Armenia: MFF - Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program - Facility Concept
The investment program targets the transport sector in all urban areas in Armenia, aiming to improve connectivity; reduce congestion; and promote safe, reliable, and efficient transport.
Ancora, Maria Pia
Central and West Asia Department
Request for information
|Project Name||MFF - Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program - Facility Concept|
|Project Type / Modality of Assistance||Loan
|Source of Funding / Amount||
|Strategic Agendas||Environmentally sustainable growth
Inclusive economic growth
|Drivers of Change||Gender Equity and Mainstreaming
Private sector development
|Sector / Subsector||
Transport / Urban transport
|Gender Equity and Mainstreaming||Some gender elements|
|Description||The investment program targets the transport sector in all urban areas in Armenia, aiming to improve connectivity; reduce congestion; and promote safe, reliable, and efficient transport.|
|Project Rationale and Linkage to Country/Regional Strategy||
Armenia has a relatively small population (3.24 million), but is the most urbanized country in the Caucasus. Urban areas, with 2.1 million people or 64% of the total population, already account for most of the country's economic activity and employment. Armenian urban areas fall into four categories (i) Yerevan, the capital city with 1.12 million people; (ii) mid-sized secondary cities such as Gyumri, Kapan, and Vanadzor; (iii) small and medium size cities with important industrial and agro-processing complexes such as Armavir, Artashat, Ashtarak and Ararat; and (iv) cities with high tourism potential such as Dilijan, Jermuk, Sevan, and Tsakhkadzor. These 12 cities account for almost 90% of the nation's gross domestic product, with Yerevan alone accounting for 60%.
Shifting urban landscape. Unbalanced economic growth among regions, posing serious development challenges to planners and policy makers. Some cities are growing fast, others are not. Some house only one industry at best; others struggle to attract one. Even Yerevan has seen change. A gradual collapse of its heavy industry, in the early 1990s, then located in its southern ring, created a rapid shift in the location of commercial and residential centers, and corresponding changes in the demand for metro, tramway, trolleybus and bus network services. These changes have increased motorization, but also led to poor air quality, noise, traffic congestion, loss of green areas, and degraded historical buildings. Many secondary cities have also grown since the 1990s and now share most of Yerevan's problems.
Traffic and road safety concerns. Growth has brought widespread vehicle ownership, which has grown by 40% since 2004. The number of accidents in Yerevan has risen in parallel, from 260 fatalities in 2004 to more than 400 in 2008, with the number of injured more than doubling from 1,500 in 2004 to 3,125 in 2008. This has put road safety on the agenda. Despite improvements in major arteries in the capital, the traffic signal system is outdated and inadequate. Environmental protection is now another priority. Located in Ararat Valley, Yerevan has little natural ventilation, and congestion results in concentration of hazardous substances. Urban transport generated 90% of air pollution in 2009, with carbon dioxide emissions expected to increase by 160% by 2020. The limited number of bridges in Yerevan over the Hrazdan River creates bottlenecks and massive congestion during peak hours. In addition, a city bypass remains uncompleted, disallowing any diversion of passing traffic. Illegal and double parking and poorly enforced traffic laws further constrain mobility. In 2009, traffic exceeded design capacity on more than 20% of the road network, and a further 35% was about to reach its limit. Most of these problems are replicated in other cities.
Inadequate public transport services. The Yerevan public transport system comprises microbuses, buses, trolleybuses, and metro routes. Its public transport infrastructure is aged, and vehicle fleet old and poorly maintained, travelling an average speed of 16 kilometers per hour. The metro network has a single 12.1 km line with 10 stations and a fleet of 70 old carriages. Metro ridership accounts for only 8.2% of total public transport ridership, which stood at 207 million passenger trips in 2009. Today, 85% of the passengers are carried by unsubsidized private microbuses, despite their expensive fares. While minibuses spared Yerevan a severe transport crisis in the 1990s, they now contribute to a chaotic situation that has seen big and medium-sized buses pushed out. Service quality is poor due to overloading and congestion. This shift has severely compromised the financial sustainability of other public transport services and caused investment backlogs for trolleybus and metro, as fares are too low to cover operating and renewal costs. In other Armenian cities, the urban transport issues are similar albeit less dire. They have deteriorating urban road networks with inefficient or nonexistent systems of traffic management and poor public transport that relies far too heavily on microbuses. The transport network needs restructuring, as routes often duplicate others. Service quality is poor and the level of comfort minimal. In tourist centers, urban transport infrastructure is unable to cope with the inflows at peak periods. These limitations are accompanied by rising gaps in the quality of municipal planning, finance and monitoring.
Sector strategy, roadmap, and institutional reform. The national government and Yerevan municipality have invested more than $185 million during 2005-2010 in upgrading urban infrastructure. But these investments are only patching up immediate problems. More investments are needed to make the system viable. Secondary cities are in a similar situation. A strategic framework for urban renewal has been agreed to correct this, and to adopt a systematic approach. This is backed by a roadmap, policy framework and investment plan split into shorter (immediate), medium (2011-2016) and long term (2017-2025) interventions, covering both physical and non physical requirements. The overall investment runs into $960 million for the period 2011 to 2025 -an average capital and recurrent expenditure outlay of around $70 million a year.
|Impact||Improved urban environment, local economy and enhanced private sector within urban areas.|
|Description of Outcome||Efficient, reliable and affordable urban infrastructures and services provided in Armenian cities|
|Progress Toward Outcome|
|Description of Project Outputs||
Appropriate institutional capacity strengthened in Yerevan and secondary cities
Establishment of skilled and experienced program Implementation Units in Yerevan and Armenia
Urban infrastructure extended, rehabilitated and improved in urban areas
|Status of Implementation Progress (Outputs, Activities, and Issues)|
|Summary of Environmental and Social Aspects|
|Environmental Aspects||Category B|
|Involuntary Resettlement||Category A|
|Indigenous Peoples||Category C|
|Stakeholder Communication, Participation, and Consultation|
|During Project Design||Consultations were carried out with all the stakeholders during program preparation and will continue throughout the project cycle. Stakeholder consultations have been held with local residents and civil society at the municipality and in the affected neighborhoods. Stakeholders were informed about the project, and the stream of information will continue during the implementation of the project. Consultations were also held at various levels of government offices such as the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Culture, municipality, districts, universities, NGOs as well as the donor community (World Bank, EBRD, IEB, Millennium Development Corporation, KFW, Dutch Fund).|
|During Project Implementation||Local communities were consulted throughout the preparation process to minimize impact, ensure social acceptance, and increase equitability. The process will continue during the implementation of the project. Views and concerns of all stakeholders will be taken into consideration and addressed.|
|Consulting Services||Contracting arrangements will be continuously reviewed, refined and revised to achieve maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness. Under Tranche 1 six consulting service contracts out of eight planned were awarded during 2012-2018. Of the six consulting service packages awarded, three have been completed and three are ongoing. The other two consulting packages are dropped. Under Tranche 2 three of 10 consulting service contracts planned were awarded during 2015 -2019. These are for construction supervision, audit, and independent monitoring and are ongoing. The other planned consulting services are dropped.|
|Procurement||Contracting arrangements will be continuously reviewed, refined and revised to achieve maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness. Key features include: (i) Civil Works for Tranches 1 and 2: Under Tranche 1 two civil works contracts out of four planned were awarded and completed. The two civil works packages not awarded were canceled, as deemed no longer a priority. Under Tranche 2 all the three planned civil works contracts awarded, the contract for constructing the Davtashen Ashtarak road link was completed as scheduled, while the other two are ongoing. There are no contracts under Tranche 3, which was initially programmed for approval in 2016, however the government postponed the decision to pursue the tranche due to fiscal consolidation, and the tranche was dropped in 2018 because it was deemed too late to implement it within the MFF availability period. (ii) Goods: under Tranche 1 one contract was planned and awarded.|
|Responsible ADB Officer||Ancora, Maria Pia|
|Responsible ADB Department||Central and West Asia Department|
|Responsible ADB Division||Armenia Resident Mission|
|Concept Clearance||08 Mar 2010|
|Fact Finding||09 Mar 2010 to 31 Mar 2010|
|MRM||14 May 2010|
|Approval||19 Apr 2011|
|Last Review Mission||-|
|PDS Creation Date||06 Jan 2010|
|Last PDS Update||18 Sep 2015|
MFF Facility Concept 0056-ARM
|Financing Plan||Loan Utilization|
|Total (Amount in US$ million)||Date||ADB||Others||Net Percentage|
|Project Cost||515.00||Cumulative Contract Awards|
Project Data Sheets (PDS) contain summary information on the project or program. Because the PDS is a work in progress, some information may not be included in its initial version but will be added as it becomes available. Information about proposed projects is tentative and indicative.
The Access to Information Policy (AIP) recognizes that transparency and accountability are essential to development effectiveness. It establishes the disclosure requirements for documents and information ADB produces or requires to be produced.
The Accountability Mechanism provides a forum where people adversely affected by ADB-assisted projects can voice and seek solutions to their problems and report alleged noncompliance of ADB's operational policies and procedures.
In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of, or reference to, a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
Safeguard Documents See also: Safeguards
Safeguard documents provided at the time of project/facility approval may also be found in the list of linked documents provided with the Report and Recommendation of the President.
|Title||Document Type||Document Date|
|Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program: Resettlement Plans (as of Board approval)||Resettlement Plans||Sep 2010|
|Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program: Initial Environmental Examination (as of Board approval)||Initial Environmental Examination||Sep 2010|
|Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program: Resettlement Framework (as of Board approval)||Resettlement Frameworks||Sep 2010|
|Yerevan Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program||Resettlement Frameworks||May 2010|
|Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program: Environmental Assessment and Review Framework (as of Board approval)||Environmental Assessment and Review Framework||Mar 2010|
|Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program||Environmental Assessment and Review Framework||Mar 2010|
Evaluation Documents See also: Independent Evaluation
None currently available.
None currently available.
The Access to Information Policy (AIP) establishes the disclosure requirements for documents and information ADB produces or requires to be produced in its operations to facilitate stakeholder participation in ADB's decision-making. For more information, refer to the Safeguard Policy Statement, Operations Manual F1, and Operations Manual L3.
Requests for information may also be directed to the InfoUnit.
No tenders for this project were found.
No contracts awarded for this project were found
None currently available.