5-YEAR ROAD MAINTENANCE STRATEGIC PLAN

Consultative Workshop
Serena Lakeside Hotel, Kampala
22nd March 2019
Workshop Synopsis
1. Strategic Plan Scope and Contents
2. Resources, Objectives, Targets and Impacts
3. Balancing Expenditure

2
Workshop Programme
09.00 – 09.05 Prayer
09.05 – 09.15 Welcome remarks and
synopsis of events by Executive Director,
Uganda Road Fund
09.15 – 10.00 Presentation Strategic Plan
Contents and Scope, presentation by Road
Fund TA
10.00 – 10.30 Plenary Discussion
10.30 – 11.00 Health Break
11.00 – 11.30 Available Financial Resources
and Impact of Resources, by Road Fund TA
11.30 – 13.00 Group discussions on
potential resources and impacts
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
14.00 – 14.45 Reports back from
Groups
14.45 – 15.15 Plenary discussion
and consensus building
15.15 – 15.45 Health Break
15.45 – 16.15 Balance between
capital and recurrent expenditure,
presentation by Road Fund TA
16.15 – 16.45 Plenary Discussion
16.45 – 16.55 Wrap-up and
conclusions, Road Fund TA
16.55 – 17.00 Closing remarks,
Uganda Road Fund
3
Session Two – Resources and Impacts
• Inputs to outputs
• Requirements vs allocation
• The current programme
• Approaches to allocation
• The problem of data
• Resources
• Outputs
• Targets

4
Inputs to outputs – paved roads
16

14
Patch etc

12 Poor/bad condition
Reseal
IRI in m/km

10

8
Reconstruction/overlay
6
Fair/good condition

2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Year

Patch (low traffic) Reseal (low traffic) Overlay (low traffic)

Patch (high traffic) Reseal (high traffic) Overlay (high traffic)

5
Inputs to outputs – unpaved roads
25

100 veh/day
20
Poor/bad condition

Do nothing
IRI roughness, m/km

15 20-50 veh/day

100 veh/day

10 Grading only
20 veh/day

20 veh/day
5
Fair/good condition Grading+re-gravel

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Year

Do nothing 20-50 Do nothing 100 Grading 20

Grading 100 Grade+re-gravel 20 Grade+re-gravel 100

6
Central question
• Estimate requirements based on (e.g.) minimising total transport
costs – approach followed for RSDP3, Sofreco for current 5YRMP and
UNRA
OR
• Take resource envelope (MTEF or similar) and allocate it as best we
can?

7
Requirements – value for money approach
Central point:
• Maintenance requirements cannot be decoupled from development, so approach needs
to consider all investment
• Value for money may mean:
• minimising total transport costs
• minimising cost for target IRI
• Solid methodology, focuses on national benefits
BUT
• Data hungry
• Will vary over plan period – early emphasis on reconstruction (“backlog”)
• URF not in position to undertake
• Will almost inevitably greatly exceed available resources – current 5YRMP $300-400m
p.a. RSDP3 around $280m (2012). Actual URF releases $130m.
• Can be capital budget constrained, but quite tricky analysis in practice

8
Requirements – intervention-based
• Intervention-based (e.g. all to receive routine maintenance, re-seal
every 5 years etc)
• Practical approach
• Link to network condition
• At $500/km, would require $75m (UBX280bn – 56% of total URF
allocation), so bound to involve difficult trade-offs
• Not very different from allocation – same every year?

9
 Possible strategy components (approach B)
• Routine manual maintenance to cover all National, KCCA, District,
Town Council, and Municipal Council roads, paved and unpaved,
over the whole of the plan period. This work is essentially off-
carriageway and includes grass cutting, removal of drainage
obstacles and drain repairs.
• Undertake carriageway repairs and preservation activities on 95%
of UNRA’s paved roads through a mix of mechanised routine
maintenance and term maintenance, throughout the plan period.
• Undertake carriageway repairs and preservation activities on 85%
of UNRA’s unpaved roads through a mix of mechanised routine
maintenance and term maintenance, throughout the plan period.
• Increase the number of kilometres of UNRA’s paved roads
undergoing periodic maintenance from 193km in the first year of
the plan, to 323km in the final year of the Plan. This would be
equivalent to reducing the intervention period from once every
23 years to once every 14 years.
• Increase the number of kilometres of UNRA’s unpaved roads
undergoing periodic maintenance from 2,000 km in the first year
of the plan, to 5,300km in the final year of the Plan.
• Increase the number of kilometres of District and
Town Council roads undergoing periodic
maintenance from 2,500 km in the first year of the
plan, to 4,000km in the final year of the Plan.
• Increase the number of kilometres of Municipal
Council paved roads undergoing periodic
maintenance from 20km in 2017/17, to 40km in the
final year of the Plan.
• Increase the number of kilometres of Municipal
Council unpaved roads undergoing periodic
maintenance from 156km in 2017/17, to 420km in
the final year of the Plan.
• Increase the number of kilometres of KCCA roads
undergoing periodic maintenance from 124 km in the
first year of the plan, to 159km in the final year of
the Plan.
• Increase the percentage of Community Access Roads
undergoing interventions from 11% in 2016/17 to
60% by the final year of the Plan.
10
Current 5YRMP (current $m)
Expenditure in financial year, current $million
Recognised development expenditure
Network Road work – e.g. national upgrades at 386km/yr
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-8 2018-9 Strong emphasis on DUCAR and
National rehab of network
Maintenance 67.1 70.5 74 77.7 81.6
roads Meeting targets (e.g. DUCAR 68%
Bridges 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 “fair”)
Ferries 5.7 6 6.3 6.6 7
Axle Load 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9
Sub total 78.9 82.9 87.1 91.5 96.1
DUCAR Periodic Maintenance 182.9 192.0 201.6 211.7 222.3
Bridges 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7
Routine Maintenance 44.1 46.3 48.6 51.1 53.6
Sub total 229.2 240.6 252.6 265.4 278.6
TOTAL 308.1 331.9 348.4 366.1 384.3

11
Allocation
• Resources taken as given
• Not the same as “requirements” as no clear link
between inputs and outputs
• Tends to be same every year
• Various approaches:
• allocation formula
• gross or net asset values
• balance between routine and periodic maintenance
• priorities

12
Allocation formula – a 3 stage approach
• Stage 1 allocates available budget by pavement type (two numbers,
one for paved and one for unpaved)

• Stage 2 distributes stage 1 allocations to each network administration

(UNRA, DLGs, MCs etc), also by pavement type

• Stage 3 allocates stage 2 allocations to each LGU within a network

administration (individual districts etc)

13
Stages 1 and 2
1. Stage 1 allocation (national) = budget x [0.7xtraffic + 0.3 x length x
unit maintenance cost]
2. Stage 2 allocation (network jurisdiction, by pavement type) = stage
1 allocation x network weighting factor x traffic
Network weighting factors aim to
ensure consistent allocations
between jurisdictions by
ensuring that allocations lie close
to this curve.

14
Stage 3
3. Stage 3 allocation = jurisdiction (stage 2) budget x [0.2/N + 0.2xpop
+ 0.6 x length x condition]

Result of allocation is series of percentages. Can be modified by use of

minimum allocation rates.

Formula takes account of the right factors, but cannot forecast network
condition! Doesn’t attempt to split periodic and routine maintenance

15
Typical result of allocation formula
CAR, 3.6%
KCCA, 6.2%

TCs, 6.5%

MCs, 7.1%

DLGs, 15.3% UNRA, 61.2%

16
 Gross asset values – cost of construction
Length 2014 Length 2018 Asset Value Asset Value
Road Class
(km) (km) 2014 (US$ M) 2018 (US$ M)
Paved National Roads 2941 4,521 2,941 4,521
Unpaved National Roads 17333 16,023 1,300 1,202
KCCA Paved Roads 431 580 517 696
KCCA Unpaved Roads 674 1,520 67 152
Paved Municipal Roads 745 267 484 174
Unpaved Municipal Roads 3,755 2,287 188 114
District Roads 30,000 35,566 1,350 1,600
Town Councils Roads 8,500 7554 425 378
Community Access Roads 42,248 78,567 211 393
Total 106,627 146,885 7,484 9,230
17
Asset values (2018) & allocation formula
CAR, 3.6%
KCCA, 6.2%

TCs, 6.5%

MCs, 7.1%

DLGs, 15.3% UNRA, 61.2%

18
Priorities
Paved roads
1. Routine maintenance on all roads
2. Northern Corridor (Malaba/Busia – Kampala) – periodic maintenance
3. Northern Corridor (Mbale-Soroti-Lira-Gulu-South Sudan border) – periodic
maintenance
4. Northern Corridor (Kampala-Mbarara-Rwanda border) – periodic maintenance
5. All other paved roads
Unpaved roads
1. Manual routine maintenance
2. Mechanized Routine Maintenance (grading)
3. Periodic maintenance (re-gravelling), culvert and bridge repairs.

19
Data – a major stumbling block for all
approaches
• Impossible to plan road works of any kind without at least network
length, pavement type and condition
• Even network length – the most basic data item – is barely known for
many network administrations (see next slide)

20
Road network inventory
Class 2008 2012 Funded Road Tolling 2018 Funded Current (draft)
NTMP by URF Policy 2017 by URF allocation
formula
National 10,800 20,552 20,544 21,184 20,544
District 27,500 30,000 35,566 34,810 38,626
Municipal 4,500 4,500 4,321
TC 4,800 8,500 10,101 10,742 9,058
KCCA 1,218 2,103 2,103
CAR 35,000 42,250 78,567 62,322 80,760
Total 78,100 107,020 144,785 135,660 155,412

21
Resources (inputs) – reliability as well as
quantity issues
• URF is a 1G fund supported by annual budget allocations from the
consolidated fund. Releases often fall well short of both budgets and
MTEF projections
• Historically, allocations have been well below 5YRMP projected
requirements, URF funding for 2013-14 to 2017-18:
• about 87% of national
• 18% of DUCAR
• And very variable (chart overleaf) , making planning difficult

22
MoF releases 2010-11 to 2017-18
600

500
Release in UGX bn
400

300

200

100

0
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Current prices Constant 2018-19 prices

At current prices releases have grown by an annual average of 7% - but note variability
At constant prices growth has been around 0.1% (about 1% in $ terms), but not meaningful
with so much variability
UNRA has fared better than DUCAR (incl KCCA): 3% compared with 0.3%
23
If no change in funding arrangements, what
should we assume?
1200

1000
MTEF
UGXbn at constant prices

MTEF re-based
800

600 Scenarios
Historic releases

400

200
2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20 2021-22 2023-24

MTEF MTEF re-based MTEF re-based Central (0%) Lower (-5%) Upper (10%) Historic

24
What if we had a dedicated (“2G”) road fund
financed by a fuel levy?
• Although unlikely to come about any time soon…
• Chart overleaf shows:
• gross excise duty collections (current UGXbn)
• estimated amounts attributable to transport activities and brought to 2010-11
prices for comparison with previous chart

25
Fuel excise duty – gross & net from transport
2,000

1,750
Proceeds of fuel excise duty, UGXbn

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

500

250

0
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Gross collections, current UGXbn Transport excise duty, const 2018-19 prices

26
Fuel excise duty – gross & net from transport
1,500

1,250
Constant 2018-19 UGXbn

1,000

750

500

250

0
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Transport excise duty Releases Current 5YRMP

27
Conclusions – fuel levy
• 40% of proceeds of excise duty from transport activities would cover
releases to URF – but not estimated requirements in current 5YRMP
• Gross excise duty proceeds represent 7-8% of total government
spending. UGX1,800bn in 2017-18 is the same as the health sector
allocation in the same year
• Fuel taxes have many merits – progressive, cheap to collect, rise as
fast as GDP and (like tobacco) have little effect on consumption
(collections have risen at 14% per year in real terms since 2012-13)
• Other ways of achieving some of the objectives of a fuel levy

28
Summary – inputs
• No easy way to short-cut RSDP-type approach to estimating future
requirements
• Constrained by weak data – and present system of discretionary
releases from consolidated fund
• Politically feasible budgets likely to be << technical estimates of
requirements

29
Outputs
The economic impact of poorly maintained roads is borne by users in
the form of higher road user costs – and therefore higher fares and
freight rates, and less public transport.
Road user costs are difficult to measure, so we settle for condition
indicators – an intermediate output
BUT:
• pavement conditions are a sector output, not a road fund output
• even if pavement condition were relevant, how to measure it?

30
Pavement condition - UNRA

• Complex condition indices:

• paved: 9 pavement indicators, 4 carriageway & edge, 8 shoulder & off-carriageway (only IRI measured?)
• unpaved: 7 pavement, 4 formation & drainage (none measured?)
31
 Pavement condition – DUCAR & KCCA
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DLG 2013 DLG 2017 KCCA 2013 KCCA 2017 TCs 2013 TCs 2017 MCs 2013 MCs 2017 CAR 2013 CAR 2017

Good Fair Poor

32
Lessons from pavement condition
• UNRA already close to target, so current $81m/year sufficient (with current development
programme)?
• KCCA – poor conditions for a capital city? (Reliability of condition measurements)
• Other DUCAR: can we believe reported conditions?

Move on to national targets…

• Targets drafted end of 2017
• Targets are set for each authority/fund – only the “% of all public roads” is for URF
• Targets relate to outcomes for each authority/fund – e.g. for URF: “Enhanced efficiency
in transportation and travel time”

33
Targets – 2018/19 Budget Framework Paper
Actual Actual Target
Performance indicator
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
% national paved road 80 79 85 85 85
network fair to good
% of national unpaved 70 84 75 75 75
road network fair to good
% of public roads in fair 51 53 60 65 68
to good condition
% paved KCCA roads in 6 21 22 32
fair to good condition

34
Road conditions Kenya – 2009 & 2017
2009 2017 2009 2017 2009 2017
Paved Unpaved All
km % km % km % km % % %
Good 4,697 42 4,307 33 12,582 8 56,480 27 11 27
Fair 4,150 37 6,212 48 48,665 33 63,115 30 33 31
Poor 2,350 21 2,429 19 88,440 59 88,829 42 56 41
U/C 122 1,738
Total 11,198 100 13,071 100 149,688 100 210,162 100 100 99

KRB APRP 2017-18 & 2018-19; KRB allocated $570m in 2018-19. Infrequent condition surveys – targets
are km outputs, not condition
35
Road Conditions TanRoads - 2010
Surface Paved Unpaved Total
condition
Km % Km % Km %
Good 4,447 73.0 6,870 29.9 11,317 38.9
Fair 1,032 16.9 12,196 53.0 13,228 45.5
Poor 612 10.0 3,925 17.1 4,537 15.6
Total 6,091 100.0 22,991 100.0 29,082 100.0

TANROADS – trunk roads. Laser deflectometer every 2-3 years on paved roads, visual on unpaved

36
National Road Conditions – Rwanda, 2017
Condition Paved Unpaved
Good
91.7 55.0
Fair
Poor 8.3 45.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Good & Fair 91.7 55.0

RTDA Annual Report, 2016/17. Targets in km rehabilitated etc. IRI measured

for paved roads, gravel thickness for unpaved. Reported, not targets?
37
 Overall Road Conditions – Zambia 2014
Trunk, Main, Primary Feeder
Condition Urban
District Roads
Good 37 3 18
Fair 16 11 12
Poor 47 86 70
Total 100 100
Good & Fair 53 14 30
Total Km 19,483 15,680 5,773

RDA Core Road Network, 2014. Core = 40,454km of 68,000km. CRN must be “maintainable” but in 2014 only 40% was
38
maintainable.
Targets – conclusion and alternatives
• Targets should be:
• achievable by URF?
• measurable at reasonable cost
• contribute to national economic benefits

• Current targets focus on condition:

• not achievable by URF
• are poorly (and expensively) measured
• are less used elsewhere

39
Targets – alternatives
Alternatives:
• abandon condition targets and replace e.g. by km measures?
• restrict target condition to core (e.g. national + KCCA?) network?
• amend/extrapolate budget framework paper targets?
• relate improvements in condition to economic benefits or to reduced road
agency costs?

40
Alternative targets?
Road Class End of plan target
UNRA Paved % of network in good/fair condition
UNRA Unpaved % of network in good/fair condition
KCCA % of network in good/fair condition
District Roads % of network receiving mech mtce
Municipal Council Roads % of network receiving mech mtce
Town Council Roads % of network receiving mech mtce
Community Access Roads % of roads to be all-year motorable for 4-
wheel vehicles
Community Access Paths and % to be passable all-year for 2-wheel vehicles
Tracks and pedestrians
41
Summary
• Requirements from bottom-up or accept MTEF scenarios and
allocate?
• If MTEF scenarios, which one?
• Outputs: have pavement condition indicators had their day? If so,
what might replace them?

42
Session Three – Re-balancing Expenditure

43
Are we spending too much on development at
expense of maintenance?
How can we tell?
1. Pavement condition deteriorating for want of maintenance
2. International benchmarks
3. Incremental returns approach: does investing in maintenance
generate better returns than investing in capital projects?

Only sufficient data in the case of UNRA…

44
UNRA pavement condition
Over the period 2010-11 to 2017-18:
• paved condition improved from weighted average of 1.7 to 1.3 (where
1=good and 3=poor)
• unpaved condition improved slightly, from 2.1 to 1.9
• But if paved condition is adjusted to take account of upgrades,
improvement much less, from 1.7 to 1.5
• Extent of periodic maintenance difficult to determine – reseals once
every 15 years and regravel about the same, but overlays not clearly
specified
• Inconclusive: despite low-ish periodic maintenance, condition has
improved, but not by much
45
Incremental expenditure approach
Compare two scenarios:
A Increase frequency of re-seals (paved road) (invest in maintenance)
B Upgrade unpaved to paved versus re-gravel (invest in development)
Results:
A Resealing every 10 yrs rather than every 15, on a road with <2,000 veh/day and
initial IRI around 3.5 gave an EIRR of 73%
B Upgrading rather than re-gravelling . Compares upgrading where good value for
money (in this case where initial traffic ≥ 900 veh/day) with re-gravelling same roads (and
not upgrading) whenever gravel < 30mm. Gave EIRR of 11%

In terms of NPV/C (net present value ÷ PV of agency cap cost), A=8.4 but B=0.3.
Conclusion: in this (somewhat theoretical) study, increasing periodic maintenance was
much better VFM than upgrading.

46
 International benchmarks

Ratio/indicator Sub-Saharan value UNRA 2016-17

Maintenance spend/km of main road $9,000/km $3,500

Capital as proportion of total 58-64%a 90%b

Km paved road per $ million of GDP 1.1 0.2

(a) range for countries with a road fund & road agency (58%) and road fund only (64%)
(b) was 73% in 2010-11

Sources: Gwilliam, 2011 and UNRA

High % development may be appropriate for Uganda given its development status

47
Re-Balancing Expenditure

Roads Expenditure Uganda Kenya Zambia

Total USD M 902 1159 857

% Development 87 58 85

% Maintenance 13 42 15

Development ($M) 785 678 726

Maintenance ($M) 117 481 132

48
Periodic/routine balance

49
Periodic/routine balance

50