina to Cordialidad
34 m
Night (7 - 8 pm) 43
6Z
:0 .co
CIRC4 - From Vía la
Circunvalar de
Cordialidad to 5.42 Afternoon (4 - 5 pm) 58
54 s
Barranquilla
Murillo Toro
4: und
Night (7 - 8 pm) 47
5.
Circunvalar de CIRC5 – From Murillo
T1 af
15.98 Afternoon (4 - 5 pm) 29
Barranquilla Toro to la Boyacá
24 lq
Night (7 - 8 pm) 36
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Morning 39
20 igue den
Average Speed 32.6 Afternoon 40

Night 40
nf nfi

Co
2.10 Speeds in Circunvalar de Barranquilla varies between 29 and 58 km/h. As observed in Figure 2.1
the segment between La Cordialidad and Murillo Toro shows the highest speed. Circunvalar de
Barranquilla has a morning average speed of 39 km/h, and an afternoon and night average
speed of 40 km/h. The low speed is mainly caused by poor pavement conditions and the
disorganized crossing of pedestrians throughout the route. It is generally perceived as the faster
route connecting north and south in the urban area.
Vertical Profiles
2.11 The vertical profiles of the routes for the selected segments of the analysis are illustrated below.
Most of the terrain is flat both on the project and competing roads.
January 2016 | 18
Figure 2.2: Profile FU 1
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
Figure 2.3: Profile FU 1-2
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 19
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Figure 2.7: Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Malambo Profile
January 2016 | 20
Figure 2.8: Malambo – Galapa Profile
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
Figure 2.9: Galapa – Bayunca Profile
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Figure 2.10: Bayunca – Cartagena Profile
January 2016 | 21
Figure 2.11: Circunvalar de Barranquilla (CIRC 1) Profile
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 22
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Travel costs
2.12 The next table shows the Cartagena-Barranquilla journey toll costs for each route. The values
apply only for one direction and are given in 2014 Colombian pesos.
January 2016 | 23
Table 2.4: Toll Cost for Trips between Cartagena-Barranquilla
Category Vía al Mar (2 tolls)2 Vía Ruta Caribe (2 tolls)

I $18,000 $13,300
II $26,800 $14,400
III $19,800 $31,500
IV $34,200 $41,100
V $106,800 $46,800
VI $142,600 -
VII $158,000 -
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Table 2.5: Comparison of alternatives
Toll cost (COP
54 s
Segment Route Distance (km) Speed (km/h) Travel Time 3
4: und
2014)
5.
Barranquilla - 1 hour and 24
Vía al Mar 113.0 81 $18,000
Cartagena minutes
T1 af
Barranquilla – Ruta Caribe / La 2 hours and 7
24 lq
-0 do l
124.5 59 $13,300
19 re tia
Cartagena Cordialidad minutes
1- @
Difference -11.5 22 - 42 minutes +$4,700
20 igue den

nf nfi
2.13 As observed in the table, Vía al Mar is 11.5 km shorter that Ruta Caribe and allows higher
Co
speeds. The high speed and good pavement conditions translate into a reduction of the journey
time of 42 minutes. Nonetheless, the journey through this route for automobiles has an extra
cost of $4,700. Via al Mar connects to the residential area of the two cities more directly while
Ruta Caribe (La Cordialidad) enters both cities at points that present higher congestion in the
urban areas.
Traffic Counts
2.14 The traffic data collected at key points, along with the historic traffic data provided by INVIAS
and ANI, serve as input for the traffic model.
Traffic Count Locations
2.15 Traffic counts were conducted at various locations, both on the roads of the Concession and
alternative ones. Traffic was counted manually during a typical week and a bank holiday
2
In this analysis a journey between the two cities is considered. As previously mentioned, one of the
three tolls of this route, Papiros, works as a control toll. For this reason this toll is not considered in the
calculation..
3
In this analysis only the cost for an automobile is considered and the same assumptions used in table 2.4
are used, truck traffic is very low in Vía al Mar partly due to the high toll prices.
January 2016 | 24
weekend during periods of 24 continuous hours. However, for security reasons, at some
locations data was collected for only 12 hour periods for three days. The following are points
were traffic was counted:
 V1: Vía al Mar – Cartagena (Hotel Barceloneta) (3 days: 12 hours)
 V2: Circunvalar de Barranquilla at Calle 56 (3 days: 24 hours)
 V3: Circunvalar de Barranquilla south of Carrera 53 (3 days: 12 hours)
 V4: Circunvalar de Barranquilla at La Cordialidad (7 days: 24 hours)
 V5: Circunvalar de Barranquilla at Juan Mina (3 days: 24 hours)
 V6: Circunvalar de Barranquilla on the south of Vía al Mar (3 days: 24 hours)
 V7: Roundabout Las Flores (7 days: 24 hours)
 V8: Malambo traffic light (7 days: 24 hours)

34 m
V9: Bayunca toll plaza (7 days: 24 hours)
6Z
 V10: Galapa toll plaza (7 days: 24 hours)
:0 .co
 V11: Galerazamba (3 days: 12 hours)

54 s
V12: Marahuaco toll plaza (7 days: 24 hours)
4: und
5.
 V13: Papiros toll plaza (7 days: 24 hours)
 V14: Puerto Colombia toll plaza (7 days: 24 hours)
T1 af
2.16 Due to weather conditions, safety and/or logistics of surveyors team, 24 hour counts were not
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
collected at stations V2, V5 and V6. In these stations the counts for one working day began on
1- @
Tuesday 28th of October at 07:00 and ended on Monday 29th of October at 06:45 AM, thus
20 igue den
completing the 24 hour period.

nf nfi
2.17 The location of these points is shown in the next figure:

Co
January 2016 | 25
Figure 2.16: Traffic Count Locations
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
2.18 The next figure shows a diagram with the movements and the classification used for data
collection at each count location.
January 2016 | 26
Figure 2.17: Movement coding
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi

Co
1.19 In addition, light trucks are defined as 2-axle trucks (small and big), whereas heavy trucks are
defined as three or more axle trucks. Finally, we defined an atypical day as a day that falls within
a holiday weekend.
Results
2.19 The point locates at Circunvalar de Barranquilla with Juan Mina has the highest vehicular flow
during working days and Saturdays. Stations V8, V6 and V4 show the highest volume during an
atypical Saturday and an atypical Sunday respectively.
2.20 Considering only the tolls within the area of the study, Galapa (V10) toll has the highest
vehicular volume during a working day, Saturday and atypical Saturday, whereas Papiros toll
(V13) and Puerto Colombia (V14) have the highest volume during an atypical Sunday and
atypical Monday respectively. The high volumes at these two tolls are mainly due to
recreational or touristic trips.
2.21 The Papiros toll plaza with its special charging collection restrictions, usually operates as a
control plaza, charging vehicles travelling between Puerto Colombia and Barranquilla.
Therefore, the data of daily total vehicles is discriminated by direction.
January 2016 | 27
Table 2.6: Traffic Volume by Day, Time Period, and Direction
Working Atypical Atypical

Point Station Hours Movement Saturday Sunday Atypical Sunday
Day4 Saturday Monday
34 m
6Z
Vía al Mar – Cartagena
:0 .co
V1 12 1, 2 5,485 6,511 - 6,914 - -
(Hotel Barceloneta)
54 s
Circunvalar de
V2 24 3, 4 40,148 40,318 - 26,603 - -
4: und
Barranquilla at Calle 56
5.
Circunvalar de
V3 Barranquilla at south of 12 1, 2 13,820 19,481 - 11,308 - -
T1 af
Carrera 53
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Circunvalar de
1- @
V4 Barranquilla at La 24 1, 2 30,335 29,112 26,686 29,951 25,993 19,909
20 igue den
Cordialidad
V4 3, 4 18,515 14,447 19,410 14,840 17,514 12,733
nf nfi
Circunvalar de
V5 Barranquilla at Juan 24 1, 2 54,300 45,858 - 40,927 - -
V5
Mina
3, 4
Co10,311 7,774 7,733 6,600 899 -
Circunvalar de
V6 Barranquilla at south of 24 1, 2 22,291 21,851 - 19,184 - -
Vía al Mar
V7 Roundabout Las Flores 12 3, 93 4,941 3,110 5,821 2,203 5,865 5,662
V7 4, 8 4,856 6,038 5,059 2,889 4,312 4,452
V7 6 936 965 871 935 955 919
V7 92 7,419 5,503 7,754 3,947 7,699 7,458
V8 Malambo traffic light 24 1, 2 20,347 18,503 21,457 13,249 16,059 12,872
V8 6 3,972 2,526 4,744 1,737 4,792 4,076
4
Average of working days measured
January 2016 | 28
V8 7 2,912 1,712 2,119 1,432 2,508 2,175

V8 91 3,195 2,521 2,996 2,001 1,586 1,220
V8 93 1,404 780 914 603 1,015 969
34 m
V9 Bayunca Toll 24 1, 2 3,748 3,461 3,206 1,799 1,818 1,541
6Z
:0 .co
V10 Galapa Toll 24 1, 2 7,502 6,641 7,969 5,206 5,348 4,728
V11 Galerazamba 12 1, 2 442 388 - 164 - -
54 s
4: und
5.
V12 Marahuaco Toll 24 1, 2 2,787 3,252 3,887 3,232 2,428 3,047
V13 Papiros Toll 24 1 5,808 7,917 7,386 6,958 8,003 5,702
T1 af
Papiros Toll 2 2,982 3,347 3,419 3,912 3,960 3,857
24 lq
-0 do l
V14 Puerto Colombia Toll 24 1, 2 3,306 4,612 5,006 6,172 6,480 5,624
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 29
2.22 The following table shows the distribution of traffic at the tolls along Vía al Mar (V12, V13 and
V14). In these stations the majority of traffic is automobiles, representing more than 60% of the
total volume. The share of heavy trucks in these three toll is less than 2%. Conversely, the traffic
record at toll plazas in Ruta Caribe (V9 and V10) show higher truck volumes, with light and heavy
trucks representing 30.7% and 28.2% of total traffic. Equally, the high percentage of motorcycles
in all five tolls is notorious, particularly in Bayunca. By national law motorcycles do not pay tolls.
Table 2.7: Traffic Distribution – Vía al Mar
Bayunca toll plaza (V9), Movement 1,2 Galapa toll plaza (V10), Movement 1,2
1,4% 0,5%
34 m
13,7%
6Z
24,9%
:0 .co
29,8%
10,0%
44,3%
54 s
4: und
15,0%
5.
16,7%
9,2%
15,7%
T1 af
18,9%
Autos Buses Small trucks
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Big trucks Motorcycles Bicycles Big trucks Motorcycles Bicycles
20 igue den
nf nfi
Marahuaco toll plaza (V12), Movement 1,2 Papiros toll plaza (V13), Movement 1
Co
1,0% 2,6%
22,2% 1,4% 15,7%

4,6%
0,4%
6,2%
8,2%
61,4%
8,9% 67,6%
Autos Buses Small trucks Autos Buses Small trucks
January 2016 | 30
Papiros toll plaza (V13), Movement 2 Puerto Colombia toll plaza (V14), Movement 1,2
3,2% 3,4%
0,7% 15,0%
24,8%
7,0%
55,9% 10,4%
1,3% 63,5%
4,8% 9,9%
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
2.23 The next table shows the vehicular distribution for two points in Circunvalar de Barranquilla and
T1 af
its intersection with La Cordialidad (V4) and Juan Mina (V5). The figure shows a high percentage of
24 lq
-0 do l
light vehicles in Circunvalar de Barranquilla (V4, Movements 1,2 and V5, Movement 1,2),
19 re tia
1- @
accounting for more than 55% of the total traffic. The second category with the highest
20 igue den
percentage for these two movements are motorcycles with approximately 22%. Trucks only
account for 9.8% of the total vehicular traffic. The table highlights the distribution between heavy
nf nfi
vehicles and motorcycles in Circunvalar de Barranquilla with Cordialidad (V4, Movement 3,4) and
in Juan Mina (V5, Movement 3,4), as this movement represents the entry to la Circunvalar for all
Co
the local trips made in the area.
January 2016 | 31
Table 2.8: Traffic Distribution – Circunvalar de Barranquilla
V4, Movement 1,2 V4, Movement 3,4
0,4%
1,6%
23,4%
33,7% 38,0%
3,4%
55,1%
6,4%
34 m
5,4%
6Z
11,3% 10,0% 11,4%
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
Big trucks Motorcycles Bicycles
5.
Big trucks Motorcycles Bicycles
T1 af
V5, Movement 1,2 V5, Movement 3,4
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
1,0% 2,5%
nf nfi
Co
22,1%
35,0%
1,8%
8,1%
59,1% 50,4%
7,9% 2,5%
4,9%
4,7%
2.24 In addition we analyzed hourly traffic volumes across all days for all locations finding:
 Similar daily patterns were observed in all five toll plazas; traffic peak in the morning hours
(05:30- 07:30) and in the afternoon between 17:00 and 19:00, except for Puerto Colombia in
which we observed afternoon peaks between 14:00 and 16:00.
 Both stations in Circunvalar de Barranquilla display similar movements, with peaks in the
morning between 06:00 and 08:00 and in the afternoon between 17:00 and 19:00.
January 2016 | 32
 Additionally, Saturdays and Sundays exhibit higher vehicular volume for the toll plazas of Vía
al Mar with peaks on Saturday mornings between 06:00 and 08:00 and in the afternoons
between 16:00-18:00. On Sundays, peaks are more pronounced in the afternoon between
17:00-18:00 in comparison to the rest of the day.
 Finally, it was observed that the behavior of an atypical Monday is very different to the one of
a regular working day, with higher volumes in the afternoons, which is attributed to the
return trips from the beach and other holiday destinations.
Table 2.9: Histograms of traffic volume–Bayunca toll (V9), Movements 1,2
5
Working Day Atypical Monday
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Saturday Atypical Saturday
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Sunday Atypical Sunday
5
Average of the working days measured
January 2016 | 33
3 Origin-Destination Surveys
3.1 Roadside interviews were conducted for both auto and truck drivers during four days (two
working days, a Saturday and a Sunday) for 12 hours. The objective was to collect information to
34 m
describe the travel patterns of current users of the road and those driving on the competition.
6Z
:0 .co
3.2 Traffic was surveyed at the following stations:
54 s

4: und
OD1: Circunvalar de Barranquilla with Juan Mina
5.
 OD2: Roundabout Las Flores
 OD3: Malambo traffic light
T1 af
 OD4: Galapa toll plaza
24 lq
-0 do l

19 re tia
OD5: Marahuaco toll plaza
1- @
 OD6: Papiros toll plaza
20 igue den
 OD7: Puerto Colombia toll plaza

nf nfi
3.3 Approximately 6,000 surveys for autos were collected and 3,000 for trucks, distributed between
the peak traffic periods during the working days and the weekend. A summary of the surveys
Co
collected by survey point, travel direction and type of vehicle for every day of survey field work is
presented in the next section.
January 2016 | 34
Figure 3.1: Location of OD Surveys
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Sample Analysis
Autos
Trip Purpose
3.4 During weekdays very similar patterns were observed, the most common trip purposes are to
work or to study, accounting for more than 55% of the total. Points on Vía al Mar show the highest
trip percentages for tourism. During the weekends, the share of entertainment, tourism, and
other trip purposes increases.
January 2016 | 35
Figure 3.2: Trip purpose - Auto
Working Day Weekend
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Trip Frequency
3.5 The traffic at toll plazas in Vía al Mar and the roundabout at Glorieta Las Flores show a higher
percentage of infrequent trips, which matches with the high percentage of tourism trips
presented in the previous graph.
January 2016 | 36
Figure 3.3: Trip Frequency – Auto
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Trip Duration
3.6 The surveyed points show high frequency of short distance trips; almost 80% of the trips last less
than 3 hours. Those surveyed in Galapa and Malambo, include long distance trips.
January 2016 | 37
Figure 3.4: Trip length (in hours) - Auto
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den

nf nfi
Trip Cost
Co
3.7 Most trips within the area of study paid on average between $30,000 - $35,000 in tolls to
complete their journey. This value increases to more than $50,000 when considering the toll
plazas of Malambo, Galapa, and Puerto Colombia, where we observed a larger share of long-
distance trips.
3.8 In terms of who is responsible for paying the toll, apart from the Galapa toll, survey responses
suggest that in 79% of the cases the driver was responsible for the cost of the trip; while
employers paid in 18% of the cases and the remaining 3% is split between all vehicle occupants.
For Galapa in 13% of the cases the driver paid, in 83% of cases the cost is borne by the company
and the remaining 4% by another occupant of the vehicle.
Origin and Destination of Trip
3.9 The main trip patterns observed in the OD survey and relevant to this study are summarized next,
the analysis does not consider the trips which have Barranquilla as their origin and destination as
these represent the majority of the trips accounted for in the survey and they do not have a direct
incidence on the project:
 17% of the trips made by automobile represent trips between Barranquilla and Puerto
Colombia. Other important pairs are those between Barranquilla and close municipalities like
Soledad, Malambo and Sabanalarga.
January 2016 | 38
 The majority of trips accounted for originate in Barranquilla and are bound to Cartagena or
vice versa. These represent 18% of the total trips.
Table 3.1: Main Origin and Destination Pairs Automobiles
Municipality of origin Municipality of destination % of total of trips
Puerto Colombia Barranquilla 11.8%

Cartagena Barranquilla 9.3%
Barranquilla Cartagena 8.6%
Malambo Barranquilla 6.1%
Barranquilla Puerto Colombia 5.5%
Barranquilla Soledad 3.9%
34 m
6Z
Soledad Barranquilla 2.8%
:0 .co
Sabanalarga Barranquilla 2.7%
54 s
Barranquilla Malambo 2.5%
4: und
5.
Galapa Barranquilla 2.4%
Malambo Soledad 2.3%
T1 af
Tubara Barranquilla 1.8%
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Santo Tomas Soledad 1.8%
1- @
20 igue den
Barranquilla Baranoa 1.6%

Sabanagrande Barranquilla 1.6%
nf nfi
Baranoa Barranquilla 1.6%

Santo Tomas Barranquilla 1.5%
Co
Cartagena Cartagena 1.3%

Barranquilla Sabanagrande 1.2%
Barranquilla Galapa 1.0%
Soledad Malambo 1.0%
Sabanagrande Soledad 0.8%
Galapa Valledupar 0.7%
Puerto Colombia Malambo 0.7%
Tubara Cartagena 0.7%
Puerto Colombia Cartagena 0.7%
Santa Marta Cartagena 0.7%
Malambo Puerto Colombia 0.6%
Cartagena Puerto Colombia 0.6%
Tubara Soledad 0.6%
Bogota D.C. Cartagena 0.6%
Santa Marta Puerto Colombia 0.6%
January 2016 | 39
Payment Type at Papiros Toll

3.10 As mentioned above, this toll plaza charges those vehicles entering Barranquilla that have not paid
at Puerto Colombia. Of all the traffic recorded at the plaza, only 38% pay cash, 48% showed the a
receipt indicating previous payment and the remaining 14% had electronic toll payment system.
Trucks
Cargo Type
3.11 The graphs illustrate a high percentage of non-perishable foods and minerals being hauled at the
surveyed locations.
Figure 3.5: Cargo Type
34 m
Working Day Weekend
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 40
Trip Frequency
3.12 Most cargo trips have a daily frequency, while in the surveyed points at Vía al Mar there is an
important amount of weekly trips. At these locations, occasional trips represent more than 20% of
total trips.
Figure 3.6: Trip frequency – Cargo transport
Working Day Weekend
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Trip Duration
3.13 Most of the trips in the area are of short and medium distances, with more than 90% of the trips
in these points lasting less than 4 hours.
January 2016 | 41
Figure 3.7: Trip Duration – Cargo Transport
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi

Co
Cost
3.14 The survey results shows that most long-distance trucks will pay more than $100,000, except for
those surveyed at the roundabout Las Flores, which pay less than $10,000 to complete the
journey. Also, in12% of the trips the truck driver bears the toll costs and in 87% of the cases the
employer/owner pays the tolls, the remaining 1% of the trips are paid by an external agent.
Origin and Destination of Trip
3.15 The main trip patterns observed in the OD survey and relevant to this study can be summarized as
follows:
 Truck trips are highly concentrated in a small number of municipalities in comparison to
automobile vehicles.
 Light trucks have a similar situation as autos; 9.3% of the trips made travelled from
Barranquilla to Cartagena or vice versa.
 8.5% of trips made by heavy trucks have either as origin or destination Barranquilla.
 There is an important amount of trips involving Barranquilla and close municipalities like
Puerto Colombia, Soledad and Malambo.
 Galapa is an important point within the area of influence of the project and a relevant
proportion of trips have as origin or destination this municipality.
January 2016 | 42
Table 3.2: Main Origin and Destination - Light Trucks
Municipality of origin Municipality of destination % of total trips

Barranquilla Malambo 12.0%
Galapa Baranoa 6.2%
Cartagena Cartagena 4.6%
Barranquilla Galapa 3.7%
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Santo Tomas Malambo 3.1%
54 s
Soledad Barranquilla 2.9%
4: und
5.
Malambo Baranoa 2.5%
Puerto Colombia Barranquilla 2.1%
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Barranquilla Baranoa 2.1%
1- @
Ponedera Puerto Colombia 2.0%
20 igue den
Santo Tomas Galapa 1.8%

Santo Tomas Puerto Colombia 1.8%
nf nfi

Co
Medellin Barranquilla 1.7%

Barranquilla Sabanagrande 1.5%
Cartagena Galapa 1.4%
January 2016 | 43
Table 3.3: Main Origin and Destination – Heavy Trucks
Municipality of origin Municipality of destination % of total trips

Aguachica Malambo 7.5%
Santo Tomas Santa Marta 5.5%
Soledad Galapa 4.5%
Galapa Barranquilla 3.7%
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Cali Cartagena 2.7%
54 s
Medellin Baranoa 2.7%
4: und
5.
Pital Barranquilla 2.7%
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 44
4 Behavioral Research
4.1 Stated preference surveys were used to collect data and prepare inputs needed to estimate the
route choice for the traffic study. In particular, we sought to obtain parameters for the main
34 m
attributes of the modeled alternatives:
6Z
:0 .co
 Travel time

54 s
Toll rate
4: und
5.
4.2 This technique was used to estimate the choice parameters allowing us to understand the
preferences of users and their influence over individuals choices. The methodology works by
T1 af
presenting the users with a number of hypothetical, independent scenarios and for them to
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
choose their preferred alternative. This approach is useful to quantify the demand for new
1- @
infrastructure or improvements to current conditions. A total of 347 surveys were collected 214
20 igue den
corresponding to cars and 133 to trucks.

Table 4.1: Survey Sample by Type of Vehicle and Source
nf nfi
Co
Type of vehicle Web CAPI Total

Car 214 214
Truck (2-axle) 25 49 74
Trucks (more than 2-axles) 6 53 59
Total 245 102 347
4.3 The survey included an optional section for respondent to submit free comments related to the
survey. The following figures show a Word Cloud generated with respondents´ comments. The
size of the word represents the frequency that the word was used by respondents. The first figure
corresponds to the comments made by car drivers, while the second corresponds to trucks.
January 2016 | 45
Figure 4.1: Word Cloud - Automobiles
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
4.4 Respondents expressed the importance and need of fixing existing roads, and to make toll
20 igue den
collection payments more technological. Respondents also stated that the roads in the northern
part of the country needed to be improved.
nf nfi
Figure 4.2: Word Cloud - Trucks

Co
January 2016 | 46
Choice Model
4.5 One of the main purposes of the travel study was to generate quantitative estimates of behavioral
responses for toll rates and their corresponding changes in travel times. From the data collected
discrete choice models were estimated. The model used in this study is consistent with the
random utility theory.
Route Choice Model: Auto
4.6 The demand model which allows better differentiation between ranges of values of time for
different segments involves splitting the data according to trip purpose. A model which cost
parameter was segmented according to the following purposes was built:
 Work
34 m
 Tourism
6Z
:0 .co
 Study
 Other
54 s
4: und
5.
4.7 The logit model used where the cost parameter is segmented according to the previously stated
categories is shown below
T1 af
Table 4.2: Logit Model Cost Parameter Segmented by Category
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Parameter Coefficient Standard Error t Confidence Interval
20 igue den
Cost for work trip -0.0002373 0.0000271 -8.76 -0.0002903 -0.0001842

Cost for tourist trip -0.0001804 0.0000312 -5.78 -0.0002416 -0.0001192
nf nfi
Cost for educational trip -0.000374 0.0000464 -8.05 -0.000465 -0.000283

Co
Other costs -0.0002025 0.0000376 -5.38 -0.0002762 -0.0001288

Time -0.0428726 0.005541 -7.74 -0.0537327 -0.0320124
Project constant 0.3229739 0.1531366 2.11 0.0228317 0.623116
Note: Number of observations = 1.308 pseudo individuals, Source: Steer Davies Gleave
4.8 A key parameter for the demand model is the Value of Time (VOT). The value of a minute
obtained from the model for auto is presented in the next table.
Table 4.3: Value of Time Discriminated for Trip Purpose - Automobile
Segment $/min Standard Error t- test Confidence Interval 95%

Value of 1 minute, work trip $180.69 22.74 7.95 136.12 225.26
Value of 1 minute, tourist trip $237.63 39.20 6.06 160.81 314.45
Value of 1 minute, educational trip $114.64 17.20 6.58 80.49 148.78
Value of 1 minute, other trip purpose $211.74 39.49 5.36 134.35 289.12
4.9 The previous table implies the following hourly values of time:
January 2016 | 47
Table 4.4: Auto Value of Time ($/hr)
Segment $COP per hour [Confidence Interval 95%]

Value of 1 minute, work trip $12,203 8,167.21 13,515.94
Value of 1 minute, tourist trip $15,122 9,648.76 18,867.42
Value of 1 minute, educational trip $8,669 4,830.00 8,927.07
Value of 1 minute, other trip purpose $14,300 8,061.43 17,347.54
4.10 The value also differs according to trip purpose, this is determined as the constant coefficient for
the route divided by the cost parameter. In this case there are four cost coefficients discriminated
by purpose.
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Table 4.5: Project Value - Auto
Category Value Standard Error. t test Confidence Interval
54 s
4: und
5.
Value of 1 minute, work trip $1,361.22 629.72 2.16 126.99 2,595.46
Value of 1 minute, tourist trip $863.64 403.38 2.14 73.03 1,654.25
T1 af
Value of 1 minute, educational trip $1,790.19 877.66 2.04 69.99 3,510.37
24 lq
-0 do l
Value of 1 minute, other trip purpose $1,595.12 775.39 2.06 75.38 3,114.86
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Route Choice Model: Trucks

nf nfi
4.11 In the following section, we present the calibrated route models for trucks, which have been
Co
grouped in the following categories:

 Truck with 2-axle
 Trucks with more than 2-axles
4.12 The model results for each of these categories are presented in tables 4.6 and 4.7.
Table 4.6: : 2-Axle Truck Route Choice Model
Parameter Coefficient Standard Error t [Confidence Interval 95%]

Cost -0.0001172 0.0000142 -8.23 -0.0001451 -0.0000893
Time -0.0369305 0.004101 -9.01 -0.0449683 -0.0288927
Note: Number of observations = 594 pseudo individuals, Source: Steer Davies Gleave
Table 4.7: More than 2-axle Route Choice Model
Parameter Coefficient Standard Error t test Confidence Interval 95%

Cost -0.0001227 0.0000123 -10.01 -0.0001467 -0.0000987
Time -0.05125 0.0049664 -10.32 -0.060984 -0.041516
January 2016 | 48
4.13 As in the automobile route choice model, the models obtained for trucks are statistically
significant at a 95% confidence level, with appropriate signs.The VOT per minute is obtained by
applying the time cost ratio equations presented above, which in turn is used to obtain the VOT by
hour.
Table 4.8: Truck Value of Time ($ COP / hour)
Truck Category $/hour zt

2-axle truck $14.258 20.58
2 or more axle truck $25.068 33.72
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 49
5 Historical Traffic Analysis

5.1 To analyze the historical traffic in the study area the National Infrastructure Agency (ANI) and the
National Institute of Roads (INVIAS) provided traffic reports by category and toll station from 2003
34 m
to 2014 for the following toll plazas:
6Z
:0 .co
 Bayunca

54 s
Galapa
4: und
5.
 Marahuaco
 Puerto Colombia
T1 af
 Papiros
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
5.2 This chapter presents the results for the historical analysis conducted at each toll plazas.
1- @
20 igue den
Analysis by Toll Plaza

Bayunca Toll Plaza
nf nfi
5.3 Annual traffic at Bayunca grew at a rate of 8.4% between 2004 and 2014. The growth trend
Co
indicates a continuous increase of total volume with noticeable changes of truck volumes between
2004 and 2013 and after 2011 for autos.
Figure 5.1: Bayunca Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014.
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis based on information provided by INVIAS, buses correspond to light trucks because
of INVIAS classification
January 2016 | 50
5.4 Monthly traffic distribution from 2004 until 2014 is shown below. Historical records show the
growth in trucks volumes(category III-V). There is also a distinct reduction in traffic for all
categories in the last months of 2011, possibly related to the closing of some roads during the
rainy season that occur in that time.
Figure 5.2: Bayunca Toll Plaza: Distribution of Monthly Traffic by Category between 2004-2014
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis based on information provided by INVIAS

nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 51
Table 5.1: Bayunca Toll Plaza: Monthly Traffic
Month 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
34 m
January 56,205 52,275 57,906 65,464 67,184 66,860 71,125 63,926 80,303 96,718 108,245
6Z
:0 .co
February 49,382 47,090 50,853 57,875 64,266 61,077 64,294 61,828 77,860 85,463 99,618
March 51,347 51,176 56,095 63,032 65,426 65,738 69,575 76,029 87,425 94,139 111,866
54 s
4: und
5.
April 50,407 51,883 54,078 58,540 68,492 63,462 66,985 76,207 84,065 92,284 109,160
May 50,574 50,185 54,939 60,843 63,909 62,486 63,024 77,229 90,345 93,737 106,745
T1 af
June 46,739 50,614 56,238 59,885 62,273 61,826 63,372 74,230 86,614 91,050 104,548
24 lq
-0 do l
July 38,988 54,645 61,713 62,191 64,759 67,272 66,568 75,694 87,383 96,585 112,185
19 re tia
1- @
August 42,841 53,983 58,743 61,489 59,317 64,450 62,380 90,033 85,591 95,078 109,085
20 igue den
September 43,138 50,823 58,426 58,685 58,655 63,761 63,396 81,015 82,591 94,607 106,334
October 45,391 51,905 59,373 61,227 60,029 68,767 66,480 68,111 92,081 105,136 110,064
nf nfi
November 46,294 51,205 58,288 61,285 56,070 64,478 66,480 46,160 86,669 100,709 103,513
December 54,336 57,680 65,212 66,702 Co 64,575 73,500 57,274 48,943 93,418 111,365 111,273
TOTAL 575,642 623,464 691,864 737,218 754,955 783,677 780,953 839,405 1,034,345 1,156,871 1,292,636
January 2016 | 52
Galapa Toll Plaza

5.5 At Galapa toll plaza, an annual growth rate of 6.9% 6 was observed. Usually truck traffic has
increase during the analyzed period and it is similar to Bayunca.
Figure 5.3: Galapa Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis based on information provided by INVIAS buses correspond to light trucks because
T1 af
of INVIAS classification
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
5.6 Monthly traffic distribution from 2004 until 2014 is shown below illustrating the constant traffic
20 igue den
growth for all categories. The annual growth rate for heavy trucks for the entire period was of
14.4%. The graph shows traffic reduction in the last couple of months of 2011, which is possibly
nf nfi
associated to the extreme rainy season.

Co
Figure 5.4: Galapa Toll Plaza: Monthly Traffic Distribution by Category between 2004-2014
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JANUARY
APRIL
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
CAT I CAT II CAT III CAT IV CAT V
6
For Galapa toll plaza 2011 volume information was only obtained for the months between June and
December. Consequently, volumes for the months between January and May were estimated by using the
annual growth rate between 2003 and 2010 and the traffic of 2010. Additionally, volume information for
2014 was only obtained for the months between January and July. Therefore, volumes for the months of
August-December were estimated by using the historical volumes.
January 2016 | 53
Table 5.2: Galapa Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic
Month 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
34 m
January 113,381 110,149 115,192 126,185 134,067 136,835 144,743 150,374 172,395 191,587 203,178
6Z
:0 .co
February 102,175 97,192 103,828 112,898 124,329 121,577 129,972 135,448 160,553 171,531 189,794
March 112,632 108,093 117,071 128,161 128,254 136,534 148,973 155,986 180,651 192,761 208,182
54 s
4: und
April 104,202 105,880 108,919 116,930 124,317 130,292 137,847 143,939 166,482 187,615 200,819
5.
May 108,302 104,306 112,393 123,241 127,562 132,750 144,612 151,144 174,728 191,437 205,898
T1 af
June 100,761 104,653 111,163 122,475 123,837 128,149 138,099 157,918 175,652 188,463 192,875
24 lq
July 94,297 112,362 118,014 127,591 132,488 138,915 149,044 162,287 182,726 195,735 204,112
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Augusto 99,473 111,245 117,177 130,385 127,184 135,695 144,689 177,248 179,991 194,560 208,844
20 igue den
Septembre 98,653 105,870 117,843 124,540 125,290 132,339 144,171 169,523 177,633 190,264 204,536
Octobre 103,290 110,210 120,687 127,290 127,097 141,519 150,205 168,711 189,613 201,907 212,392
nf nfi
Novembre 102,419 108,963 122,023 128,290 128,078 137,090 145,206 138,988 184,920 200,186 206,458
December
TOTAL
119,414
1,258,999
121,470
1,300,393
134,699
1,399,009
Co
141,235
1,509,221
145,012
1,547,515
154,721
1,626,416
158,077
1,735,638
150,766
1,862,332
201,661
2,147,005
219,053
2,325,099
227,493
2,464,581
January 2016 | 54
Marahuaco Toll Plaza

5.7 The historical traffic information for the Marahuaco toll plaza between 2004 and 2014 7 indicates
an annual growth rate of 6.2%. The next figure shows the annual growth rate distribution by
vehicle type. It can be observed how auto and light trucks grew evenly, whereas heavy trucks had
an extreme behavior throughout the period, growing more than 280% between 2008 and 2009,
the total value of heavy trucks is very small and the growth is not significant in terms of actual
volumes.
Figure 5.5: Marahuaco toll plaza: Annual growth rate by vehicle type between 2004-2014
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis based on information provided by ANI
5.8 The monthly traffic distribution from 2004 until 2014 is shown below. The figure shows a constant
traffic growth in all categories. It also shows that cars (Cat I) makes the majority of traffic for this
toll plaza. It is important to consider that the growth observed for trucks at the end of 2010 and
2011 can possibly be attributed to the closure of roads during the winter season. Furthermore, it
is possible for Marahuaco to have served as an alternate route for the trips which passed through
Bayunca (accounting for the observed traffic reduction of Bayunca at the end of 2011).
5.9 Traffic showed peak levels at the end of each year with a tendency to decrease in the months of
April and to slightly increase during the holiday period at the middle of the year.
7
For the Marahuaco toll plaza, traffic volume information was only obtained for the months of January
through September of 2014. Therefore, volumes for October through December were calculated by using
the historical volumes.
January 2016 | 55
Figure 5.6: Marahuaco Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic Distribution by Category between 2004-2014.
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
5.10 The following table shows the total volume per month for Marahuaco toll plaza.
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 56
Table 5.3: Marahuaco Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic
Month 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*
34 m
January 83,499 83,463 88,944 96,699 99,917 106,913 111,732 117,576 127,112 143,925 134,008
6Z
:0 .co
February 55,231 60,169 60,169 66,175 67,083 74,687 80,947 81,342 94,990 93,480 91,305
March 52,784 67,083 60,025 67,083 82,123 75,769 81,765 98,013 94,527 106,857 111,344
54 s
4: und
5.
April 58,652 71,119 71,119 71,119 67,629 84,631 80,591 99,198 101,347 84,188 113,721
May 51,712 55,958 57,252 64,771 74,610 78,396 76,451 83,922 91,677 90,708 99,278
T1 af
June 58,157 71,710 71,710 71,710 76,439 84,193 78,587 91,920 98,322 104,421 103,959
24 lq
-0 do l
July 73,731 77,825 74,882 77,825 79,680 91,085 90,211 99,224 105,943 104,100 106,064
19 re tia
1- @
August 60,192 60,658 68,083 73,492 79,740 86,981 84,470 95,051 99,142 102,629 106,728
20 igue den
September 53,985 66,336 66,336 66,336 70,165 77,505 77,231 86,264 93,300 92,530 97,706
October 57,010 58,513 71,778 71,778 79,310 83,437 86,832 94,897 99,435 104,518 105,649
nf nfi
November 42,643 61,238 67,921 73,680 73,496 79,474 79,792 117,673 97,901 100,197 105,338
December 71,538 76,265 82,099 92,309 Co 93,336 98,212 145,366 133,078 117,402 124,384 137,206
TOTAL 719,134 810,337 840,318 892,977 943,528 1,021,283 1,073,975 1,198,158 1,221,098 1,251,937 1,312,306
January 2016 | 57
Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza

5.11 From the historical traffic information between 2004 and 2014, Puerto Colombia toll
plaza8showed an annual growth equivalent to 7%. In Puerto Colombia just like in Marahuaco,
heavy truck volumes have extreme behaviors throughout the period, decreasing at a rate of 3.7%
between 2004 and 2009 and again between 2011 and 2013, and increasing between 2009 and
2011, and beyond 2014. The next figure shows the growth rate distribution by vehicle type for the
analyzed period. Actual truck volumes are low thus the trends in the rates.
Figure 5.7: Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014.
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
5.12 The following figure shows the monthly traffic distribution by category from 2004 until 2014.
During the last months of 2010 and 2011 a significant increase in heavy truck traffic is detected,
again this can be linked with road closures during the rainy season. Additionally, it shows how cars
constituted the majority of traffic.
5.13 Like Marahuaco´s toll plaza, traffic for this toll plaza showed a distinct peak level at the end of
each year, however it decreases in the months of April and increases slightly during the holiday
period at the middle of the year.
8
For Puerto Colombia toll plaza information regarding volume was only obtained for the months of January
through September, 2014. Consequently, volumes for October through December were calculated by using
the historical volumes.
January 2016 | 58
Figure 5.8: Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza: Monthly Traffic Distribution by Category between 2004-2014
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
5.14 The following table shows the total volumes for the toll station by month.
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 59
Table 5.4: Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic
Month 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
34 m
6Z
January 109,869 105,901 112,303 118,621 125,379 134,829 143,267 156,843 173,041 180,684 188,496
:0 .co
February 72,077 66,527 71,106 76,751 85,967 89,121 95,597 102,036 124,195 125,420 125,741
54 s
March 68,046 84,575 71,804 81,339 103,945 92,477 99,894 126,550 125,635 159,463 157,274
4: und
5.
April 77,515 63,604 90,101 90,805 76,728 106,204 103,838 135,932 137,650 114,761 162,656
May 68,979 73,497 69,036 77,218 92,316 95,612 99,524 109,932 123,017 130,515 138,532
T1 af
June 78,823 72,467 78,490 88,022 97,117 101,923 101,203 127,240 134,782 154,523 156,149
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
July 101,730 92,842 95,366 98,766 94,437 109,250 116,701 137,946 149,748 148,495 146,874
1- @
20 igue den
August 82,736 75,395 82,601 86,983 97,495 104,985 108,987 123,252 133,455 144,637 152,627
September 67,158 67,446 73,209 78,569 80,425 88,608 95,642 113,787 128,252 129,073 134,120
nf nfi
October 73,884 73,409 80,260 84,930 93,162 102,660 114,701 128,996 135,715 145,785 149,660
November 54,610 74,952 83,162 90,620 93,936 100,407 103,659 151,525 135,530 142,962 151,754
December 92,972 94,224 102,795 Co
117,346 119,540 126,775 176,188 172,176 167,690 175,606 200,152
TOTAL 948,399 944,839 1,010,233 1,089,970 1,160,447 1,252,851 1,359,201 1,586,215 1,668,710 1,751,924 1,864,035
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis from infromation provided by ANI
January 2016 | 60
Papiros Toll Plaza

5.15 Papiros toll plaza presented an annual growth of 3.1%. The next figure shows the annual growth
rate distribution by vehicle type during 2004 and 2014, showing an apparent growth in light and
heavy trucks.
Figure 5.9: Papiros Toll Plaza: Annual Growth Rate by Vehicle Type between 2004-2014.
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
5.16 The following figure shows the monthly traffic distribution by category from 2004 until 2014. The
graphs shows the apparent growth in light and heavy truck traffic (categories III-VII) in 2008.
However, these ones decrease starting 2009. Additionally, there is a distinct increase in all
categories at the end of 2007 and 2011. The figure demonstrates that category I still has the
highest traffic in the route. The stationary behavior of this toll plaza is linked to the unidirectional
operation and particular toll charging conditions.
January 2016 | 61
Figure 5.10: Papiros Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic by Category between 2004-2014
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis from infromation provided by ANI
20 igue den
5.17 The following table shows the total volumes by month.

nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 62
Table 5.5: Papiros Toll Plaza: Monthly Historical Traffic
Month 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
34 m
January 29,394 23,511 23,930 25,253 30,961 30,175 25,010 26,189 35,082 28,047 31,786
6Z
:0 .co
February 26,750 20,223 22,694 24,101 29,978 26,636 23,185 25,872 28,126 26,399 33,271
54 s
March 28,563 22,283 25,707 27,789 32,113 29,476 25,208 27,914 29,496 27,443 35,686
4: und
5.
April 24,915 23,186 23,773 26,305 39,089 26,837 26,575 25,992 25,823 30,177 32,138
May 25,237 24,725 26,408 29,388 34,472 28,943 26,078 27,680 28,390 29,117 33,943
T1 af
June 22,854 23,281 25,497 26,361 30,003 25,123 22,161 23,403 24,185 23,994 27,213
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
July 21,518 22,218 24,385 24,162 30,094 27,555 20,982 23,389 24,589 22,410 26,302
1- @
August 22,524 26,301 25,846 24,452 31,787 28,273 23,696 26,487 27,021 28,523 31,513
20 igue den
September 24,025 27,565 28,890 27,638 34,145 28,866 25,046 28,364 29,112 30,733 34,263
October 25,718 29,323 29,943 27,322 35,216 27,813 24,295 27,621 26,790 30,826 34,816
nf nfi
November 18,658 23,469 27,048 42,219 31,065 27,275 26,234 53,850 27,495 32,623 38,755
December 24,677 23,546 24,519 Co
50,914 33,567 27,210 30,174 36,891 28,079 33,445 39,678
TOTAL 294,834 289,631 308,640 355,904 392,490 334,182 298,644 353,652 334,188 343,797 399,364
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis based on information provided by ANI and INVIAS
January 2016 | 63
Regional Analysis
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
5.18 Traffic trends are similar in the last ten years across the region, with the Galapa toll plaza
reporting the largest number of transactions, followed by Puerto Colombia and Marahuaco.
Table 5.6: Comparative traffic in tolls in the region (AADT)
Poll plaza 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Bayunca 1,577 1,708 1,896 2,020 2,068 2,147 2,140 2,300 2,834 3,170 3,541
CAGR (%) 8.3% 11.0% 6.6% 2.4% 3.7% -0.3% 7.5% 23.2% 11.8% 11.7%
Galapa 3,449 3,563 3,833 4,135 4,240 4,456 4,755 5,169 5,956 6,370 6,752
CAGR (%) 3.3% 7.6% 7.9% 2.5% 5.1% 6.7% 8.7% 15.2% 7.0% 6.0%
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Marahuaco 1,970 2,220 2,302 2,447 2,585 2,798 2,942 3,283 3,345 3,430 3,595
CAGR (%) 12.7% 3.7% 6.3% 5.7% 8.2% 5.2% 11.6% 1.9% 2.5% 4.8%
54 s
Puerto Colombia 2,598 2,589 2,768 2,986 3,179 3,432 3,724 4,346 4,572 4,800 5,107
4: und
5.
CAGR (%) -0.4% 6.9% 7.9% 6.5% 8.0% 8.5% 16.7% 5.2% 5.0% 6.4%
T1 af
Papiros 808 794 846 975 1,075 916 878 969 916 942 1,094
24 lq
CAGR (%) -1.8% 6.6% 15.3% 10.3% -14.9% -10.6% 18.4% -5.5% 2.9% 16.2%
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
5.19 The traffic in Papiros is the only one exhibiting a stationary or decreasing patterns associated to its
20 igue den
particular location and toll charging conditions. Galapa and Puerto Colombia being the plazas
located next to Barranquilla show the higher volumes and stronger growth rates. Marahuaco
nf nfi
shows some a smaller growth during the last three years.

Co
Figure 5.11: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Comparison by Toll Plaza
Source: Steer Davies Gleave based on information provided by ANI and INVIAS
January 2016 | 64
Long-Term Average Annual Growth (2004-2014)

5.20 The next table shows the long-term growth by vehicle type.
Table 5.7: Average Annual Growth by Toll Plaza (CAGR 2004-2014)
Category Bayunca Galapa Marahuaco Puerto Colombia Papiros

Autos 10.2% 9.2% 6.3% 7.2% 6.2%
Buses 4.6% 3.1% 10.6% 6.2% -3.5%
Light Trucks -0.9% -2.4% 2.3% 4.8% -1.1%
Heavy Trucks 14.3% 14.3% 6.9% 5.7% -4.4%
34 m
TOTAL 8.4% 6.9% 6.2% 7.0% 91%
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
Standard Deviation of the Average Annual Growth
5.21 The standard deviation allows the evaluation of variability of traffic growth. As seen in the
T1 af
following table the greater deviations occurred for buses and trucks reaching values greater than
24 lq
-0 do l
100% for heavy trucks in Marahuaco and Puerto Colombia given the smallest values that normally
19 re tia
1- @
uses the project road.
20 igue den
Table 5.8: Standard Deviation for Average Annual Growth by Toll Plaza (2004-2014)
nf nfi
Category Bayunca Galapa Marahuaco Puerto Colombia Papiros

Co
Auto 14.3 % 6.3% 3.5% 4.4% 18.0%

Buses 7.0% 2.5% 17.5% 11.2% 12.6%
Light Trucks 7.0% 2.5% 17.2% 16.3% 56.7%
Heavy Trucks 8.8% 10.4% 108.8% 306.1% 35.3%
TOTAL 14.7% 14.5% 3.6% 4.4% 11.5%
5.22 It is important to note that these deviations are significantly greater than the observed growth at
the toll plazas, indicating high variability in the annual traffic behavior during the period analyzed.
This behavior is explained by a combination of years with low and high peaks on the economic
environment and extreme rainy seasons.
Evaders and Exempt Vehicles
5.23 ANI provided information for the number of evaders and special or exempt vehicles, which do not
pay the toll due to the provisions included in Law 787 of 2002. This bill states that all users should
be charged, apart from: motorcycles, bicycles, fire fighter trucks from the voluntary fire brigade,
official fire brigades, Red Cross ambulances, Civil Defense, Official Hospitals, Military and National
Police vehicles, official vehicles from the National Penitentiary and Prisons Institute, official
January 2016 | 65
vehicles of the Administrative Security Department (DAS) and from other institutions which
provide function of Judicial Police . 9
5.24 The table shows Papiros toll plaza having the highest percentage of evaders and exempt,
accounting for 3.4% of passing vehicles.
10
Table 5.9: Percentage of Evaders and Exempts Vehicles
Year Marahuaco Puerto Colombia Papiros

2003 1.6% 1.4% 2.4%
2004 1.7% 1.6% 3.0%
2005 1.5% 1.7% 3.4%
2006 1.4% 1.5% 3.4%
34 m
2007 1.5% 1.4% 2.7%
6Z
:0 .co
2008 1.3% 1.5% 2.8%
54 s
2009 1.5% 1.4% 3.7%
4: und
5.
2010 1.7% 1.5% 4.7%
2011 1.4% 1.3% 3.9%
T1 af
2012 1.5% 1.0% 4.3%
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Average 1.5% 1.4% 3.4%
1- @
20 igue den

nf nfi
Co
9
https://www.mintransporte.gov.co/loader.php?lServicio=FAQ&lFuncion=viewPreguntas&id=21
10
Information provided by INVIAS and ANI did not include information regarding evaders for 2013 and 2014.
January 2016 | 66
6 Urban Analysis
6.1 This chapter discusses the analysis carried out in order to identify areas of development for the
upcoming years that could have an impact in the travel demand of Vía al Mar and Circunvalar de la
34 m
Prosperidad. For this study a visit, review and analysis of the land use plans for Cartagena and
6Z
:0 .co
Baranquilla were carried out to assess the type and scale of projects being developed in the two
cities and along the road network. During the site visit (7th of November, 2014) various housing
54 s
4: und
developments around Vía al Mar were identified. For the analysis the road network was divided in
5.
3 segments:
T1 af
1. Segment Cartagena-Arroyo Grande
2.
24 lq
Segment Arroyo Grande-Santa Verónica
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
3. Segment Santa Verónica- Barranquilla
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 67
Figure 6.1: Map of Vía al Mar and Segments of Analysis
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Segment 1 Cartagena-Arroyo Grande

6.2 This segment is in the northern area of Cartagena. The regulation in this area allows the following
land use: tourism, residential, temporal housing, commerce, industry, low density agroindustry,
port centrality, institutional 3 and 4, gardens and cemeteries.
January 2016 | 68
Figure 6.2: Segment 1 Cartagena-Arroyo Grande
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
6.3 According to the site visit, high density residential projects, commerce, hotels and office projects
were identified in the urban area of Cartagena over Avenida Santander. Entering the suburban
area, developments were found for low density suburban housing, schools, logistics centers,
services centers and health and industry developments. The projects being developed at the time
of the site visit were:
 Serena del Mar
 Los Morros
 Barcelona de Indias
 Barceloneta
 Condominio Terranova
 Laguna Club
 Molinos de Mallorca
 Puerta de las Américas
 Karibana
6.4 In this segment the following developments will be built:
 George Washington School
January 2016 | 69
 British School
 Cartagena Gym School
 Hospital IV-Puerta de Las Américas
Figure 6.3: Real Estate Developments in Segment 1- Residential Buildings and Hotels
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
6.5 Barceloneta and Barcelona de Indias are two suburban residential complexes. Barceloneta will
24 lq
have approximately 204 housing units and Barcelona de Indias is expected to have 1,000 housing
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
units.
20 igue den
Figure 6.4: Real Estate Developments in Segment: Suburban Residential Complexes Barcelona and Barceloneta
nf nfi
Co
6.6 Puerta de las Américas is a real estate development which will have a business center, exposition
center, yards and cellars, hotel and a technological park.
January 2016 | 70
Figure 6.5: Real Estate Developments in Segment 1: Puerta de Las Américas
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
6.7 Karibana is a 145 hectares touristic development, which will be developed in 3 stages of 9
54 s
4: und
residential towers with approximately 198 apartments and one hotel with approximately 300
5.
rooms. This complex will have one golf course, a “club house” and recreational areas.
T1 af
Figure 6.6: Real Estate Developments in Segment 1: Karibana
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Source: http://karibanacartagena.com/home/torres/
Segment 2 Arroyo Grande-Santa Verónica

6.8 This segment shows a lower amount of developments under construction and sales than segment
1. Nonetheless, some touristic and residential developments do exist:
 Vista Mar (Hotel 19 rooms)
 Playa Iguana (Hotel: 360 rooms)
 Casa de Mar (33 residential units)
 Agua Marina, great residential and touristic complex of 75 lots and approximately 260 hotel
rooms.
January 2016 | 71
Figure 6.7: Segment 2 Arroyo Grande - Santa Verónica
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Figure 6.8: Real Estate Development in Segment 2: Casa del Mar
January 2016 | 72
Figure 6.9: Real Estate Developments in Segment 2: Vista Mar
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
Figure 6.10: Real Estate Developments in Segment 2: Playa Iguana
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 73
Figure 6.11: Real Estate Developments in Segment 2: Agua Marina
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
6.9 Agua Marina Beach Resort is a residential and touristic complex, with 75 lots and 260 hotel room
T1 af
approximately.
24 lq
-0 do l
Segment 3 Santa Verónica-Barranquilla
19 re tia
1- @
6.10 In this segment small urban centers are identified in Santa Verónica, Playa Mendoza and el Morro,
20 igue den
yet no big developments under construction are present until Puerto Colombia near the University
area and Barranquilla. Low density residential developments in Puerto Colombia were also
nf nfi
observed as well as an University zone which generates constant journeys.

Co
6.11 Upon arrival to Barranquilla, industrial, logistics and commercial developments are observed on
the sides of Avenida Circunvalar and vía Juan Mina, located on the expansion area.
January 2016 | 74
Figure 6.12: Segment 3: Santa Verónica- Barranquilla
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Figure 6.13: Developments in Segment 3: Avenida Circunvalar Industrial Constructions
January 2016 | 75
Figure 6.14: Developments in Segment 3: Avenida Circunvalar Industrial Constructions
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
Figure 6.15: Developments in Segment 3: Juan Mina Logistic Center
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Analysis of Project Development Areas

6.12 As observed in the next figure, there is a large number of developments and sales of lots for
industrial and logistic centers around Circunvalar de Barranquilla. Along Juan Mina, we observed
the development of the Marentus Logistics and Business Center. Likewise, there are some
brickwork, mattress factories, and some heavy industry.
January 2016 | 76
Figure 6.16: Developments around Circunvalar de Barranquilla and Juan Mina
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
6.13 Traffic projections presented below in this report only account for developments in Circunvalar,
this is a conservative position. Most of these developments will not affect traffic at toll plazas
since the highest concentration lies between the Marahuaco toll plaza and the city of Cartagena.
January 2016 | 77
7 Traffic Model Development

7.1 The transportation model originates from a computational tool adequately representing the
34 m
current road network and demand. The base scenario represents, within some margin of error,
6Z
the existent conditions of the transport network. Network models represent the supply of the
:0 .co
road offer, the demand for trips and the relationships that governs the route choice and
54 s
equilibrium of trips made for private transportation. For this study, the objectives of the
4: und
5.
implementation of a network model were:
 Obtaining aggregate measures of network use (total traffic flow) for a given travel demand.
T1 af
 To obtain trip costs (time and distance) between O/D zones for a given travel demand.
24 lq
-0 do l

19 re tia
To obtain trip costs (time and distance) at each zone.
1- @
20 igue den
7.2 The framework used for modeling is shown in the next figure. The green boxes correspond to the
information collected, these variables are useful to:
nf nfi
 Develop a growth model, indicated by the pink box and described in greater detail in the next
Co
chapter.
 Construct base scenario OD matrices (orange box)
 Definition of the main characteristics of the network within the study area (grey boxes), which
include road capacity, number of lanes, slopes, speed-flow, curves, etc.
 Estimate the Value of Time, based on Stated Preference Surveys, resulting in the willingness
to pay for the savings offered by the new Project or other infrastructure changes, indicated in
the light green box.
January 2016 | 78
Figure 7.1: General Structure of the Transportation Model
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Source: Steer Davies Gleave.

nf nfi
7.3 The network model was developed using the emme3 software and included information gathered
Co
during the data collection. The network model allows to simulate trip behavior with tolls and
other changes in the available infrastructure.
Network description
7.4 The network included in the model represents the actual road network in the study area with
sufficient detail to model each traveler´s route choice. The network used in this study was based
on the data gathered by Steer Davies Gleave during this study. The following figure shows the
base road network considered.
7.5 The network is sufficiently dense to appropriately represent the behavior of the typical trip
between Barranquilla and Cartagena and other roads which could serve as an alternative. It was
considered that it was not necessary to achieve greater detail level in the urban areas of
Barranquilla and Cartagena.
January 2016 | 79
Figure 7.2: Model Network (General View and Details over the Concession Network)
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
7.6 Travel times are estimated based on the volume-delay relationship. This function represents the
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
change in travel time required to travel a stretch of road as a function of the number of vehicles in
1- @
the segment. In this case we used a traditional BPR curve which has the following form 11:
20 igue den
𝑣 𝛽
𝑡 𝐵𝑃𝑅 (𝑣) = 𝑡0 ∙ (1 + α ( ) )
𝑐
nf nfi
Co
7.7 The volume delay functions for each link depends on the length, traffic volume assigned to the link
after assignment, additional loads for other transportation modes other than the one being
simulated (for example the public transportation routes), the number of lanes, the theoretical
road capacity and an adjustment factor, normally between 0 and 1, that determines the
operational capacity of each segment. The capacity is the maximum flow of vehicles for one hour
that can pass through a point (in this case, a link) under regular driving conditions12 . Capacity
values vary depending on the type of road as shown below.
13
Table 7.1: Lane Capacity by Type of Road
Type of Road Capacity (veh/hr/lane) (Equivalent vehicles ranges)

Freeway/Expressway; multilane road 1800
Bidirectional Collector 1100
Unidirectional Collector 1200
Bidirectional Local Road 900
11
BPR: Bureau of Public Roads, Spiess H. Conical Volume-Delay Functions, 1997.
12
Adapted from HCM 2000, pg. 2-2
13
Based on information from HCM 2000 and data gathered by SDG.
January 2016 | 80
Unidirectional Local Road 900

Minor Local Road 800
7.8 It was determined that the simulation model would consider as capacity restrictions the following
factors:
 Deteriorated pavement conditions
 Traffic light controls
 Level of interference related to:
 Parking on the road
 Non-marked pedestrian and bicycle crossings
34 m
 Private Access for housing, commerce and others.
6Z
:0 .co
Demand Matrices
54 s
4: und
5.
Origin-Destination Matrices
7.9 Representation of travel demand is made in a matrix form, identifying the amount of travel that
T1 af
takes place between two points in the study area at a specific time of day. This is generally known
24 lq
-0 do l
as an Origin Destination (OD) matrix. The construction of the OD matrices was based on the travel
19 re tia
1- @
survey results. In the survey the main analysis unit is the journey that is equivalent to one vehicle
20 igue den
surveyed. The total surveys collected at a given location are only a sample of the total traffic
volume collected at that location. To expand the sample to actual levels, we compared the OD
nf nfi
pairs and the observed traffic volumes. Hence, if for a given location we estimated that travel
between the municipality of Soledad and the center of Barranquilla corresponds to 19% of the
Co
surveys, it is assumed that 19% of the observed volume at that location make that same journey.
7.10 Surveys were carried out over the main road networks which link Cartagena and Barranquilla.
Therefore, the matrix have several empty cells mainly corresponding to short-distance trips which
could not be captured. Journeys taking place within this area will not be considered during the
route choice as they do not use the toll plazas. However, they do cause congestion over the
network at some links connecting to the toll plazas and other important roads.
7.11 To capture these trips, the demand matrices were adjusted based on the observed travel counts
at other points on the network. For this it was necessary to estimate a seed matrix for the empty
cells and then complete the matrix estimation process using an adjustment control method which
does not adjust the OD pairs surveyed. For greater documentation of this process see Willumsen
and Ortúzar (Modelling Transport) and INRO Consultants documentation for the model macro
script demadj22.mac.
7.12 Given the characteristics of the demand, we constructed travel demand matrices for three
modeling periods throughout a working day, Saturday and Sunday:
 Working day AM - 7:00 AM-8:00 AM
 Working day MM - 13:00 PM-14:00 PM
 Working day PM - 17:00 PM-18:00 PM
 Saturday AM - 8:00 AM-9:00 AM
January 2016 | 81
 Saturday PM - 16:00 PM-17:00 PM

 Sunday AM - 8:00 AM-9:00 AM
 Sunday PM - 17:00 PM-18:00 PM
7.13 For each modeling period, seven travel demand matrices were estimated for the following vehicle
types (auto, light trucks and heavy trucks) and trip purposes for auto (work, tourism, education
and other). A relationship between them is made by grouping the vehicle types according to their
corresponding number of trips.
Table 7.2: Demand matrices of vehicle type and trip purpose users.
Auto Auto Auto Auto

Light Heavy
Period/Matrix Work Educational Tourism Other
Trucks Trucks
Purpose Purpose Purpose Purpose
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Working day, peak hour AM 3,982 287 130 564 978 283
Working day, peak hour MD 2,792 129 216 1,489 1,065 269
54 s
4: und
Working day, peak hour PM 2,293 94 157 2,077 1,086 337
5.
Saturday, peak hour AM 2,682 98 219 554 251 51
T1 af
Saturday, peak hour PM 1,720 29 644 1,507 609 202
24 lq
Sunday, peak hour AM 934 19 472 1,074 482 122
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Sunday, peak hour PM 1,140 99 856 2,513 749 254
20 igue den

nf nfi
Zone System
Co
7.14 The zoning system divides the study area into 199 zones, representing various municipalities of
Colombia, for which trips were observed and captured in the O/D matrices. additionally, the zone
system is particularly detailed in the urban centers of Cartagena and Barranquilla, generating a
greater segmentation detail for these cities. The next figure shows the zoning system used.
January 2016 | 82
Figure 7.3: Zone System (Centroids)
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Assignment
7.15 Traffic assignment was carried selecting the optimal route for every user while minimizing the
generalized travel cost. This is the user equilibrium implemented in the software package emme3.
Behavioral Parameters
7.16 As a result of the stated preference analysis, four user segments for car users, one for light trucks
and one for heavy trucks were determined. The VOTs calculated for each of these segments were
incorporated within the network model to translate monetary costs into generalized times. The
following table shows the final VOTs assigned to each user
Table 7.3: Subjective value of time (VoT - $/hr)
Vehicle type Segment VoT (hour, COP)

Auto Work $12,203
Auto Tourism $15,122
January 2016 | 83
Auto Educational $8,669

Auto Other $14,300
Light trucks $14,867
Heavy trucks $25,068
Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC)

7.17 Vehicle operation costs (VOC) for all types of vehicles and roads were calculated using the values
published by the Ministry of Transport in the “Volúmenes de tránsito y costos de operación 2010 –
2011” of INVIAS. The VOC values include all costs associated with a trip. We have assumed that, in
34 m
terms of route choice, car and truck users perceive all costs. The published costs were broguht to
6Z
2014 prices using CPI. Moreover, operational costs on urban roads increase as a car´s performance
:0 .co
on an urban road is much lower than on an highway. The Environmental Protection Agency of the
54 s
United States 14 analyzed the performance of various types of cars on several roads in the United
4: und
5.
States and concluded that on average a car performance on an urban road is 32% higher that on a
highway. The following table summarizes the final operational costs assumed for the base
T1 af
scenario network.
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Table 7.4: Vehicular Operating Costs ($/km)
1- @
20 igue den
Road Auto Light Trucks Heavy Trucks

Vía al Mar $965 $1,420 $3,513
nf nfi
Circunvalar de la Prosperidad $965 $1,420 $3,513

Co
La Cordialidad $1,078 $1,793 $4,643

Circunvalar de Barranquilla $1,008 $1,539 $3,804
Vías urbanas de Cartagena $1,273 $1,875 $4,637
Vías urbanas de Barranquilla $1,273 $1,875 $4,637
Source: Steer Davies Gleave with values from INVIAS
Analysis of Alternative Costs and Time

7.18 The competing roads of the Project were analyzed taking into account the time and cost for each
of them. Thus providing a clearer idea of the route choice for each user. Two exercises were
carried out comparing in each of them the operational conditions for two alternative routes
between origin and destination. The results corresponds to the year once the project is fully
implemented (2018) and is illustrative because the model takes into account all OD pairs and
potential routes.
14
Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America, www.fueleconomy.gov
January 2016 | 84
From Cartagena to Barranquilla

Figure 7.4: Alternative Route from Cartagena-Barranquilla
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den

nf nfi
Co
TOLL
DISTANCE TIME SPEED VOC ($2014 TOTAL COST
CATEGORY ROUTE ($2014
(KM) (HH:MM) (KM/H) COP) ($2014 COP)
COP)
119 1:31 79 $ 119,035 $21,315 $ 140,351
Autos
130 1:52 70 $ 140,854 $13,965 $ 154,819
119 1:43 69 $ 175,363 $31,972 $ 207,335
Light Trucks
130 2:10 60 $ 232,467 $15,120 $ 247,587
Heavy 119 1:59 60 $ 433,807 $156,747 $ 590,554

Trucks 130 2:36 50 $ 600,089 $42,164 $ 642,253
7.19 The most attractive route for a sample trip between Cartagena and Barranquilla is the red one.
The reductions in travel time and operational costs make up for the increased toll costs. However
detailed location in both cities will determine the selection. Trucks usually don´t select the red one
for the end points in the cities where they face legal and geometric restrictions to arrive at their
final destination points; the end points of the blue alternative are more aligned with their usual
end points.
January 2016 | 85
From Cartagena to Malambo

Figure 7.5: Alternative Routes from Cartagena to Malambo
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi

Co
Table 7.5: Competing Roads Analysis
DISTANCE TIME VOC ($2014 TOLL($2014 TOTAL COST

CATEGORY ROUTE SPEED(KM/H)
(KM) (HH:MM) COP) COP) ($2014 COP)
149 1:41 88 $ 143,672 $ 31,604 $ 175,276
Auto
143 1:55 75 $ 146,388 $ 24,255 $ 170,643
Light 149 1:55 78 $ 211,337 $ 47,407 $ 258,744

Trucks 143 2:12 65 $ 238,816 $ 30,554 $ 269,369
Heavy 149 2:11 68 $ 523,525 $ 234,655 $ 758,179

Trucks 143 2:23 60 $ 615,069 $ 120,073 $ 735,142
7.20 In this scenario the result is again the red one being the preferred route although for a closer
margin. The same caveats mentioned in the scenario above apply.
Model Calibration
7.21 Based on the cost functions and considering the descriptive information of the road network and
the OD matrix, a base traffic model was constructed and calibrated. This task entails comparing
January 2016 | 86
traffic volumes and times resulting from traffic assignment with the values observed in the field.
The calibration process requires 15:
 Making sure that all the necessary links are represented
 Use the best and most realistic speed-flow functions
 Realistic values for the operating costs of the various vehicle types
 Use of sufficient categories of users and that these use an appropriate Value of Time
 Using realistic matrices, and in case they have been obtained through other models
(distribution, modal choice), making sure that the errors in these are not the ones preventing
the network calibration.
Figure 7.6: Model Calibration Process
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
7.22 Time and volume comparisons are made based on the hourly flows resulting from the traffic
assignment process. Validations regarding indicators like daily traffic are needed. The percentage
difference is estimated between the demand model for each of the segments and the observed
traffic volume. It is an industry practice to consider as acceptable values with differences lower
than 20%. Nonetheless, this estimate depends on the magnitude of the compared values. For
small values a 20% can be insignificant; for big values it can be considered as a significant error.
Therefore it is necessary to complement the analysis with other indicators such as the GEH
indicator. This statistic is an indicator that takes into account the order of magnitude of the values
being compared. Values between 0 and 5 indicate a good-fit, while values between 5 and 10 are
acceptable, and greater than 10 require additional adjustments.
(𝑣2 − 𝑣1 )2
𝐺𝐸𝐻 = √
0.5 ∙ (𝑣1 + 𝑣2 )
7.23 Where v2 correspond to the observed volume and v1 to the modeled volume.
15
Demand modelation for toll roads. (2006). Transconsult, Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte de
México, Steer Davies Gleave
January 2016 | 87
7.24 Generally, a traffic assignment model is considered satisfactory calibrated if some or all of the
following conditions are met 16:
 At least 60% of all the links have a GEH of less than 5;
 85% of the links have a GEH of less than 10; or
 All links have a GEH of less than 15.
7.25 Additionally, its advised to leave a percentage of the traffic count locations outside of the model
calibration process to validate the values once the model is considered calibrated. Likewise, its
necessary to calibrate the model’s travel time, by ensuring that the model times are similar to the
observed travel times. The following graphs illustrate the degree of adjustment of calibration of
the network model for the different periods analyzed. The volumes used for calibration and
validation were obtained from the field work. From these results, it can be concluded that the
34 m
traffic model does a good job replicating the current conditions.
6Z
:0 .co
Figure 7.7: Model Calibration for Autos for a Working Days During the AM Peak Hour – GEH indicator
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
16
Demand modelation for Toll Roads. (2006). Transconsult, Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte de
México, Steer Davies Gleave
January 2016 | 88
Figure 7.8: Model Calibration for Light Trucks for a Working Days During the AM Peak Hour – GEH Indicator
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den

nf nfi
Figure 7.9: Model Calibration for Heavy Trucks for a Working Days During the AM Peak Hour – GEH Indicator
Co
January 2016 | 89
8 Traffic and Revenue Model

Assumptions
34 m
Demand Growth
6Z
:0 .co
8.1 This section shows the growth models proposed to estimate future traffic on the roads. This
54 s
analysis considers how the current demand for travel will grow in the study area. It does not
4: und
5.
necessarily coincide with the growth in specific segments of the road and toll plazas. One road can
attract more or less traffic than the expected regional growth as a result of toll locations and rates,
T1 af
Value of Time, and the existence of roads and other modes of transportation; hence, traffic
24 lq
growth in the concession is not a model input but a result of the modeling exercise.
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
8.2 When estimating the travel demand growth, it is common practice to estimate the relationships
20 igue den
between traffic and other independent variables based on historical information. This approach
has the advantage of linking traffic independently to estimated values that are typically associated
nf nfi
with the economy, using simplified mathematical models that have proven successful in various
Co
international demand studies 17.Colombia´s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was used as the most
important explanatory variable.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
8.3 The next figure presents the behavior of the GDP for Colombia and the departments of Atlántico
and Bolívar since 2000 (figures in COP).
17
Demand modelation for Carreteras de Cuota. (2006) Transconsult, Secretaría de Comunicaciones and
Transportes de México, Steer Davies Gleave
January 2016 | 90
Figure 8.1: Gross Domestic Product Behavior for Colombia and the Departments of Atlántico and Bolívar
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
Source: Steer Davies Gleave based on information by DANE
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
8.4 Colombia has had a sustained growth over the past fifteen years. Measured in 2005 pesos, the
1- @
Colombian economy is 1.8 times what it was in 2000. After the slowdown observed between 2007
20 igue den
and 2009, GDP has grown over the last five years at an average annual rate of 5%. Additionally, it
is observed how the GDP for the departments of Atlántico and Bolívar follow the same trends that
nf nfi
the one for the national GDP. The following tables shows the annual growth rates of GDP based on
Co
the GDP estimates ($2005 COP).

Table 8.1: GDP Growth for Colombia and the Departments of Atlántico and Bolívar.
Year GDP Growth (Colombia) GDP Growth (Atlántico) GDP Growth Bolívar)
2001 1.68% -0.52% 2.17%
2002 2.50% 0.90% 2.22%
2003 3.92% 1.19% 15.29%
2004 5.33% 5.79% 7.31%
2005 4.71% 6.94% -0.37%
2006 6.70% 7.87% 6.92%
2007 6.90% 9.40% 8.26%
2008 3.55% 2.46% 1.33%
2009 1.65% -0.05% -0.20%
2010 3.97% -0.38% 4.39%
2011 6.59% 5.55% 9.02%
2012 4.05% 7.17% 0.89%
2013 4.68% 4.90% 5.34%
2014 4.70%
Source: Steer Davies Gleave based on information by DANE
January 2016 | 91
GDP Projections
8.5 The national GDP projections which are presented are based on a combination of different
macroeconomic sources available for 2014.prepared by the National Government as part of the
Fourth Generation Concession Roads (4G) 18 and estimates provided by Consensus Economics for
Latin America . 19 It is rare to find long-term GDP projections, however, for this study it is necessary
to make assumptions regarding GDP after 2023. The forecast period being considered includes
projections until 2045 and therefore additional assumptions must be made. The following table
shows the assumed projections.
Table 8.2: GDP projections
Year Base
34 m
2015 3.50%
6Z
:0 .co
2016 3.60%
2017 4.00%
54 s
2018 4.20%
4: und
5.
2019 4.20%
T1 af
2020 4.20%
24 lq
2021 4.20%
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
2022 4.20%
20 igue den
2023 4.20%
2024 4.00%
nf nfi
2025 4.00%
Co
2026 3.50%
2027 3.50%
2028 3.50%
2029 3.50%
2030 3.50%
2031 3.00%
2032 3.00%
2033 3.00%
2034 3.00%
2035 3.00%
18
CONPES 3760, August 20 of 2013
19
Latin American Consensus Forecasts, October 21 of 2013
January 2016 | 92
Comparison between Traffic Behavior and GDP

8.6 The growth model built for this study uses the national GDP as an indicator to correlate it with
traffic behavior. The GDP projections available will be used to estimate future traffic behaviors.
Using these variables, a mathematical relationship between the growth rate for both the GDP and
the traffic demand in the study area was established.
8.7 To obtain a better representation of the model several toll plazas along Vía al Mar and La
Cordialidad were considered. These include:
 Bayunca
 Galapa
 Marahuaco

34 m
Puerto Colombia
6Z
:0 .co
8.8 Additionally, four groups were defined to describe traffic behavior:

54 s
Auto (Category I)
4: und
5.
 Buses (Category II)
 Light Trucks (Categories III and IV)
T1 af
 Heavy Trucks (Categories V y VII)
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
8.9 The next figure illustrates the behavior of the variables considered between the 2004 and 2024
1- @
period.
20 igue den
Figure 8.2: GDP Behavior and Vehicle Traffic for the Four Toll Plazas
nf nfi
Co
Source: Steer Davies Gleave analysis on information from ANI, INVIAS and DANE
January 2016 | 93
8.10 Autos follow a similar trend to the GDP over the period analyzed. Heavy trucks growth had a
much greater than GDP growth throughout the period. Light trucks and buses show a slower
growth than GDP, but in general the trend is similar.
Growth Model
8.11 The mathematical models built are simple in form and application; they follow the following
formula:
𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇 = 𝛼 ∙ 𝐺𝐷𝑃𝛽
8.12 Where AADT corresponds to the annual traffic behavior indicator observed each year, GDP
corresponds to the GDP observed annually and α y β are calibration parameters.
34 m
8.13 Applying the logarithm to the equation above, the parameters are estimated using linear
6Z
regression. The β parameter corresponds to the traffic growth elasticity with respect to GDP
:0 .co
growth. For the resulting models the following considerations were taken into account:
54 s

4: und
For the regression of autos, the traffic at toll plazas in both roads (Vía al Mar and Coridalidad)
5.
was used, except from Papiros due its directional behavior.
 For the light and heavy trucks models only the traffic growth at La Cordialidad (Galapa y
T1 af
Bayunca) were considered, due to the great variability in the traffic growth for these vehicles
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
in the last years (see Chapter 5), allowing for a significant regression according to the model
1- @
requirements.
20 igue den
Table 8.3: Estimated Regression Models Considered

nf nfi
Vehicle Type Years Regression

Co
log(𝑇) = −9.47 + 1.40 ∙ log(𝑃𝐼𝐵)

Autos 2004-2014 R2 =0.981
(-8.425) (16.046)
log(𝑇) = −18.086 + 1.852 ∙ log(𝑃𝐼𝐵)
Buses 2004-2014 R2 =0.985
(-7.455) (9.853)
log(𝑇) = −8.657 + 1.148 ∙ log(𝑃𝐼𝐵)
Light Trucks 2004-2014 R2 =0.562
(3.582) (-2.093)
log(𝑇) = −52.701 + 4.377 ∙ log(𝑃𝐼𝐵)
Heavy Trucks 2004-2014 R2 =0.500
(-2.948) (3.160)
8.14 According to these results, and recognizing that for car trips the increase in per capita income
experienced in the last years makes the actual elasticity greater than the one estimated in the
regression analysis, we use the following elasticities for the traffic growth model:
 Autos: 1.40
 Buses: 1.85
 Light Trucks: 1.15
 Heavy Trucks: 2.78
8.15 These elasticities are consistent with other values found in Latin America A more complex time
series analysis would allow to isolate effects of autocorrelations and other elements which may be
January 2016 | 94
present in the previous estimate and will cause some issues from a purely statistical standpoint.
However, in this case, these are used as a reference to validate the elasticities between GDP and
the demand growth.
Table 8.4: GDP and Traffic Growth Elasticities on intercity Roads
Country Vehicle Elasticity Notes, Source

Chile Autos 0.90 – 1.40 Various Roads, SDG
Chile Trucks 0.50 – 1.90 Various Roads, SDG
Colombia Autos 1.28 – 1.39 Various Roads, SDG
Colombia Light Trucks 1.47 – 1.63 Various Roads, SDG
Colombia Heavy Trucks 2.86 – 5.00 Various Roads, SDG
34 m
México Autos 1.40 Various Roads, SDG
6Z
:0 .co
México Trucks 2.00 Various Roads, SDG
Perú Total Traffic 1.00 Various Roads, SDG
54 s
4: und
5.
Brasil Autos 0.67 IFC- TTC BR 116/BR324
Brasil Trucks 1.21 IFC- TTC BR 116/BR324
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Traffic Demand Expansion Model
20 igue den
8.16 Traffic levels for the different time periods were analyzed. For this analysis, expansion factors for
each toll plaza, vehicle type and direction were estimated. These expansion factors relate hourly
nf nfi
daily volumes with weekly, monthly, and annual volumes and were used to build and calibrate a
Co
traffic demand expansion model. Different time period were studied:

 Working day (Monday to Friday and Tuesday to Friday) for peak hour AM: 7:00 – 8:00
 Working day (Monday to Friday and Tuesday to Friday) for peak hour MD: 13:00 – 14:00
 Working day (Monday to Friday and Tuesday to Friday) for peak hour PM: 17:00 – 18:00
 Saturday and atypical Saturday for peak hour AM: 8:00 – 9:00
 Saturday and atypical Saturday for peak hour PM: 16:00 – 17:00
 Sunday and atypical Sunday for peak hour AM: 8:00 – 9:00
 Sunday and atypical Sunday for peak hour PM: 17:00 – 18:00
 Complete week (typical, Monday to Friday, Saturday and Sunday)
 Month-Year: the data used to estimate the expansion factor at the level month-year were the
historical traffic data of 2013, according to the available information of ANI. Differently,
monthly expansion factors estimated took into account the behavior observed during the
months of October and November 2013. The year expansion was made with the 2013
registry.
 The following expansion factors (EF) were determined for each toll plaza, following the
relationship of volumes for each case:
 EF of peak hour to period
 EF of period to day
 EF of day to week
January 2016 | 95
 To determine the expansion factor for the month-year, the monthly volumes of October and
November 2013 and the total volume of 2013 are estimated.
Future Road Network
Infrastructure
8.17 The current network conditions will be considered until 2017, year in which improvements on the
functional units on Vía al Mar and the new Circunvalar de la Prosperidad will come in place, as
indicated in the following table.
Table 8.5: Future Road Network
Functional Modeled
Subsection Length (km) Expected Intervention Speed(km/h)
Units Year
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
Operation and
Subsection 1: Anillo Vial
2.35 Maintenance of Anillo 60 2018
de Crespo
54 s
Vial de Crespo
4: und
5.
Construction of second
Subsection 2: La Boquilla 1.555 60 2017
lane
FU1
T1 af
Subsection 3: La Boquilla 1.555 Construction of bridges 60 2017
24 lq
-0 do l
Subsection 4: La Boquilla 7.3 Rehabilitation 60 2017
19 re tia
1- @
Service lane and bike
Subsection 5: La Boquilla 3.21 30 2017
20 igue den
lane construction
Construction of second
FU 2 Subsection 1: La Boquilla 5.395 60 2019
nf nfi
lane through viaducts

Co
Subsection 1: La Operation and

9.4 80 2019
Cartagena-Barranquilla Maintenance
FU 3 Subsection 2: La
72.11 Rehabilitation 80 2019
Cartagena-Barranquilla
Subsection 3: La Rehabilitation, Operation
9.07 100 2019
Cartagena-Barranquilla and Maintenance
Puerto Colombia – Improvement of existent

FU 4 12 80 2017
Barranquilla double lanes
Subsection 1: Malambo- Construction of second

4 80 2018
Galapa lane
FU 5
Subsection 2: Malambo- Construction of second
13 100 2018
Galapa lane
Subsection 1: Galapa – Vía Construction of second

12 100 2018
al Mar – Las Flores lane
FU 6
Subsection 2: Galapa – Vía Construction of second
7.7 80 2018
al Mar – Las Flores lane
Source: Technical Annex, Concession Contract under APP scheme No 004 of 10 de September of 2014 between grantor,
Agencia Nacional de Infraestructura – ANI, AND and concessionaire Concesión Costanera S.A.S
January 2016 | 96
Figure 8.3: Road Network 2018
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den

nf nfi
Intersections
Co
8.18 For the future scenarios modeled the intersections which will be part of the Concession,
particularly those that will be introduced during the construction of the Circunvalar de la
Prosperidad were incorporated.
Table 8.6: Expected Intersection for the Concession Cartagena- Barranquilla and Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
Functional Unit ID NAME Location Segment

FU1 1 Ramp intersection in Cielomar PR 1+650 Vía al Mar
FU 2 2 Doesn´t Apply - -
FU 3 3 Doesn´t apply - -
FU 4 4 Ramp intersection in Puerto Colombia PR 97+150 Vía al Mar
FU 4 5 Ramp intersection in Salgar PR100+720 Vía al Mar
FU 5 6 PIMSA, Circunvalar de la prosperidad at la Via 2516 PR 68+000 Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
FU 6 7 La Cordialidad (ramp) PR 112+300 Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
Occidente
de la
FU 6 8 Juan Mina (ramp) población Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
de Juan
Mina
FU 6 9 Via al Mar (ramp) PR 105+000 Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
Source: Technical Annex 1. Project scope. Concession contract. ANI 2014.
January 2016 | 97
Figure 8.4: New Intersection to be developed on Circunvalar de la Prosperidad
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den

nf nfi
Co
Other Model Parameters

Consumer Price Index (CPI)
8.19 The Consumer Price index (CPI) indicator measures the price variation in a goods and services
basket, representing a typical home consumption in the country. The Departamento
Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE) established the following CPI values:
Table 8.7: Consumer Price index
Year CPI
2008 7.67%
2009 2.0%
2010 3.17%
2011 3.73%
2012 2.44%
2013 1.94%
2014 3.66%
8.20 These are used to bring toll rates to 2014 because they are defined in pesos of 2012 in the
concession contract.
January 2016 | 98
Toll Rate Structure

8.21 According to Regulation No. 1378 of 26 of May 2014, the toll rate structure which will govern Vía
al Mar and la Circunvalar de La Prosperidad is shown in the following table:
20 21
Table 8.8: Toll Rate Structure which will Govern in the Concession (COP 2014)
Control Booth at Juan

Category Marahuaco Puerto Colombia Papiros Galapa
Mina
I $11,025 $10,290 $4,725 $10,290 $10,290
II $16,590 $15,435 $5,565 $15,435 $15,435
III $12,075 $11,235 $11,655 $11,235 $11,235
IV $21,000 $19,635 $20,475 $19,635 $19,635
34 m
V $65,624 $61,319 $65,204 $61,319 $61,319
6Z
:0 .co
VI $87,568 $81,689 $87,254 $81,689 $81,689
VII $97,228 $90,718 $96,913 $90,718 $90,718
54 s
4: und
5.
Source: Technical Annex, Concession contract under AAP scheme No 004 of 10 of September of 2014 between grantor
Agencia Nacional de Infraestructura y concessionaire Concesión Costera Cartagena Barranquilla S.A.S
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
Value of Time
19 re tia
1- @
8.22 Values were presented above, however it is important mentioning that it was assumed that all
20 igue den
VOTs and toll rates remain constant from 2014 to 2045, as well as any other monetary values in
the model. These values are expressed in constant prices of 2014 and therefore can be compared
nf nfi
without requiring adjustments for inflation.

Co
Additional Considerations
8.23 The modeling tool does not model any specific charging technology at the toll plazas, since the
model was not built to reflect the effects of implementing any particular charging technology.
8.24 Only seven discrete years were modeled: 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2040. From the
resulting values trends for the intermediate years are constructed, which are of interest to
develop the projects traffic and revenue flow. It was determine to limit the future modeling
efforts considering industry knowledge and practices which recommend not making projections in
horizons of more than 20 years since uncertainty levels tend to be uncontrollable. Longer-term,
traffic projections were done using constant growth rates.
8.25 For all scenarios a trend growth for buses (Category II) is assumed given that this type of vehicle is
subject to regulatory conditions and supply and demand adjustments which are not easily
represented under the assumed equilibrium of a network model. No assumption was made
20
These toll rates include the amount corresponding to Road Safety Fund (Contract No. 004 of 10 of
September of 2014).
21
The toll rates presented in the table are the rates established in the contract and adjusted to 2014 values
using the CPI presented in this chapter. This rates are only used for simulation purposes in the traffic
assignment and should not be considered for financial analysis.
January 2016 | 99
regarding any significant changes in the supply of routes or public service in the study area
throughout the project horizon period.
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
=steer davies gleave January 2016 | 100

9 Results
Demand Estimates and Projections
34 m
9.1 Following are tables and figures containing the projections for the toll plazas in the project. These
6Z
:0 .co
are subject to the assumptions and condition stated above and correspond to the information
available to SDG at the time when this report was completed, that is up to March 2015.
54 s
4: und
5.
9.2 The results show that most of the traffic using the project remains composed of light vehicles.
Large trucks are very few and our understanding is that they will continue using the competing
T1 af
road. Puerto Colombia because of the vicinity to Barranquilla and Puerto Colombia will reach
24 lq
higher traffic levels during the period of the concession.
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
9.3 Traffic in Circunvalar depends heavily on new developments, The traffic included in the
20 igue den
projections is the one using the road as a bypass. The scenarios do not consider a very aggressive
development of the land at both sides of this road. If this occur traffic levels at the toll plazas
nf nfi
located in this road will see higher traffic volumes. Traffic in Circunvalar is also dependent on road
Co
improvements and traffic management inside the urban core of Barranquilla that is hard to
forecast. Hence, our forecasts for these toll plazas could be considered conservative.
9.4 For this analysis we did not include any ramp- assumptions. The effect that can be anticipated
from this phenomena will not be significant in the Marahuaco and Puerto Colombia toll plazas
given the current conditions of the road network and existence of toll plazas. No changes are
expected in the trip trends which currently are observed in the area in the upcoming years, for
which it is unlikely to include any temporal readjustment to the demand.
9.5 The analysis conducted by Steer Davies Gleave can be completed with a sensitivity or risk study,
testing the variability in the traffic projections given changes in some of the input variables or
model assumptions. A sensitivity or risk analysis mitigates the uncertainty associated with the lack
of information in the medium and long-term regarding some variables.
9.6 Historical traffic data shows an increase in traffic for all toll plazas and all vehicle categories for
the last 10 years. Even though the country experienced periods of crisis, insecurity and economic
deceleration, which are reflected with low and even negative growth rates for some discrete years
and toll plazas, the traffic volume in the study area has been increasing in the long-term. The high
correlation between traffic in the toll plazas of the area of study and GDP, as well as the vision of
sustained growth which is forecasted for the country in the short and medium-term, allows for the
projection of positive growth rates for traffic demand for the new infrastructure.
January 2016 | 101

Table 9.1: Projection for Marahuaco Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions)
Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
CAT I 3,243 3,429 3,615 3,801 4,237 4,237 4,237 4,467 4,697 4,927 5,157 5,387 5,704
34 m
CAT II 209 214 218 222 227 231 236 241 246 250 255 260 266
6Z
:0 .co
CAT III 135 141 147 153 163 168 173 180 188 195 203 210 218
54 s
CAT IV 95 100 104 108 115 118 122 127 133 138 143 149 154
4: und
5.
CAT V 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16
CAT VI 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
T1 af
CAT VII 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
TOTAL 3,690 3,891 4,092 4,293 4,751 4,766 4,781 5,030 5,279 5,529 5,778 6,027 6,364
1- @
20 igue den
Category 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
nf nfi
CAT I 6,020 6,337 6,654 6,970 7,242 7,514 7,785 8,057 8,328 8,600 8,871 9,143 9,415 9,686
CAT II 271 277 282 287 Co
296 304 313 321 330 338 346 355 363 372
CAT III 226 233 241 249 256 264 271 279 287 294 302 309 317 324
CAT IV 160 165 170 176 181 187 192 197 203 208 213 219 224 229
CAT V 17 19 20 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
CAT VI 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
CAT VII 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
TOTAL 6,702 7,039 7,376 7,713 8,009 8,305 8,600 8,896 9,192 9,487 9,783 10,079 10,375 10,670
January 2016 | 102

Figure 9.1: AADT Projection for Marahuaco Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions)
12.000
5. om
6Z
10.000
.c
34
:5 ds
8.000
14 fun
AADT
0
6.000
4:
4T lqa
-0 do l
192029 ere ntia
4.000
@
gu de
2.000
2
nf 2025 nfi
2033 1
-
0
Co
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
20 i2027
2031
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
2045
TRACK RECORD PROJECTION
January 2016 | 103

Table 9.2: AADT Projection for Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions)
Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
CAT I 4,623 4,886 5,149 5,412 5,505 5,789 6,072 6,419 6,766 7,113 7,459 7,806 8,193
34 m
CAT II 342 349 356 363 370 378 385 393 401 409 417 425 434
6Z
:0 .co
CAT III 303 316 329 343 307 320 333 347 362 376 391 405 420
54 s
CAT IV 57 60 62 65 58 60 63 66 68 71 74 77 79
4: und
5.
CAT V 15 16 18 20 22 25 27 30 34 37 40 44 48
CAT VI 13 15 16 18 20 22 24 27 30 33 36 39 43
T1 af
CAT VII 20 23 25 27 31 34 37 42 46 51 55 60 66
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
TOTAL 5,373 5,664 5,956 6,248 6,313 6,627 6,942 7,325 7,708 8,091 8,474 8,857 9,284
1- @
20 igue den
Category 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
nf nfi
CAT I 8,579 8,966 9,352 9,739 10,194 10,648 11,103 11,558 12,013 12,468 12,923 13,378 13,833 14,288
CAT II
CAT III
443
435
452
450
461
465
470
479
Co
483
494
497
508
511
523
525
537
539
552
552
567
566
581
580
596
594
610
608
625
CAT IV 82 85 88 91 93 96 99 101 104 107 110 112 115 118
CAT V 53 57 61 66 72 78 84 90 95 101 107 113 119 125
CAT VI 47 51 55 59 64 69 75 80 85 91 96 101 106 112
CAT VII 72 78 84 90 98 106 114 122 131 139 147 155 163 171
TOTAL 9,711 10,138 10,566 10,993 11,498 12,003 12,509 13,014 13,519 14,025 14,53 15,035 15,540 16,046
January 2016 | 104

Figure 9.2: AADT Projection for Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions)
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 105

Table 9.3: Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza (Both Travel Directions)
Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
CAT I 7,250 7,654 8,058 8,462 9,084 9,552 10,020 10,573 11,126 11,679 12,232 12,785 13,378
34 m
CAT II 742 757 772 787 803 819 835 853 870 887 905 922 941
6Z
:0 .co
CAT III 117 122 127 133 132 138 143 150 156 162 168 175 181
54 s
CAT IV 619 647 674 701 700 729 758 791 824 857 891 924 957
4: und
5.
CAT V 83 93 102 112 126 139 153 171 190 209 228 246 271
CAT VI 187 209 231 254 284 315 345 388 430 472 515 557 613
T1 af
CAT VII 102 114 126 138 155 172 189 212 235 258 281 304 335
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
TOTAL 9,099 9,595 10,091 10,587 11,284 11,864 12,443 13,137 13,831 14,525 15,219 15,913 16,677
1- @
20 igue den
Category 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
nf nfi
CAT I 13,971 14,564 15,157 15,750 16,397 17,044 17,691 18,338 18,986 19,633 20,280 20,927 21,574 22,221
CAT II 961 980 999 1,018 Co
1,048 1,078 1,108 1,138 1,168 1,197 1,227 1,257 1,287 1,317
CAT III 187 194 200 207 213 219 225 232 238 244 250 257 263 269
CAT IV 991 1,025 1,058 1,092 1,125 1,158 1,192 1,225 1,258 1,291 1,324 1,357 1,39 1,423
CAT V 296 321 345 370 403 437 470 503 537 570 603 636 670 703
CAT VI 669 725 781 837 912 987 1,063 1,138 1,213 1,289 1,364 1,439 1,515 1,590
CAT VII 365 396 426 457 498 539 580 621 662 703 744 786 827 868
TOTAL 17,440 18,203 18,967 19,730 20,596 21,462 22,329 23,195 24,061 24,927 25,793 26,659 27,525 28,392
January 2016 | 106

Table 9.4: AADT Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza traffic in Paying Direction (Cartagena-Barranquilla)
Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
CAT I 2,239 2,367 2,496 2,624 2,769 2,912 3,055 3,230 3,405 3,580 3,755 3,930 4,116
34 m
CAT II 396 404 412 420 429 437 446 455 464 474 483 492 503
6Z
:0 .co
CAT III 33 35 36 38 34 36 37 39 40 42 44 45 47
54 s
CAT IV 176 184 192 199 182 189 197 205 214 223 231 240 249
4: und
5.
CAT V 30 33 37 40 45 50 55 62 69 75 82 89 98
CAT VI 67 75 83 91 102 113 124 140 155 170 185 201 221
T1 af
CAT VII 37 41 46 50 56 62 68 76 85 93 101 110 121
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
TOTAL 2,978 3,140 3,301 3,463 3,618 3,800 3,982 4,207 4,432 4,657 4,882 5,107 5,354
1- @
20 igue den
Category 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
nf nfi
CAT I 4,302 4,489 4,675 4,861 5,108 5,354 5,601 5,848 6,095 6,341 6,588 6,835 7,082 7,328
CAT II 513 523 533 543 Co
559 575 591 607 623 639 655 671 687 703
CAT III 49 50 52 54 55 57 59 60 62 63 65 67 68 70
CAT IV 257 266 275 284 292 301 309 318 327 335 344 352 361 370
CAT V 107 115 124 133 145 157 169 181 193 205 217 229 241 253
CAT VI 241 261 281 302 329 356 383 410 437 464 492 519 546 573
CAT VII 132 143 154 165 179 194 209 224 239 253 268 283 298 313
TOTAL 5,600 5,847 6,094 6,341 6,668 6,995 7,322 7,649 7,975 8,302 8,629 8,956 9,283 9,610
January 2016 | 107

Table 9.5: AADT Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza, Vehicles Paying the Toll at the Cartagena-Barranquilla Payment Travel Direction (Traffic in One Direction)
Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
CAT I 851 900 948 997 1,052 1,107 1,161 1,227 1,294 1,360 1,427 1,493 1,564
34 m
CAT II 150 154 157 160 163 166 169 173 176 180 184 187 191
6Z
:0 .co
CAT III 13 13 14 14 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 18
54 s
CAT IV 67 70 73 76 69 72 75 78 81 85 88 91 94
4: und
5.
CAT V 11 13 14 15 17 19 21 23 26 29 31 34 37
CAT VI 26 29 32 35 39 43 47 53 59 65 70 76 84
T1 af
CAT VII 14 16 17 19 21 24 26 29 32 35 38 42 46
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
TOTAL 1,132 1,193 1,255 1,316 1,375 1,444 1,513 1,599 1,684 1,770 1,855 1,941 2,034
1- @
20 igue den
Category 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
nf nfi
CAT I 1,635 1,706 1,776 1,847 1,941 2,035 2,128 2,222 2,316 2,410 2,504 2,597 2,691 2,785
CAT II 195 199 203 207 Co
213 219 225 231 237 243 249 255 261 267
CAT III 18 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 27
CAT IV 98 101 104 108 111 114 118 121 124 127 131 134 137 140
CAT V 41 44 47 51 55 60 64 69 73 78 83 87 92 96
CAT VI 92 99 107 115 125 135 146 156 166 176 187 197 207 218
CAT VII 50 54 58 63 68 74 79 85 91 96 102 108 113 119
TOTAL 2,128 2,222 2,316 2,410 2,534 2,658 2,782 2,906 3,031 3,155 3,279 3,403 3,528 3,652
January 2016 | 108

Figure 9.3: Projection for Papiros Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 109

Table 9.6: AADT Projection Circunvalar de la Prosperidad for Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plazas (Both Travel Directions)
Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
CAT I - - - - 677 578 480 510 540 571 601 631 1,103
34 m
CAT II - - - - 251 267 282 296 310 324 337 351 377
6Z
:0 .co
CAT III - - - - 783 816 848 885 922 959 996 1,033 1,071
54 s
CAT IV - - - - 148 154 160 167 174 181 188 195 202
4: und
5.
CAT V - - - - 32 35 39 43 48 53 58 62 69
CAT VI - - - - 28 31 35 39 43 47 51 56 61
T1 af
CAT VII - - - - 44 48 53 59 66 72 79 85 94
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
TOTAL - - - - 1,962 1,929 1,897 2,000 2,104 2,207 2,311 2,414 2,977
1- @
20 igue den
Category 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
nf nfi
CAT I 1,575 2,047 2,519 2,991 3,141 3,298 3,463 3,636 3,818 3,932 4,05 4,172 4,297 4,426
CAT II 403 430 456 482 Co506 531 558 586 615 634 653 672 692 713
CAT III 1,109 1,146 1,184 1,222 1,283 1,347 1,414 1,485 1,559 1,606 1,654 1,704 1,755 1,808
CAT IV 209 216 224 231 242 254 267 280 294 303 312 322 331 341
CAT V 75 81 87 94 98 103 108 114 120 123 127 131 135 139
CAT VI 67 73 78 84 88 92 97 102 107 110 113 117 120 124
CAT VII 102 111 120 128 135 141 148 156 164 169 174 179 184 190
TOTAL 3,541 4,104 4,668 5,231 5,493 5,768 6,056 6,359 6,677 6,877 7,083 7,296 7,515 7,740
January 2016 | 110

Figure 9.4: AADT Projection Circunvalar de la Prosperidad Galapa and Juan Mina (Both Travel Directions)
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 111

10 Sensitivities
10.1 In this chapter we present five sensitivity analysis.
Urban Developments
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
10.2 The expected urban developments in the study area could generate an increase in traffic at some
toll plazas as observed in the following tables and graphs. The toll plaza with the greatest impact is
54 s
4: und
the toll plaza located on the new Circunvalar de la Prosperidad. This is expected as this is a new
5.
road, attracting urban development.
T1 af
Table 10.1: Projections Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Marahuaco Toll Plaza
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045
1- @
Base 3,690 4,293 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,713 10,670 11,354
20 igue den
Urban Developments Scenario 3,690 4,430 4,840 5,440 6,996 8,601 11,824 12,581
nf nfi

Co
Figure 10.1: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Marahuaco Toll Plaza
January 2016 | 112


Table 10.2: Projections Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 5,373 6,248 6,313 6,942 8,857 10,993 16,046 17,716
Urban Developments 5,373 6,385 6,547 7,319 9,381 11,489 16,904 18,624
Figure 10.2: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Papiros Toll Plaza

Table 10.3: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Papiros Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 9,099 10,587 11,284 12,443 15,913 19,730 28,392 30,211
Urban developments 9,099 11,057 12,095 13,680 18,246 22,942 32,196 34,253
January 2016 | 113

Figure 10.3: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Papiros Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Circunvalar Prosperidad: Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plazas
20 igue den
Table 10.4 Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Circunvalar de La Prosperidad, Galapa Toll Plaza:
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

nf nfi
Base - - 1,962 1,897 2,414 5,231 7,740 8,546

Co
Urban Developments 2,402 2,520 3,561 7,128 9,983 10,933
Figure 10.4: Projection Base Scenario versus Urban Developments - Circunvalar de la Prosperidad Galapa Toll Plaza
January 2016 | 114

GDP + 25% and GDP – 25%

10.3 Sensitivity results by increasing and decreasing GDP by 25% are presented below. Changes are
visible for all toll plazas.
Table 10.5: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Marahuaco Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 3,690 4,293 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,713 10,670 11,354
GDP+25% 3,690 4,331 4,813 4,866 6,254 8,069 11,651 12,397
34 m
GDP-25% 3,690 4,252 4,693 4,695 5,840 7,348 9,903 10,537
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
Figure 10.5: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Marahuaco Toll Plaza
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co

Table 10.6: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 5,373 6,248 6,313 6,942 8,857 10,993 16,046 17,716
GDP+25% 5,373 6,303 6,393 7,064 9,136 11,510 18,567 20,500
GDP-25% 5,373 6,188 6,238 6,819 8,585 10,446 14,222 15,702
January 2016 | 115

Figure 10.6: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Papiros Toll Plaza
1- @
20 igue den
Table 10.7: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Papiros Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

nf nfi
Base 9,099 10,587 11,284 12,443 15,913 19,730 28,392 30,211

Co
GDP+25% 9,099 10,675 11,419 12,650 16,379 20,589 30,893 32,873

GDP-25% 9,099 10,493 11,157 12,238 15,461 18,907 26,232 27,913
January 2016 | 116

Figure 10.7: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Papiros Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plazas
1- @
20 igue den
Table 10.8: : Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Circunvalar de La Prosperidad (Galapa and Juan Minas)
Toll Plazas
nf nfi
2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Co
Base 1,962 1,897 2,414 5,231 7,740 8,546

GDP+25% 1,981 1,922 2,509 6,432 9,516 10,506
GDP-25% 1,943 1,872 2,339 3,761 5,564 6,143
January 2016 | 117

Figure 10.8: Projections Base Scenario versus (±25% GDP) – Circunvalar de La Prosperidad (Galapa and Juan Minas)
Toll Plazas
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Truck Restriction on Vía 40
20 igue den
10.4 If Vía 40 is restricted for only cargo trucks, it can be observed that the toll plaza with greatest
nf nfi
traffic impact is la Circunvalar Galapa. Traffic on Marahuaco toll plaza is not affected by this
restriction due to its distance to Vía 40. Though traffic is slightly affected at the plazas of Puerto
Co
Colombia and Papiros due to its proximity to Vía 40, the road does not necessarily connect trips
traveling through these two toll points.
Table 10.9: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 3,690 4,293 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,713 10,670 11,354
Truck Restriction Via 40 3,690 4,271 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,661 10,591 11,270
January 2016 | 118

Figure 10.9: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
Source:
Steer Davies Gleave
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Table 10.10: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

nf nfi
Base 5,373 6,248 6,313 6,942 8,857 10,993 16,046 17,716

Co
Figure 10.10: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza
January 2016 | 119

Papiros Toll Plaza

Table 10.11: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Papiros Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 9,099 10,587 11,284 12,443 15,913 19,730 28,392 30,211
34 m
Figure 10.11: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Papiros Toll Plaza
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plazas

Table 10.12: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and
Juan Mina Toll Plazas
2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 1,962 1,897 2,414 5,231 7,740 8,546
Truck Restriction Via 40 1,962 1,897 2,453 8,126 12,023 13,275
January 2016 | 120

Figure 10.12: Projections Base Scenario versus Truck Restriction on Vía 40 – Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla
20 igue den
10.5 Improvements on capacity of Circunvalar de Barranquilla has a small impact on traffic conditions
nf nfi
(AADT) for the toll plazas analyzed. The toll plaza with greatest impact is toll plaza of Circunvalar
de la Prosperidad-Galapa.
Co

Table 10.13: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Marahuaco
Toll Plaza
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 3,690 4,293 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,713 10,670 11,354
Capacity Improvements 3,690 4,293 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,713 10,683 11,367
January 2016 | 121

Figure 10.13: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Marahuaco
Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Table 10.14: : Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Puerto
Colombia Toll Plaza
nf nfi
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Co
Base 5,373 6,248 6,313 6,942 8,857 10,993 16,046 17,716

January 2016 | 122

Figure 10.14: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Puerto
Colombia Toll Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Papiros
20 igue den
Table 10.15: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Papiros Toll
Plaza
nf nfi
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Co
Base 9,099 10,587 11,284 12,443 15,913 19,730 28,392 30,211

January 2016 | 123

Figure 10.15: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Papiros Toll
Plaza
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Circunvalar de la Prosperidad:Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plazas
20 igue den
Table 10.16: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements for Circunvalar de Barranquilla – Papiros Toll
Plaza
nf nfi
2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Co
Base 1,962 1,897 2,414 5,231 7,740 8,546

Capacity Improvement 1,962 1,897 2,406 4,967 7,349 8,114
January 2016 | 124

Figure 10.16: Projections Base Scenario versus Capacity Improvements– Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Additional Lane FU 3
20 igue den
10.6 Adding a new lane into functional unit 3 has no impact upon the analyzed toll plazas. The results
nf nfi
indicate that the additional lane will not have any influence or affect traffic patterns.
Co

Table 10.17: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza-
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 3,690 4,293 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,713 10,670 11,354
Additional Lane FU3 3,690 4,293 4,751 4,781 6,027 7,713 10,675 11,359
January 2016 | 125

Figure 10.17: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Marahuaco Toll Plaza-
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Table 10.18: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Puerto Colombia Toll Plaza-
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

nf nfi
Base 5,373 6,248 6,313 6,942 8,857 10,993 16,046 17,716

Co
January 2016 | 126

34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
Papiros Toll Plaza
20 igue den
Table 10.19: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Papiros Toll Plaza-
nf nfi
2014 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Co
Base 9,099 10,587 11,284 12,443 15,913 19,730 28,392 30,211

January 2016 | 127

34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and Juan Mina Toll Plaza

Table 10.20: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and Juan
nf nfi
Mina Toll Plaza-

Co
2018 2020 2025 2030 2040 2045

Base 1,962 1,897 2,414 5,231 7,740 8,546
Additional Lane FU3 1,962 1,897 2,414 5,231 7,740 8,546
January 2016 | 128

Figure 10.20: Projections Base Scenario and Additional Lane FU3 – Circunvalar de la Prosperidad: Galapa and Juan
Mina Toll Plaza-
34 m
6Z
:0 .co
54 s
4: und
5.
T1 af
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
January 2016 | 129

Co
nf nfi
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
Co
nf nfi
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
January 2016 | 131


Co
nf nfi
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
January 2016 | 132


Co
nf nfi
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
CONTROL INFORMATION
Prepared by Prepared for

Steer Davies Gleave Steer Davies Gleave
Carrera 7 No.71-52 Torre A Oficina 904 [Company Address]
Edificio Carrera Séptima
Bogotá D.C. Colombia
+57 1 322 1470
la.steerdaviesgleave.com
SDG project/proposal number Client contract/project number
Author/originator Reviewer/approver
34 m
6Z
Lopez Camacho, Lizbeth
:0 .co
Other contributors Distribution
54 s
4: und
5.
Client: SDG:
T1 af
Version control/issue number Date
24 lq
-0 do l
19 re tia
1- @
20 igue den
nf nfi
Co
P:\Proyectos\227\5\02\01\Outputs\Reports\Entregas Bonos\220216_Informe.docx
Control Information
= steer davies gleave
Co
nf nfi
20 igue den
19 re tia
-0 do l
1- @
24 lq
T1 af
4: und
54 s
:0 .co
5.
34 m
6Z
steerdaviesgleave.com

1.3 14. Informe Tráfico SDG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1.3 14. Informe Tráfico SDG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.3 14. Informe Tráfico SDG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report

Prepared by: Prepared for:

Steer Davies Gleave Steer Davies Gleave

+57 1 322 1470

2 Existing Conditions for 2014 .................................................................................................... 11

Analysis by Toll Plaza ........................................................................................................................ 50

6 Urban Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 67

7 Traffic Model Development .................................................................................................... 78

8 Traffic and Revenue Model Assumptions................................................................................. 90

9 Results ................................................................................................................................. 101

10 Sensitivities .......................................................................................................................... 112

Figure 1.1: Project location and existing toll plazas ........................................................................... 2

Figure 2.1: Average Speed Map ........................................................................................................ 16

Figure 2.2: Profile FU 1 ..................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 7.3: Zone System (Centroids)................................................................................................. 83

Figure 7.4: Alternative Route from Cartagena-Barranquilla ............................................................ 85

Figure 7.5: Alternative Routes from Cartagena to Malambo ........................................................... 86

Table 2.7: Traffic Distribution – Vía al Mar ....................................................................................... 30

Table 2.8: Traffic Distribution – Circunvalar de Barranquilla ........................................................... 32

Table 8.2: GDP projections ............................................................................................................... 92

Table 8.3: Estimated Regression Models Considered ...................................................................... 94

Barranquilla – Marahuaco Toll Plaza .............................................................................................. 121

=steer davies gleave

used as the basis for the project’s financial processes.

conclusions of the original study.

Source: Steer Davies Gleave

Vía al Mar (Cartagena – Barranquilla)

Table 1.2: : Functional units description

Figure 1.2: Functional Units and Existing Toll Plazas

Table 1.3: Intersections

FU6 Vía al Mar (ramp) Prosperidad with Vía 90A01

Table 1.4: Current tolls

Name Segment km1 Charging direction

Papiros Vía al Mar km106+600 One direction,

Galapa La Cordialidad Both directions

Name Segment km1 Charging direction

Source: Steer Davies Gleave

III Two axle trucks (small)

V Three and four axle trucks (small)

VII Six or more axle trucks

Table 1.7: Rate structure by vehicle type (COP 2014)

Category Marahuaco Puerto Colombia Papiros 1.10 Galapa Bayunca

stated preference (SP) survey.

affected by the project and the construction of the growth model.

2 Existing Conditions for 2014

Concesión Autopistas del Sol / Ruta Caribe (also known as La Cordialidad)

 Carrera 10 (La Playa)

Table 2.1: Typical Conditions dound during the Road Survey

One single lane road per direction with well-

Vía Ruta Caribe / La Cordialidad

Current Circunvalar de Barranquilla intersection

Circunvalar de Barranquilla with Carrera 20

Circunvalar de Barranquilla with Carrera 56

Multilane road with three lanes per direction

Malambo traffic lane

Vía Juan Mina

Single lane road with two lanes per direction with

Single lane road with two lanes per direction with