【Ex-post Monitoring of Completed ODA Loan Project】
Kazakhstan“Irtysh River Bridge Construction Project”
External Evaluator: Jun Kuwabara(International Development Center of Japan Incorporated)
1. Project Description

Map of Project Area

Irtysh River Suspension Bridge

1.1 Project Objective
The project objective was to ensure the safe and smooth flow of traffic on a major trunk road byconstructing a new bridge across the Irtysh River in Semey city, the country’s fourth largest city, thereby
contributing to the stimulation of the local economy.
1.2 Outline of the Loan Agreement
Approved Amount/

21,530million yen/21,237 million yen

Disbursed Amount
Loan Agreement/

February, 1997/June, 2004

Final Disbursement
Ex-post Evaluation

2006

Executing Agencies

Akimat of Semipalatinsk Region(Currently Akimat of East Kazakhstan Region
Guarantor: Republic of Kazakhstan

Main Contractor

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Currently IHI
Infrastructure Systems Co., Ltd.)(Japan)

Main Consultant

Katahira & Engineers Inc. (Japan)-1-1.3 Background of Ex-post Monitoring
This project was implemented in the Semey City (Semey City was renamed from Semipalatinsk City in2007. Semey City is used in this report.) The city of Semey located in northeastern Kazakhstan, is thecountry’s fourth largest city as well as one of the important industrial cities in Kazakhstan’s northeasternarea. It was a base for road transport and rail transport that connect Kazakhstan with central Russia. The
city of Semey developed along both sides of the Irtysh River, a major river in Kazakhstan. One of
Kazakhstan’s major trunk roads crosses the Irtysh River in the city of Semey and leads to central Russia, as
well as to the Chinese border. However, the only road bridge (hereinafter referred to as the “pre-existingbridge”) in the city was the one built for the above-mentioned trunk line. It was a reinforced concrete
bridge constructed in the city center in the 1960s; it was severely aged due to the extreme climate andinadequate operation and maintenance and was in danger of collapse. The traffic volume on the pre-existingbridge at the time of the appraisal (1996) was 33,000 vehicles/day, and this figure was expected to increase.
Under those circumstances, this project constructed a new suspension bridge (hereinafter referred as the"new bridge") parallel to the pre-existing bridge in the northern part of the city to ensure main trunk route
access.
Total project cost was 29 billion 964 million Yen against 28 billion 321 million Yen (amount of Yen Loan
is within the planning amount.) Therefore, efficiency was evaluated as moderate, since the total project costexceeded the planned project budget by 6%. In addition, the sustainability is judged to be low, because
handover of the bridge was not implemented, so an operation and maintenance organization still did notexist and no budget allocations and technical handover were being made. To improve this, the following
four recommendations were made for the East Kazakhstan Region as listed below in the post project
evaluation. i) Handover of the facilities, ii) Establishment of operation and maintenance organization andbudgeting, iii) Handover of the operation and maintenance equipment and construction machinery, and iv)
Handover of the operation and maintenance manual and its practical use. If these activities would not be
conducted in the short term, the Regional government shall take action to provisionally set up of theoperation and maintenance structure.
Therefore, this project was selected for ex-post monitoring and reviewed under each criterion, especially
focused on sustainability with the findings from the field survey and other research activities with a final
conclusion being drawn.
2．Outline of Monitoring Survey
2.1 Schedule of Survey
This monitoring survey was conducted as shown below.
Monitoring Period: January 2012-September 2012
Field Survey Period: April 6, 2012-April 13, 2012-2-

2.2 Constraints of Monitoring
None
3．Monitoring Results
3.1 Effectiveness3.1.1 Quantitative Effects
3.1.1.1 Results from Operation and Effect Indicators
Traffic volume, time required, average speed and safety were studied as indicators for ensuring safe andsmooth flow of traffic on the major trunk road.
(1) Traffic Volume
Traffic volume at the ex-post monitoring was increased from the period of ex-post evaluation, assummarized in Table 1. Traffic volume on the new bridge was doubled from 2006, although precise data
could not be obtained for pre-existing bridge.
Table 1 Traffic Volume on Irtysh River Bridge
Ex-post Evaluation (2006)
Traffic volume on new bridge (BothDirections: Vehicles/day)
Traffic volume on pre-existing bridge(Both directions: vehicles/day)
Total

44,402

88,84034,887

10,000(Estimation1)
88,840(Excluding pre-existing bridge)

79,287

Rate
Passenger car
Truck and bus

Ex-post Monitoring (2012)

83%
16%

74%
26%
(Excluding pre-existing bridge)

Source: Multi purpose utilities enterprise operating Irtysh river suspension bridge and interview for transport department,
Semey City

(2) Time Required and Average Speed
Travel time from the beginning point to the end point on the segment including Irtysh river bridge werecompared among the appraisal, post project evaluation and ex-post monitoring. The travel time wasmeasured by a driving test run. The comparison was summarized in Table 2. It was indicated that timesaving continued in spite of increase in traffic volume. However, it could not be compared simply
according to the differences in season, time and method of measurement. Interviews of a few drivers wereconducted in order to supplement conditions of peak traffic hour, since this driving test run was conducted
at off peak traffic hour. They said that a minor traffic jam was observed in the peak hour of the morning aswell as in the evening, but, this was not considered to be so troublesome. Therefore, it was confirmed thattime saving effect continued throughout the day.
According to the aforementioned driving test results, average speeds on the new bridge route and the1

Source: Interview from Semey City Traffic Dept.

-3-pre-existing bridge route were calculated as 48km/h and 36km/h, respectively. The speeds on the newbridge route were much lower than that of the opening period.

However, we could confirm that

effectiveness is maintained by the fact that there was significant increase in traffic volume and these speeds
were almost equal to that the average of the trial done in the ex-post project evaluation period (2006).
Table 2 Travel Time and Average Speed of the RoutePlanned

2006

2012

(Opening)
Travel time
New Bridge

8.5 minutes

11 minutes

9.7 minutes

Pre-existing Bridge

17.1 minutes

21 minutes

15.0 minutes

New Bridge

60 km/h

47 km/h

48 km/hPre-existing Bridge

32 km/h

26 km/h

36 km/hAverage speed

Condition
Date and Time-

New Bridge Route

8.5 kmPre-existing Bridge
Route
Method of trial survey

9.0 km-October 4th, 2012,

April 12th, 2012 (weekday)(weekday) around 9 AM
7.0 km, results are estimatedto from 8.5 km driving trial
9.1 km, results are estimatedto from 6.0 km driving trialn.a.

Around 11 AM
Equivalent to the plannedroute, 7.8 km
Equivalent to the plannedroute, 9.1 km
Following to speed limit.

Source: Interview for transport department, Semey City.

(3) Safety Improvement
Table 3 summarized the number of accidents occurring on the new bridge from 2008 through 2011. The
average number of accidents was 2.5 in the past four years, while it was 3.5 in the 2005 to 2006. It can besaid that the number of accidents is low taking into account the increased volume of traffic. According to
the questionnaire survey of the ex-post project evaluation, there were many accidents in the winter season.
However, the number of the accidents in freezing road conditions was 2 out of 10. So it could not be said
risk in the wintertime was high due to this data.

-4-

Table 3 Number of Accident on the New Bridge
2008
NumberInjured
Death

2009
2
2
0

2010
5
4
1

2011
0
0
0

3
4
0

Total
10
10
1

Average
2.5
2,5
0.25

Source: Semey Traffic Police in Semey City

Road safety measures including speed limit had not been taken by the post project evaluation period
because the bridge was not handed over to Semey City. After the handover in April 2008, Semey City took
safety measures which included snow removal in addition to introduction of speed limits. The speed limit
was 60km/h in the summer time (April to October) and 40km/h in the wintertime (November to March).
Moreover, drivers' compliance to the speed limit was estimated to have increased because Semey traffic
police conduct regular surveillance by patrol cars. This might have contributed to the decrease in thenumber of accidents including in wintertime even while traffic volume increased.
3.1.1.2 Results of Calculations of Internal Rates of Return (IRR)
The financial internal rate of return (FIRR) was not calculated at the time of the ex-post evaluation due
to the introduction of a toll free system. Therefore, FIRR was not calculated by this ex-post monitoring
study either for the same reason. The economical internal rate of return (EIRR) at the same time as ex-post
evaluation is as follows.
EIRR:

21.4%

Expense:

Project cost (excluding tax), operation and maintenance cost

Benefit:

Reduction in travel time (traffic volume, type of vehicles, GDP per capita)

EIRR was not calculated by this ex-post monitoring study due to the reasons listed below.
・All indicators related to benefits drastically increased, so total benefit also increased.
・The operation and maintenance cost for facilities was sufficiently secured. The possible loss in value tothe bridge that could occur cannot be assessed by this study’s framework.
As explained above, this project objective has satisfactorily achieved expected results in terms ofimprovement in traffic volume, reduced travel time, average speed, and traffic safety.
3.2 Impact
3.2.1 Intended Impacts
3.2.1.1 Stimulation of local economy(1) Increase in traffic volume over a wide area
Road development has been progressed as shown in Figure 1. According to the Country Index by theWorld Bank, freight transport volume in the Kazakhstan has increased from 2004 to 2009 at an average rateof 8.7% (Table 4). According to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the annual average-5-daily traffic that passed over this bridge en route on the national highway between Omsk, Russia, and theChinese border (total distance: 1,060 km Figure 1) decreased from 4,403 vehicles a day in 2005 to 3,000
vehicles a day in 2011. However, this number still represented a significant increase compared to 1993,
although the reason for the decrease is unclear. Most probably this is because of the new bridge, eventhough inter annual data is not available. Without the new bridge, large vehicles in particular cannot use
this route, so the impact of the new bridge was confirmed.
Figure 1 Kazakhstan Regional Transportation Development Plan (2011-2014)

Omsk
Semey

AstanaBorderwith China

LegendAlmaty- Reconstructed road sections- Expected completed road sections by 2015
- Projects planned for implementation after 2015

Source: Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Table 4 Domestic Cargo Transport Volume in Kazakhstan Unit: Million-ton km

Domestic cargo transport volume

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

43,91047,12353,81661,44463.48166.254

Source: World Bank, World Country Index(2)Economic Indicator:
The Kazakhstani economy growth rate recovered to 7.3% in 2010 from the low of 1.2% in 2009
impacted by the Lehman shock in 2008.

-6-

Table 5 Economic Growth Rate of Kazakhstan
Economic growth rate

Unit: %

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

9.7

10.7

8.9

3.3

1.2

7.3

7.5

Source: World Bank, World Country Index

Industrial output of Semey City has been on a recovering trend after 2010, despite a slight slowdown.
Total Investment amount in Semey City was 34.7 billion tenge in 2011. A 51% increase from 2010, of
which 16.4 billion was for industrial investment. This project also contributed to the industrial growth,with the increase of the number of large vehicles passing through the city transporting raw materials andproducts en route to other cities. This could not be achieved by using the pre-existing bridge since heavy
trucks are not allowed to pass.
Table 6 Economic Indicators of Semey City
(Industrial output and Investment Amount (total, industry))
Unit: Million tenge
Industrial Output

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

33,67838,18560,16578,68282,553

94,953

109,517

13.4

57.6

30.8

4.9

15.0

15.3

9,832

14,631

19,81920,942

22,984

34,777

-28.2

48.8

35.5

5.7

9.7

51.3

4,657

7,057

7,834

12,623

14,295

16,432

70.3

51.5

11.0

61.1

13.2

14.9

Growth Rate (%) Investment (Total)

13,694Growth Rate (%) Investment (Industry)

2,734

Growth Rate (%) Source: Semey City Statistics

Economic indicators and investment amount have tuned to growth though they were impacted by the
global economic recession. Although there was a decrease in traffic volume in the wider area, the overall
number is expected to still much higher than prior to the project. Therefore, it was confirmed at the time of
ex-post evaluation that the project’s impact also continued. .
3.2.2 Other Impacts
3.2.2.1 Impact on Natural Environment
No negative environmental impact is reported just as in the ex-post evaluation. Drainage water from theaccess roads was collected and sent to waste water treatment, while water on the bridge drained directly
into the Irtysh River.

Both the sanitation department of Semey City and the Semey Office of the Ministryof Environment conducted water quality test of the Irtysh River. According to the water quality test
conducted in August 2010, it was confirmed that the quality of water met national environmental standardsof all the 18 indicators at one water monitoring point 1km downstream of the new bridge. Monitoring
points for noise and odour were not set around the new bridge. However, this may not be an issue due to-7-the fact that there have been no negative reports from local inhabitants.
3.2.2.2 Resettlement and Land Acquisition
The number relocated was 414 households and 7 corporations due to this project. Semey City did not
identify the conditions of the relocated habitants and corporations after their relocation. Therefore, no new
information was gathered related to the relocated person in this ex-post monitoring survey. Semey City
reported that they have not received any claims.
3.2.2.3 Symbol of the Town
The bridge was identified as a new symbol of Semey City. So
the bridge was introduced in the brochure of the city and on postcards. Some key holders and paperweights illustrating the bridge
were found in the souvenir shops in the city.
Photo 1 Souvenirs (Paperweights)

3.2.2.4 Tourist Attraction
The number of European tourists visiting the bridge increased as
the Asian Highway was developed.
It is observed couples took photographs for wedding
ceremonies. So this bridge had been recognized as a tourist
attraction.
Photo 2 Tourists Visiting the New Bridge

As mentioned above, the impact of this project continued in terms of increase in traffic volume in thewider area as well as stimulation of the local economy. Furthermore, new developments such as the bridge
becoming a symbol of the city and a tourist attraction were newly observed and negative impact on thenatural environment and social aspects was not confirmed.
3.3 Sustainability
3.3.1 Structural Aspects of Operation and MaintenanceAt the time of the appraisal, the executing agency of the project was Semipalatinsk Region Akim Apparat(SOAA), and it was planned that the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) established under SOAA would
become the operation and maintenance organization following completion of the project. In May 1997,
SOAA was absorbed by East Kazakhstan Region Akim. PIU was also placed under the jurisdiction of East
Kazakhstan Region Akim. However, no action was taken to make PIU the operation and maintenanceorganization after the project completion. Therefore, responsibility and structure of the operation andmaintenance of the new bridge was not confirmed at the ex-post evaluation. Hence, recommendation wasmade to clarify the reason for delay of the handover procedure, to handover the facility and establish theoperation and maintenance organization, to secure a sufficient budget and to handover equipment in proper
management and usage.
-8-

In April 2008, Semey City received assets related to the new bridge and established "Multi purpose
utilities enterprise operating Irtysh river suspension bridge" (Hereafter called the Operation and
Maintenance Organization" by the instruction of East Kazakhstan Region (No K-86 dated April 15, 2008).
PIU of the region was dissolved and handed over all the equipment and the maintenance manual to the
Operation and Maintenance Organization. However, the handing over was not organized well according to
the interview.
The reasons why the new bridge was transferred to the Semey City were because the bridge did notconnect to any regional roads and the East Kazakhstan Region could not allocate budget because ofnon-existence of a budget code for regional operation.
The current organizational departments of the Operation and Maintenance Organization and the number ofstaff are summarized as listed below.
・Finance

5・Personnel

1・Administration

10

・Suspension Bridge

5・Existing Bridge

5・Manufacturing Technology

25・Engineering

4

The organization tried to recruit highly qualified and skilled personnel as much as possible as shown by
the fact that they hired graduates from civil engineering departments of universities into the suspension
bridge group. However, it was difficult to hire qualified specialists with enough skill and knowledge, whichcannot be acquired in university or specialized education. This is because the new bridge was the only large
suspension bridge in the CIS countries at the time of construction. Furthermore, PIU staff, that wastrained in the project, were not available for the Operation and Maintenance organization due to the factthat it took some time to hand over duties. Technological skill had not been transferred to the newcompany staff. As a result, staff members were forced to struggle with operation and maintenance activities
from the start.
As the owner of the new bridge became clear the structure for operation and maintenance was alsoestablished as the operation and maintenance organization was set up. A number of technical staff was also
hired despite a shortage of workers with technological knowledge and skill and progress was made fromthe time of ex-post project evaluation.
3.3.2 Technical Aspects of Operation and Maintenance
Simple daily maintenance was conducted at the time of ex-post evaluation. Recommendations from the
ex-post evaluation were made concerning hand over and use of the manual. Such progress was observed in
the ex-post monitoring survey.
-9-Structural inspection was conducted annually, monthly and seasonally (Winter and Spring). Inspection
planning also includes summer time and wintertime operation. The manual provided by the project
includes type and item of operation and maintenance, operation flow and operation and maintenancestructure. The management plan was prepared by using these manuals as indicated in the recommendationof ex-post project evaluation. However, the manuals were not comprehensive enough to cover all theoperation and maintenance work as shown by the fact that the manuals lack the criteria of inspection
activities, specification of consumables and repair materials. A Russian company prepared the manual
related to an expansion joint when they repaired the bridge and that manual was widely used.
According to the enterprise, the number of the staff is enough to conduct current activities; however,there are concerns about their technical level. They have a request to dispatch experts from Japan to
conduct training related to operation and maintenance of thesuspension bridge. Following were their concerns and issues.
・Skill and knowledge of technical inspection, especially required
for a suspension bridge
・Pavement of asphalt and concrete
・Inspection of tension on cables
・Repairing of an expansion joint

Photo 3 Repairing Pavement

Those technical gaps were identified from the beginning of the project. To cope with this, capacity
development of the operation and maintenance was conducted in the project. As a result, technical gaps
were narrowed after the implementation of the training. Although overall lack of skill was reported in the
ex-post project evaluation, details were not identified. During the course of the ex-post monitoring, there
was progress in that they identified challenges of technical skills required for sustainable maintenance,
however the technical gaps were still not being closed. The reasons identified are as follows. Firstly,
technical staff that were trained by the project did not remain in the operation and maintenance organization,corresponding to the handing over of maintenance body was changed from the region to the city and it wastime consuming. Secondly, the manual prepared by the project was insufficient.
This lack of technical skills meant that technical staff could not understand comprehensive annual
operation and maintenance activities. And it resulted in incomplete preparation of the document forrequesting financial budget and it lead a lack of finance capability.
JICA has an ongoing cooperation program for the maintenance of Irtysh River Bridge from April 2012.
Onsite training is planned to be conducted and the program is expected to solve some of the issues, though
it cannot cover all the issues mentioned above.
3.3.3 Financial Aspects of Operation and Maintenance
The operation and maintenance company maintains other roads in the city as well. Semey City spent 11.4
million to 31 million tenge (almost equivalent to 7 million to 17 million JPY) annually for the road sector- 10 -

budgeting from 2009 to 2011. Table 7 summarized the budget record on operation and maintenance of the
new bridge among the road related budget.
Table 7 Budget Allocated to New Bridge Operation and MaintenanceYear

Operation Budget

Japanese Yen equivalent amount(Thousand Tenge)(Thousand Yen)

2008

3,345

2,960

2009

3,373

2,192

2010

3,270

2,044

2011

3,457

1,956

2012

3,716

2,022

Total

17,161

11,174

Average

3,432

2,235

Source: Financial Dept. Semey City, Multi-purpose utilities enterprise operating Irtysh river suspension bridge

Operation and maintenance budget for the Irtysh River Bridge was estimated at 1.62 million USD(equivalent to 136.9 million JPY at the exchange rate of the planned year) at the feasibility study. Average
operation cost was 2.235 thousand tenge that was less than 2% of the planned amount shown in Table 7.
From 2010 to 2012, Semey City’s own budget was 7,700-10,144 million tenge (4,812 million JPY-5,518
million JPY), while road and transport budget was 525-1,008million tenge (328-548 million JPY). Semey
City deputy Akimat said that it was not possible to allocate budget for the bridge maintenance based on thecurrent budget structure, although this structure shall be reviewed.
Federal Ministry of Transportation and Communications also recognized the shortage of the budget of
Semey City. Thus they requested about 2 million USD budget to the Ministry of Finance before 2010.
However, there was no response from them.
3.3.4 Current Status of Operation and Maintenance
The Infrastructure Development Institute of Japan had dispatched amission for the study of the new bridge in 2010. An inspection was madeby the study team consisting of IHI Infrastructure Systems Co., Ltd(Former IHI) and Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Expressway Company Limited(HSBE). Summary of the results of inspection was shown as follows.
1) Anchorages, main cables, cable band, hunger ropes, main towers: future
rusting was concerned as traces of water flow were observed inside. Somepainting was deteriorated.
2) Wind shoes, locker bearings: some painting was scratched off. Stiffing
girder was de-centered (within the acceptable range)- 11 -

Photo 4 Unfixed Wire

3) Stiffening girder: not inspected.
4) Expansion Joint: repaired in 2001, part of sliding face was not cleaned.
5) Pavement on the bridge, guardrails: cracks were observed. It must be repaired annually. Some of thefence wire was not fixed.
6) Sidewalk: all the snow on the car lanes was accumulated. Removal of the snow was difficult since apark is located under the bridge.
7) Approach road: generally in good condition.
Based on the findings of this survey, physical condition of the bridge change was confirmed comparing
with the time of ex-post evaluation as follows.
1) Foreseen rusting from water flow on the anchorages and main cables, which are important structures ofthe suspension bridge, will be a concern though not as much of a concern in the current condition. Further,measures shall be taken for deteriorating paint, accumulation of sand and dust on the sliding face.
2) Many cracks were observed on the pavement of the bridge. Fence wires of guardrails were not fixed.
Further measures should be taken these sections as well.
In 2012, a structural soundness survey for the pre-existing bridge was planned to be conducted for the
first time since 1998, based on the fact that the pre-existing bridge was severely aged and was in danger ofcollapse.
It shall be noted that there was great progress from the time of the ex-post project evaluation in terms ofcomposition, technology and financial aspects of operation and maintenance, given the fact that theoperation and maintenance organization was established, technical staff was hired and budget was allocatedfor maintenance. Furthermore, almost all recommendations were conducted. However, those were notenough to maintain the new bridge in good condition. Fortunately, no significant problem was observedin the soundness of the new bridge confirmed by the visual inspection in 2010, but improvement in theabove-mentioned three aspects (structure, technology and finance) is expected.
3.4 Others
In the ex-post project evaluation, it was recommended to take temporary actions in consultation with
Semey City, if it would take time to handover. Specifically, temporary actions were to address cost burden
for inspection and maintenance borne by the Semey City and introduction of a speed limit for securingsafety. Handover was completed and operation and maintenance organization was established at the time of
ex-post monitoring and safety measures were taken, hence temporary measures are not required.
4．Conclusion, Recommendations and Lessons Learned
4.1 Conclusion
Effectiveness of the Irtysh River Bridge at the ex-post monitoring was equal or superior to that of the- 12 -

ex-post evaluation in terms of traffic volume increase, time saving and securing safety. Furthermore,positive impact was continuously observed as the bridge ensured the safe and smooth flow of traffic on amajor trunk road and contributed to the stimulation of the local economy.
The issues at the time of ex-post evaluation were that assets were not handed over to the operation andmaintenance organization and that no budget allocation was secured. Progress was found as responsibility
became clarified among stakeholders and equipment and assets were handed over to the newly establishedoperation and maintenance organization. However they faced new challenges. The manual handed over was
not practical enough for them to conduct maintenance activities. Technical skill and knowledge of the staff
in the organization was not enough because there was no special education organization for training in
Kazakhstan. Furthermore, they could not make budget requests to Semey City, East Kazakhstan Region andthe nation due to lack of technical skill and knowledge related to annual maintenance activities. Semey
City's budget scale was also too small to allocate required resources for maintenance.
4.2 Recommendations(To the operation and maintenance company)
Semey City: Suitable measures shall be selected and negotiated with the national government andregional authorities. It might be handing over the asset and the operation and maintenance organization to
the nation.The priority shall be to secure budget source by subsidy.
(To Implementation agency)
JICA was recommended to promote Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transportation andCommunications to sustain the Operation and maintenance structure and acquire the budget. At the sametime, it was also recommended to provide possible technical support under the ongoing technical assistance
related to operation and maintenance.
4.3 Lessons Learned
Technical gap on the operation and maintenance aspects was significant as mentioned in the conclusion.
This gap was identified from the beginning of the project. The project conducted capacity development
component of the operation and maintenance. However, this large gap still exists.
For the implementation of the project, it shall be required to introduce appropriate technologies taking
into account what capacity development activities for operation and maintenance could achieve, possibilityof technology transfer from neighbouring countries and domestic resources as well as the possibility ofentrusting to private companies.
After project commencement, once facilities and equipment hand over to a local authority, theimplementation agency shall confirm not only formality of transfer but also actual capacity (personnel,
technology and financing, etc.) of the handed-over authority for future smooth implementation. If thatcapacity is not enough, additional support from a central government or agencies shall be secured.

- 13 -

Comparison of the Original and Actual Scope of the Project
Item

Original

ActualSteel suspension bridge

Steel suspension bridge

1.Project Outputs
1) Construction of new bridge

length: 880 m, width: 34.27 m

length: 1,086 m, width: 35 m

2) Construction of approach road

length: 750 m, width: 35.77 m

length: 1,564 m, width: 38.5 m

3) Improvement of access road

length: 6,900 m (right bank: 3,400

length: 6,837 m (right bank: 3,855

m, left bank: 3,500 m)

m, left bank: 2,982 m) Additional:

N.A.

parking lot, overpass, left-turn lane,4) Other construction

flood plain improvement, etc.
Foreign: 370 MM
5) Consulting services

Foreign: 439 MM Kazakhstani:

Kazakhstani: 1,258 MM

1,026 MM
2.Project Period
1) L/A signing
2) Resident relocation

February 1997

March 1997

March 1997–February 1998

March 1997–May 1998 December

3) Consultant selection

December 1996–March 1997

1996–March 1997

4) Service provision

April 1997–October 2002 April

April 1997–October 2002

5) Bidding

1997–December 1997 January

May 1997–December 1997 January

1998

1998

6) Contracting7) Detailed design

January 1998–June 1998

January 1998–June 2002

8) Construction

April 1998–February 2000

April 1998–November 2001

October 2001

November 2000

Amount paid in Foreign Currency

21,530 million yen

21,236 million yen

Amount paid in Local Currency

6,791 million yen

8,728 million yen(4,271 million tenge)(10,148 million tenge)

28,321 million yen

29,964 million yen

21,530 million yen

21,236 million yen

1 tenge=1.59 yen (as of October

1 tenge =0.86 yen (average of

1996)

1997–2006)

9) Completion and opening of bridge
3.Project Cost

Total
Japanese ODA Loan Portion
Exchange Rate

- 14 -