Road Development Agency

2014 ROAD CONDITION REPORT

(Trunk, Main, District, Urban and Primary Feeder Roads)

Prepared by the Road Development Agency

December 2014
Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................5
1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................6
2 BACKGROUND.......................................................................7
3 SURVEY PARAMETERS AND METHODS....................................8
3.1 Road Pavement Surface Survey Parameters.............................................8
3.2 Survey Methods and Timing......................................................................8
3.2.1 Survey Equipment Used.................................................................................9

4 KEY RESULTS......................................................................11
4.1 Condition Analysis................................................................................... 12
4.1.1 Condition of the Paved Road Network on Trunk, Main & District Roads.......12

4.1.2 Condition of the Unpaved Road Network on Trunk, Main & District Roads...15

4.1.3 Urban Roads................................................................................................ 18

4.1.4 Primary and Feeder Roads...........................................................................20

4.2 Passability of PFR Network......................................................................22

5 CONTINUITY OF DATA COLLECTION AND LESSONS LEARNT....28

6 CONCLUSION.......................................................................29
ANNEX-I : CONDITION TRENDS..................................................30
ANNEX-IIA : CONDITION BASED ON PROVINCES – PAVED ROADS. 33
ANNEX IIB : CONDITION BASED ON PROVINCES – UNPAVED ROADS
34

PAGE | 1
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1: ROMDAS Options deployed..................................................................9

Figure 4-1: Distribution of Paved TMD Road Network - Province wise..................13
Figure 4-2: Network Condition of Paved TMDs since 2007 to 2014......................14
Figure 4-3: TMD Paved Network Condition by Class.............................................15
Figure 4-4: Province wise Ddistribution of Unpaved Road Network......................16
Figure 4-5: Unpaved TMD Roads Condition from 2006 to 2014............................17
Figure 4-6: Condition of Unpaved TMD Roads by Class for year 2008, 2009, 2011,
2013 & 2014.................................................................................................. 18
Figure 4-7: Unpaved Urban Roads Condition for year 2009, 2011, 2013 & 2014. 19
Figure 4-8: Paved Urban Roads Condition for the years 2009, 2011, 2013 & 2014
....................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4-9: Unpaved PFRs Condition for the years 2011, 2013 & 2014................21
Figure 4-10: Condition on Paved Primary Feeder Road Network..........................22
Figure 4-11: Passability (%) - PFR Network...........................................................24
Figure 4-12: Province wise Impassable Length (%)..............................................24
Figure 4-13: Distribution of Impassable length by causes (%).............................25
Figure 4-14: Province wise % length by Passability affected spots......................26
Figure 4-15: Province wise locations count Passability affected spots.................27

PAGE | 2
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Summary of the Core Road Network 7

Table 2-2 Road Network Condition Criteria based on ROADSIP II 7
Table 3-1: Visual Condition Parameters 8
Table 3-2: Data collected on CRN 10
Table 4-1: Road Classes by Length 11
Table 4-2: Surface Type on Trunk Main & District 11
Table 4-3: Surface Type on Urban Roads 11
Table 4-4: Surface Type on Primary & Feeder Roads 11
Table 4-5: Distribution of TMD Road Network 12
Table 4-6: Province wise Distribution of Paved TMD Road Network 12
Table 4-7: Condition of Paved TMD Road Network 13
Table 4-8: Condition of Paved TMD based on Road Class 15
Table 4-9: Province wise Distribution of Unpaved TMD Road Network 16
Table 4-10: Condition of Unpaved TMD Road Network 16
Table 4-11: Condition Based on Road Class (Unpaved TMD) 17
Table 4-12: Province wise Distribution of Urban Roads 18
Table 4-13: Condition of Urban Roads 19
Table 4-14: Province wise distribution of PFR Roads 20
Table 4-15: Condition of Primary Feeder Roads - Unpaved 21
Table 4-16: Condition of Primary Feeder Road Network – Paved 22
Table 4-17: Province wise Passability Data - PFR Roads 23
Table 4-18: Province wise 4-Wheel Drive and Impassable Spots - PFR Roads 26

PAGE | 3
ABBREVIATIONS

CRN : Core Road Network

EDF : European Union Development Fund
GPS : Global Positioning System
GRZ : Government of the Republic of Zambia
HDM-4 : Highway Development and Management
HMS : Highway Management System
IRI : International Roughness Index
PFR : Primary Feeder Roads
RDA : Road Development Agency
RoadSIP II : Road Sector Investment Programme Phase II
ROMDAS : Road Measurement and Data Acquisition System
ROW : Right of Way
RSAWP : Road Sector Annual Work Plan
TMD : Trunk Main & District
UR : Urban Roads

PAGE | 4
1 INTRODUCTION

This Report is intended to present the condition of the Core Road Network (CRN)
for the different classes of roads administered by the Road Development Agency
(RDA) which are the Trunk, Main, District, Urban and Primary Feeder Roads. The
network condition results are based on the 2014 condition data as collected by
Messrs HIMS Limited of New Zealand in Joint Venture with SATRA Infrastructure
Management Services Pvt Ltd of India who were engaged by the RDA. The
surface condition was measured using a visual survey of defects and machine
based surveys of pavement roughness. Roughness is conventionally used as the
single criteria for assessing the condition of the paved road pavement as guided
by RoadSIP II. The report has also proposed alternative collection methods and
analysis of results bearing in mind the input parameters of the Highway
Management System (HMS).
The RDA implemented the Highway Management System (HMS) in 2008/2009
based on HIMS Asset Management System platform replacing the earlier HMS
that had become obsolete at that time. The main HMS system contains TMD
roads using HDM4 analysis engine while separate sub systems were implemented
for PFR and Urban roads using multi criteria analysis. Most of the inventory and
condition data, collected by Roughton International and Ramboll were used for
the development and implementation of the HMS. The condition data collected on
the CRN is input into the HMS for the purpose of conducting a Needs Assessment
of the maintenance requirements of the CRN. The data is also kept on the HMS
for inventory purposes.
The data presented in the report has been collected as a continuation to the
Technical Assistance on the 9th European Union Development Fund (EDF) contract
signed with Roughton International in 2006 which ran for a period of four (4)
years up to the year 2009. The RDA did not undertake any data collection on the
CRN in 2010 due to budgetary constraints. There was another contract signed
with HIMS Limited of New Zealand in Joint Venture with SATRA Infrastructure
Management Services Pvt Ltd of India in 2011 and followed by a three year
rollover 2013-16. There was no data collection undertaken in 2012. This is the
seventh (7th) Road Network Condition report produced by the RDA since 2006
and continues to capture condition data on the Trunk, Main, District, and Primary
Feeder and Urban road networks with funding from the Road Fund.
The report has been structured into six (6) sections. Following the introduction is
the background, which discusses the basis of the survey and motivation. This is
followed by a brief discussion of the survey parameters. Section three (3)
presents the key results in two parts, for the paved and unpaved road networks
while section four (4) discusses the key results and section five (5) presents the
continuity of data collection. Section six (6) is the conclusion.

PAGE | 5
2 BACKGROUND

The total gazetted Road Network in Zambia is 67,671 km of which 40,454 km

comprises the CRN. The CRN is defined as the bare minimum network that Zambia
requires to be maintained continuously and on a sustainable basis in order to realize
its social and economic potential. The CRN infrastructure in Zambia consists of a
sparsely interconnected network of Trunk (T), Main (M), District (D), Primary Feeder
(PF) and Urban (U) roads. The Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ), with the
support from the World Bank and other Cooperating Partners, has been implementing
various road rehabilitation and maintenance projects under the Road Sector
Investment Programme (RoadSIP) in the last thirteen (13) years.
The RoadSIP II Programme is a comprehensive ten-year investment programme in the
road sector in Zambia. Its immediate objective is to bring a CRN of approximately
40,454 kilometres into a maintainable condition by the end of the Programme period.
The Bankable Document and the first Addendum, both issued in October 2003, fully
describe the Programme.
There have been minor changes to the length of the CRN due to more accurate field
measurements since 2003. Table 2-1 shows the original and revised breakdown of the
CRN by road category.
Table 2-1: Summary of the Core Road Network
Road Category Core Road Core Road Core Road
Network (km) Network (km) Network (km)
Original Revised Surveyed*
Trunk(T) 3,088 3,116 3,114.7
Main (M) 3,691 3,701 3,591.9
District (D) 13,707 13,707 12,777
Urban 5,294 5,597 5,772.8
Primary Feeder (PF) 14,333 14,333 15,679
Total 40,113 40,454 40,935.4
* includes impassable length
The RDA has since 2006 being collecting data on the CRN using condition parameters
defined by RoadSIP II. According to the RoadSIP-II criteria, the CRN condition was
established using the International Roughness Index (IRI) for paved roads and gravel
thickness for unpaved roads. . This criterion was consistently used as key the
performance indicator for assessing the condition of the CRN. Table 2-2 highlights the
performance criteria using IRI and Gravel thickness as was presented in RoadSIP II.
Table 2-2 Road Network Condition Criteria based on ROADSIP II
Criteria
Conditio Paved Roads Unpaved Roads
n Roughness (m/km) Gravel thickness (mm)
Good IRI < 4.5 mm >100
Fair 4.5 < IRI < 9 50 < mm < 100
Poor IRI > 9 mm <50

PAGE | 6
3 SURVEY PARAMETERS AND METHODS

A number of surface defects are collected to monitor the surface condition of the road
pavements. The data collected is adopted for network level analysis. The defects are
collected through a combination of manual and visual surveys.
3.1 Road Pavement Surface Survey Parameters
The category of surface defects collected is shown in table 3.1.
Table 3-3: Visual Condition Parameters
Road Type
Paved Unpaved
Defect Description Defects Description
Cracking Corrugations

Potholes Potholes

Rutting Rutting

Ravelling Erosion
Gullies

Edge Break

Edge Drop

3.2 Survey Methods and Timing

The surveys were conducted between April 2014 and November 2014. All surface
condition parameters, with the exception of roughness, were collected manually.
Roughness on paved roads was collected using a Bump Integrator connected to the
Road Measurement Data Acquisition System (ROMDAS) where as on unpaved roads
the roughness is assessed. Global Position System (GPS) coordinates are recorded
simultaneously with roughness and video logs. The data for the network level
maintenance assessment was collected on a 500m interval. This format is however
not suitable for analysis in HDM-4. Therefore, further data processing is required prior
to importation into HDM-4. The condition data is to be dynamically segmented in the
HMS database software into homogeneous sections having common pavement width
and type, traffic and condition thereby reducing the roads to manageable sections
that can easily be processed in HDM-4.

PAGE | 7
3.2.1 Survey Equipment Used
ROMDAS equipment was used to collect road inventory and condition data including
GPS and Video data.
ROMDAS is multi-faceted road condition survey equipment which could be configured
to collect a wide range of pavement condition data. For this project the following
options were used.
 Roughness -Bump Integrator;
 Road Centerline - Trimble ProXRT and SPS GPS Receivers;
 Inventory Data - Semi Automated Programmable Keyboard entry;
 Condition Data - Semi Automated Programmable Keyboard entry; and
 Video - Single ROW video camera;

Figure 3-1: ROMDAS Options deployed

Since 2006, various strategies have been included to assure the quality of data
collected. These include:

PAGE | 8
 Before 2008 the depth of gravel on the roads was assessed by a surveyor which

led to inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the collected data. Since 2008
surveys teams have been instructed to physically measure the depth of gravel
mostly at regular intervals along each road so as to adjust their visual
assessment of the gravel thickness.
 Visual calibration exercises were conducted to ensure consistency and
correctness of data collected by the different visual inspectors. This was
conducted by HMS Technicians in the Region Offices
 The frequency of data submissions was on a monthly basis to ensure that the
RDA concentrated their quality assurance efforts on small and easy to manage
data sets.
 The RDA conducted instruction sessions with the inspectors to emphasis the
required data formats as well as reiterate on the observed short comings in the
data.
The condition data was collected as was required for the HMS as shown in Table 3-2
below:
Table 3-4: Data collected on CRN
Item Description Paved Unpaved

Road Survey and Data Processing TMD PFR UR TMD PFR UR

1.0 Road Network/Survey

1.1 GPS Coordinates of LRPs V V V V V

1.2 GPS Coordinates of Structures (Bridges and V V V V V

Culverts)
1.3 Road Length and Chainage of LRP's and V V V V V V
Structures
2.0 Road Inventory Data

2.1 Road Type V V V V V V

2.2 Road Centre line V V V V V V

2.3 Horizontal Alignment V V V V V V

2.4 Vertical Alignment V V V V V V

2.5 Pavement/Surface Type V V V V V V

2.6 Pavement Width V V V V V V

2.7 Shoulder Type V V V V V V

2.8 Shoulder Width V V V V V V

2.9 Shoulder Elevation V V V V V V

2.10 Land Use Type V V V V V V

3.0 Road Condition Data/Survey

PAGE | 9
3.1 Pavement/Surface Condition Rating V V V V V V

3.2 Other Defects (Bleeding, Corrugation, undulation V V V V V V

etc.)
3.3 Pavement/Surface Roughness V V V V V V

3.4 Transverse Profile (Rutting) V V V V V V

3.7 Shoulder Condition V V V V V V

3.8 Drainage Condition V V V V V V

4.0 ROW Video Logging

4.1 Full Motion Picture of ROW (one CD/DVD ROM per V V V V V V

Road)
4.2 Frame Based imaging of ROW (at 50/200 m V V V V V V
interval)
5.0 Traffic Survey & Data Processing

5.1 Permanent Traffic Monitoring Stations (Counter & As specified (at 64 locations)
Classifier)
6.0 Performance Assessment Framework (PAF)
6.1 Passability Index V

4 KEY RESULTS

The Network Condition on the CRN is reported in terms of the road roughness for
paved roads and gravel thickness for unpaved roads. As mentioned earlier, another
method for assessing condition termed as the Passability Criteria was employed in
2013 for PFR. The 2014 road survey had a target to collect data on the identified
total network length of 40,454km of the TMD network, Urban and Primary Feeder
Road Network as shown in tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4.
Table 4-5: Road Classes by Length
Road Type CRN Length (km) Surveyed Length (km)*

Trunk (T) 3,116 3,114.7

Main (M) 3,701 3,591.9
District (D) 13,707 12,777
Urban 5,597 5,772.8
Primary Feeder (PF) 14,333 15,679
Total 40,454 40,935.4
* includes impassable length

Table 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4 below shows the surveyed surface type and impassable lengths
for TMD, Urban, and Primary Feeder Roads in 2014 respectively. However, length for
urban roads is as 2013 surveys as 2014 data processing is under process.
Table 4-6: Surface Type on Trunk Main & District
Road Type Surveyed Length

PAGE | 10
 Paved 7,664
Unpaved 10,480
Impassable 1,339
Total 19, 484

Table 4-7: Surface Type on Urban Roads

Road Type Surveyed Length
Paved 2,055
Unpaved 3,010
Impassable 708
Total 5,773

Table 4-8: Surface Type on Primary & Feeder Roads

Road Type Surveyed Length
Paved 32
Unpaved 12,581
Impassable 3,067
Total 15,679

Data was collected on TMD and PFR for 35,163 Kms with 4,406 Kms being the un-
surveyed links due to impassability. The targeted length of network to be surveyed
was 34,857 as required in the in the Terms of Reference for the assignment. Excess
surveyed length was due to some links were surveyed for more than the Gazette
length to reach end point for completeness of link which is as per ground .

4.1 Condition Analysis

The condition of the road is assessed by applying the criteria as discussed in section
3. The length of the condition classification (Good, Fair or Poor) is then determined
and the percentage is calculated with respect to the total length of the surface type
and road class which includes length of impassable section with respect to class
of road. The first level of the analysis is broadly conducted on the surface types
paved and unpaved road.
Table 4-9: Distribution of TMD Road Network
North
Pro Centra Copperbe Easter Luapul Lusak Muching Norther Souther Wester Grand
Wester
vince l lt n a a a n n n Total
n
Class
Trunk 662.0 470.6 416.3 0.0 299.0 379.7 378.4 0.0 508.9 0.0 3,114.7
Main 220.2 407.2 178.8 232.9 149.7 414.7 466.0 538.4 370.8 613.0 3,591.9
District 2,481.3 569.8 1,742.1 1,325.1 508.2 538.0 1,116.3 1,287.6 2,345.1 863.5 12,777.0
3,363. 2,337. 1,558. 1,960. 1,476. 19,483.
Total 1,447.7 956.9 1,332.4 1,826.0 3,224.8
5 2 0 6 6 6

4.1.1 Condition of the Paved Road Network on Trunk, Main & District Roads
The total length of the surveyed paved TMD road network was 8,019 Km distributed
per province as shown in table 4-6 and figure 4-1.

PAGE | 11
 Table 4-10: Province wise Distribution of Paved TMD Road Network
North
Centr Copperb Easte Luapu Lusa Muchin Northe Southe Weste Grand
Class Weste
al elt rn la ka ga rn rn rn Total
rn
3,024.
TRUNK 662.0 470.6 416.3 0.0 299.0 379.7 287.6 0.0 508.9 0.0
0
2,884.
MAIN 220.2 232.2 178.8 102.7 149.7 136.5 466.0 443.3 370.8 584.4
6
DISTRIC 2,110.
282.7 192.2 139.7 431.7 172.4 130.4 136.2 104.0 323.7 197.5
T 5
1,164 1,203. 8,019.
Total 895.0 734.8 534.3 621.1 646.6 889.8 547.2 781.9
.9 4 0

Distribution of Paved TMDs

650

550
Length in Kilometers

450

350

250

150

50

Figure 4-2: Distribution of Paved TMD Road Network - Province wise

The condition analysis was carried out for total paved road network, class of road as
well as for the Province (Annex IIA).
(a) Analysis of Condition based on the Total Paved Road Network on
Trunk, Main & District Roads
Table 4-7 and Figures 4-2 show the condition of the total paved road network in from
the year 2007 to the year 2014.

Table 4-11: Condition of Paved TMD Road Network

% of % of % of % % %
Conditi Netw Netw Netw Netw Netw Netw
on ork ork ork ork ork ork
2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
Good 19 33 18 33 83 87
Fair 71 61 76 55 12 7
Poor 10 6 6 12 5 6

PAGE | 12
 Network Condition - Paved TMD
100
90
Percentage Condition

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
RoadSIP II Criteria

Good Fair Poor

Figure 4-3: Network Condition of Paved TMDs since 2007 to 2014

Figure 4-2 shows the trend in the road network condition from 2007 to 2014 based on
the RoadSIP II criteria.

The paved TMD network steady increase with roads in good condition from 2011 to
2014, while there was a steady decrease in the percentage of the roads in fair
condition from the year 2011. The state of roads in the poor condition has steadily
reduced with a corresponding increase in roads in the good condition state. It should
be noted that the general trend points to some stability for roads in the good
condition state however, a slump can be seen from 2009 to 2011. Specific reasons for
this have been highlighted below:
 Withdrawal of funding by CPs to some donor funded projects severely
constrained the local resource budget,
 Lack of adequate procurement capacity at the Local Road Authorities meant
that the bulk of the procurement process had to be carried out at headquarters
there by overwhelming HQ staff, and
 Delayed completion of major rehabilitation/periodic maintenance works, due to
funding constraints.
At 6% of roads in poor condition, this indicates that approx 480 km of road requires
rehabilitation. The average roughness of the entire paved TMD road network is
2.95m/km in 2014 compared to 3.40 m/km in 2013, 4.38 m/km in 2011 and 4.02m/km
in 2009 showing an overall increase in the condition of the paved road network.

(b) Analysis of Condition based on Road Class on Trunk, Main & District
Roads
Table 4-8 show the condition of the total paved road network based on road class over
the past seven (7) years. Figures 4-3 shows the condition of the total paved road
network based on road class from 2007 to 2014.

PAGE | 13
 Table 4-12: Condition of Paved TMD based on Road Class
% of % of % of % of % of % of % of
Conditio Network Network Network Network Network Network Network
n 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
T M D T M D T M D T M D T M D T M D T M D
3 3 1 2 1 3 4 2 2 2 7 6 4 8 8 6 9 8 7
Good 7 5
2 2 5 4 7 2 2 3 3 5 2 5 5 6 8 9 0 9 9
6 5 6 6 6 7 6 4 6 7 7 7 2 3 4 1 1 1
Fair 7 8 7
5 6 5 9 7 1 5 9 8 4 2 8 5 2 2 3 0 6
1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1
Poor 3 8 3 8 9 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3
2 0 6 1 7 3 5 4

Network Condition by Class - TMD Paved

85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
% of Net- % of Net- % of Net- % of Net- % of Net- % of Net- % of Net- % of Net- % of Net-
work 2011 work 2011 work 2011 work 2013 work 2013 work 2013 work 2014 work 2014 work 2014
T M D T M D T M D
Good 72 65 45 86 88 69 90 89 79
Fair 25 32 42 13 10 16 7 8 7
Poor 3 3 13 2 2 15 3 3 14

Figure 4-4: TMD Paved Network Condition by Class

The trunk roads have generally been kept at the expected high standards
commensurate to the expected Level of Service that they provide. Compared to 2007
where they were 8% of paved trunk roads in poor condition, this has been reduced to
1% in 2014 indicating a high level of investment in the past three (3) years. Detailed
Condition Trends by Class for the Trunk Main and District Roads are as shown in
Annex 1.
4.1.2 Condition of the Unpaved Road Network on Trunk, Main & District
Roads
The total length of the unpaved TMD road network is 11,465 km distributed as shown
in table 4-9. The Consultant did not manage to survey 984 Km of the entire TMD
unpaved network due to various reasons such as impassable roads due to severe
surface
conditions, impassable bridges/culverts and certain restricted access areas (private or
military).

PAGE | 14
 Table 4-13: Province wise Distribution of Unpaved TMD Road Network
North
Centr Copperbe Easter Luapul Lusak Muching Norther Souther Wester Grand
Class Wester
al lt n a a a n n n Total
n
TRUNK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.8
MAIN 0.0 175.0 0.0 130.2 0.0 278.2 0.0 95.2 0.0 28.7 707.3
DISTRIC 2,198. 1,602. 10,666
377.7 893.4 335.8 407.6 980.0 1,183.6 2,021.4 666.0
T 6 4 .5
2,198. 1,602. 1,023. 1,070. 11,464
Total 552.7 335.8 685.8 1,278.8 2,021.4 694.7
6 4 6 8 .5

Distribution of Unpaved TMDs

2250

1750
Length in Kilometers

1250

750

250

Figure 4-5: Province wise Ddistribution of Unpaved Road Network

The condition analysis was carried out for the surveyed unpaved road network, class
of road as well as for the province (Annex IIB).
(a) Analysis of Condition based on the Surveyed Unpaved Road Network
on TMDs
Table 4.10 shows the condition of the surveyed unpaved road network over the past
five years using the Gravel Thickness Method. On the other hand figures 4.5 show the
condition trend of the surveyed unpaved road network.
Table 4-14: Condition of Unpaved TMD Road Network

Conditi % of Network
on 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
Good 22 37 8 10 29 17 6
Fair 30 25 9 11 29 35 24
Poor 48 38 83 79 42 48 70

PAGE | 15
 Network Condition - Unpved TMD
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014

Good Fair Poor

Figure 4-6: Unpaved TMD Roads Condition from 2006 to 2014

The overall condition of the unpaved network, at first glance, shows increase in poor
condition from 2011. Figure 4-5 and Table 4-10 show that 70% of roads are in poor
condition; this indicates that about 8,274 km of unpaved roads are in need of
immediate intervention.
(b) Analysis of Condition based on Road Class
Table 4-11 and figures 4-6 show the condition of the unpaved road network based on
road class.
Table 4-15: Condition Based on Road Class (Unpaved TMD)1

Conditi 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014

on
T M D T M D T M D T M D T M D T M D T M D
1 6 3 1 2 3 4 1
Good 0 39 19 0 3 9 0 6 0 6 1 1 6
4 0 4 1 3 0 9 7
2 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 2 3 3 1 2 2
Fair 0 35 29 1 5 0 7
7 8 6 0 3 0 7 8 8 4 6 6 2 5
5 2 4 9 9 8 10 8 7 4 3 4 4 6 4 8 7 6
Poor 0 26 52
9 2 0 9 2 1 0 1 9 3 9 2 4 0 7 3 7 9

The Trunk, Main and District classes of roads shows majority of TMD unpaved roads
are in poor condition in the year 2014 as depicted in table 4-11 and figure 4-6.
Significant increases in poor condition compare to last year due to lack of
maintenance after the monsoon season, needs immediate action to maintain network
in proper condition.

1
This is using the Gravel Thickness Method

PAGE | 16
 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T M D T M D T M D T M D T M D
2008 2009 2011 2013 2014

Good Fair Poor

Figure 4-7: Condition of Unpaved TMD Roads by Class for year 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 & 2014

4.1.3 Urban Roads

The surveyed Urban paved and unpaved road network in 2014 comprised 2,054.86
Kms and 3010.20 Km respectively and 707.73 Kms remains impassable due to various
reasons.
Table 4-16: Province wise Distribution of Urban Roads

Province Paved Unpaved Impassable Total

Central 117.07 261.57 28.15 406.78

Copperbelt 15.50 25.31 9.60 50.41

Copperbelt 932.27 1,019.25 113.33 2,064.85

Eastern 49.88 160.00 8.42 218.30

Luapula 16.40 119.21 1.30 136.91

Lusaka 673.82 642.93 79.54 1,396.29

Muchinga 12.64 121.47 26.00 160.11

Northern 62.42 141.34 6.40 210.17

North-
19.18 124.08 2.38 145.63
western
Southern 123.15 302.79 430.59 856.53

Western 32.54 92.25 2.00 126.79

Grand Total 2,054.86 3,010.20 707.73 5,772.79

PAGE | 17
(a) Condition Analysis for Urban Roads
The same condition analysis used on TMD roads is applicable to Urban Roads. The
length of the condition classification (Good, Fair or Poor) is determined and the
percentage is calculated with respect to the total length of the road on Urban Roads
is as shown in the tables below:
Table 4-13, and figure 4-7, below show the condition of the paved and unpaved road
network on the Urban Roads.
Table 4-17: Condition of Urban Roads

Conditi Paved Network by % Unpaved Network by %

on 2009 2011 2013 2014 2009 2011 2013 2014

Good 6 18 38 46 22 12 2 3

Fair 15 30 20 19 28 18 20 10

Poor 79 52 43 35 50 70 78 87

Urban Roads Condition - Unpaved (% Network)

100
90
80
70
% Network

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2009 2011 2013 2014

YEAR

Good Fair Poor

Figure 4-8: Unpaved Urban Roads Condition for year 2009, 2011, 2013 & 2014

The overall condition of the unpaved urban road network, shows a significant portion
now being in a deplorable condition. At 87% of Urban Roads in poor condition, this
indicates about 2,976km are in need of immediate intervention.
(b) Analysis of Condition based on the Paved Urban Network
Out of the total paved urban road network 46% roads are in good condition. Condition
trends shows urban paved road condition is improving since 2009. Table 4-13 and
figure 4-8 show the condition of the total (Urban) paved road network.

PAGE | 18
 Urban Roads Condition - Paved (% Network)
100
90
80
70
% Network

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2009 2011 2013 2014

YEAR

Good Fair Poor

Figure 4-9: Paved Urban Roads Condition for the years 2009, 2011, 2013 & 2014

Around half of the paved urban road network is in good condition as can be derived
from the tables 4-13 and figure 4-8 above. At 35% of roads in poor condition, this
indicates that over 815Km of urban road require rehabilitation. The average
roughness of the entire urban paved road network is 7.07m/km and this is poor based
on the RoadSIP II Criteria.

4.1.4 Primary and Feeder Roads

The total unpaved and paved PFR network surveyed in 2014 was 12,581 Km and 32
Km respectively. The remaining network of 3067km was not surveyed due to various
reasons such impassibility due severe road deterioration and impassable culverts and
bridges etc. However, impassable length is included in unpaved network with poor
condition for condition analysis.
Table 4-18: Province wise distribution of PFR Roads

Province Paved Unpaved Impassable Total

Central 7 1,435 7 1,449
Copperbelt 685 3 688
Eastern 1,636 146 1,781
Luapula 1,137 105 1,241
Lusaka 3 345 27 375
Muchinga 21 1,497 347 1,864
Northern 1,966 306 2,273
North-western 1,594 621 2,215
Southern 1,306 186 1,492
Western 980 1,319 2,300
Grand Total 32 12,581 3,067 15,679

PAGE | 19
(c) Condition Analysis for PFR Roads
The same condition analysis used on TMD roads is applicable to Primary and Feeder
Roads. The length of the condition classification (Good, Fair or Poor) is determined and
the percentage is calculated with respect to the total length of the road on Primary
and Feeder Roads is as shown in the tables below:
Table 4-15 and Figure 4-9 below show the condition of the unpaved road network on
the Primary Feeder Roads.
Table 4-19: Condition of Primary Feeder Roads - Unpaved
% Network
Condition
2011 2013 2014
Good 9 9 4
Fair 14 15 14
Poor 77 76 82

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2011 2013 2014

Good Fair Poor

Figure 4-10: Unpaved PFRs Condition for the years 2011, 2013 & 2014
The overall condition of the unpaved Primary Feeder road network, shows a significant
portion now being in a deplorable condition. At 82% of Primary & Feeder Roads in
poor condition, this indicates about 12,814km are in need of immediate intervention.
(d) Analysis of Condition based on the Paved Primary Feeder Road (PFR)
Network
The total paved Primary Feeder road network surveyed was only 32 Km. the majority
of the PFR network is unpaved.

PAGE | 20
 Table 4-20: Condition of Primary Feeder Road Network – Paved
% Network
Condition
2011 2013 2014
Good 9 98.2 91
Fair 14 1.8 7
Poor 77 0 1

Network Condition 2011 (PFR - Paved) Network Condition 2013 (PFR - Paved)

25%
10%
2%

98%

65%

Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor

Network Condition 2014 (PFR - Paved)

1%

7%

92%

Good Fair Poor

Figure 4-11: Condition on Paved Primary Feeder Road Network

With reference to Table 4-16 and Figure 4-10 above, it is observed that 92% of paved
Primary Feeder Roads is in good condition which was 10% in 2011 However; it shows
6% decrease from 2013.
4.2 Passability of PFR Network
The RoadSIP II Addendum has suggested an alternative method for assessing
condition of the low trafficked unpaved network especially the Primary Feeder Roads
Network which employs the principle of "Passability" rather roughness.
The argument for this has been that the primary concern of road users of the feeder
road network is to be able to pass safely and easily at most, if not all, times of the
year, thus making the current system of measuring condition based on road surface
roughness is inappropriate. A system based on Passability along the network for
normal motorized traffic, e.g. a small pick-up, would be more useful. Planning of road
improvements at local level would then be focused on a network approach whereby
general maintenance plus spots that were difficult to pass would be targeted for
attention with the aim of increasing the overall network Passability score each year.

PAGE | 21
The system would also pay attention to linkages so that improvements were not
undertaken on roads with no linkage to higher levels of the network. This would put
priority on addressing individual bottlenecks such as stream crossing or swampy
areas that can render a whole road length unusable.
The method of Passability as proposed in the RoadSIP II Addendum was adopted to
capture the data since 2013 on the PFR Network. Data was collected for four condition
of Passability as;
 2 Wheel Drive - Passable with Normal Drive
 4 Wheel Drive - Passable with 4 Wheel Drive only
 Impassable - Completely inaccessible due to bushes, swampy, crossing stream,
private land or restricted area etc.
 Under Construction – Road is blocked due to construction activity
The outcomes of the 2014 data are presented below in Table 4-17 and Figure 4-11, 4-
12 & 4-13.
Table 4-21: Province wise Passability Data - PFR Roads
4 Wheel Impassabl Under
Province 2 Wheel Drive Total
Drive e Construction
Central 1,359.1 83.3 6.9 0.0 1,449.2
Copperbelt 684.8 0.1 3.1 0.0 688.0
Eastern 1,634.0 1.1 36.7 112.1 1,783.9
Luapula 1,110.0 18.4 27.4 75.9 1,231.7
Lusaka 328.2 20.1 0.0 26.9 375.2
Northern 1,967.5 7.2 262.8 44.7 2,282.3
North-western 1,262.7 300.3 633.3 18.6 2,214.9
Southern 1,328.4 48.3 115.4 0.1 1,492.2
Western 640.3 340.1 1,306.8 12.5 2,299.6
Muchinga 1,498.6 18.6 264.1 80.4 1,861.6
Total 11,813.5 837.5 2,656.5 371.1 15,678.7
In Percentage 75.3 5.3 16.9 2.4 100.0

PAGE | 22
 Passability - PFR Roads

17%
5%
2%

75%

2 Wheel Drive 4 Wheel Drive Impassable Under Construction

Figure 4-12: Passability (%) - PFR Network

Provincewise Impassable Length (%)

Southern Western
4% 49%

Northwestern
24%

Northern Muchinga
10% 10%
Lusaka Central
0% Luapula Eastern Copperbelt 0%
1% 0%
1%

Figure 4-13: Province wise Impassable Length (%)

As Figure 4-11 shows 17% (2,656 Kms) of PFR network is impassable due to various
reasons like missing culvert/bridge, no access to the road, very bad condition of the
road, excess sand on the road etc. Out of total impassable network 44% is in Western
province only following by 20% in North-western province. Figure 4-13 below shows
distribution of impassable PFR network by causes in percentage.

PAGE | 23
 Distribution of Impassable Length by Causes
Others
Swamp Area 9% Excess Sand
9% 9%
Reserve
Overgrown 3%
Grass/Trees
8% Bad Condition
20%

No Access
12% Flooding
2%
Missing Culvert/Bridge
27%

Figure 4-14: Distribution of Impassable length by causes (%)

One of the main objectives of collecting the Passability data on the PFR network is to
identify the locations where general maintenance and spot improvements
requirements and target attention at local level with the aim of increasing the overall
network Passability. The collected data has been analysed to identify number of such
locations in each link. The analysed data has been presented in Table 4-22, Figure 4-
15 and Figure 4-16.
From the tables and figures presented below, it can be concluded that Western
province is most affected for Passability with 72% of its total PFR length constitute 4
Wheel Drive Passability and impassable segments. Further the number of location
affected is also high with 93 individual locations affected with improper access or
impassable. Out of 45 PFR Links in Western province, 38 individual links are affected
which, means 84% of Links are affected. This follows by Western province with 42% of
its total PFR length is improperly accessible.
Whereas, the province Copperbelt shows smoother network with only 0.5% of its total
length is affected for smoother Passability.

PAGE | 24
 Table 4-22: Province wise 4-Wheel Drive and Impassable Spots - PFR Roads
PFR Basic Network 4Wheel Drive Spots Impassable Spots Total Affected Spots % Affected
Link Spot Spot Spot
Links Lengt Links Lengt Links
Length s s s s Length Link Lengt
Province Coun h Coun h Coun
(km) Coun Coun Coun Coun (km) s h
t (km) t (km) t
t t t t
Central 1,457.00 28 24 6 83.29 2 2 6.88 26 7 90.17 25% 6%
Copperbe
688 30 1 1 0.14 1 1 3.07 2 2 3.21 7% 0.50%
lt
Eastern 1,789.30 66 4 4 1.05 7 7 36.72 11 10 37.77 15% 2%
Luapula 1,231.70 40 1 1 18.43 4 4 27.4 5 5 45.83 13% 4%
Lusaka 375.2 17 7 4 20.1 1 1 0.04 8 4 20.14 24% 5%
Muchinga 1,864.50 39 8 5 18.57 16 12 264.09 24 14 282.66 36% 15%
Northern 2,282.30 55 5 2 7.18 16 16 262.82 21 16 270 29% 12%
North 300.3
2,214.90 39 28 12 16 16 633.27 44 21 933.6 54% 42%
western 3
Southern 1,472.50 40 29 11 48.35 5 5 115.43 34 15 163.78 38% 11%
340.0 1306.7
Western 2,299.60 45 64 22 29 28 93 38 1646.84 84% 72%
6 8
Grand ##### 2656. 3,494.0
399 171 68 837.5 97 92 268 132 33% 22%
Total # 5 0

80%
71.6%
70%

60%
Passability Affected Length %

50%
42.2%
40%

30%

20% 15.2%
11.8% 11.1%
10% 6.2% 5.4%
2.1% 3.7%
0.5%
0%
Central

Northern

Northwe...

southern
Copperbelt

Eastern

Luapula

Lusaka

Muchinga

Western

Figure 4-15: Province wise % length by Passability affected spots

PAGE | 25
 100 93
90
80
70
No. Passability Affected Locations

60
50 44

40 34

30 26 24
21
20
11
8
10 5
2
0
l

ka
n

n
rn

rn
a
lt
ra

n
ul
er

r
ng
be

r
sa

te
he

he
nt

te
ap
st

hi

es
er

Lu
Ce

rt

ut
es
Ea

Lu

uc
pp

No

W
so
hw
M
Co

rt
No
Figure 4-16: Province wise locations count Passability affected spots

PAGE | 26
5 CONTINUITY OF DATA COLLECTION AND LESSONS LEARNT

The RDA has committed to continue collecting data throughout sourcing, though with
a strategy to shift to in-house data collection in the future. Terms of Reference
incorporating as much lessons as possible learnt so far have been included.
The following lessons learnt during the implementation of the data collection surveys:
• Initiation of the field surveys at the right time (start of dry season) is critical for
completing the project on time;
• Selection of right equipment/system with adequate technical support and
spares is critical for the successful completion of the data collection;
• Pilot testing stage is very critical to match Client expectations with Consultant's
methodology;
• Client and Consultant working in close harmony is the KEY;
• Good quality assurance and well thought processing techniques are critical
considering the large volumes of data (appx 1 TB for nearly 40,000 km roads);
and
• Field teams shall take more responsibility in quality checking on site.
The Road Development Agency extended the contract for the data collection on the
CRN to Messrs HIMS Ltd of New Zealand in Joint Venture with SATRA Infrastructure
Management Services Pvt Ltd of India for an extra three (03) years for the following
reasons:
• Cost savings to the RDA following the maintenance of cost to undertake the
data collection exercise up to the year 2014;
• Consistency in Data Collection will be maintained as the same Consultant will
be tasked with the exercise to collect data on the Core Road Network and
further develop the Highway Management System;
• Timely availability of the Data following delays in the existing procurement
process if services of a new Consultant are to be sought. The ideal situation is
to have the road network condition data ready by September of each year in
order to facilitate the preparation of the Needs Assessment Reports based on
the HMS data. Therefore, the longer it takes for the Consultant to commence
the services because of the long protracted procurement process, the further
the delay in having the Needs Assessment Report ready. The Needs
Assessment Report is supposed to form the basis of the Road Sector Annual
Work Plan (RSAWP);
• Increased Reliability and Confidence in the road condition data especially the
traffic data that has exhibited varying fluctuations over the years;
• Coordinated efforts between Data Collection and further HMS development
would be arrived at following the existing consistency of one Consultant for
both assignments. This leads to collection of reliable data which intern leads to
appropriate maintenance planning and cost savings in maintenance; and

PAGE | 27
 • An option by the RDA to consider inclusion of other road classes absent in the
current data collection contract. The classes include; Secondary Feeder Roads,
Tertiary Feeder Roads, Community Roads and Tourist Roads.

6 CONCLUSION

The 2014 data collection was generally well conducted. The efforts that the RDA put in
place to ensure that the quality of data collected was in general well received by the
consultant and incorporated correctly in the final data submitted.
The paved TMD road network has an average roughness of 2.95 m/km indicating that
it is generally well maintained though on the decline to some extent for obvious
reasons and should still be able to contribute positively to the economy through lower
Vehicle Operating Costs (VOCs). The HMS Roughness Method for assessing condition
has some positive benefits with the type of maintenance options as calculated and
evaluated in economic terms. This is verified as shown in the results obtained from
the condition survey undertaken in 2014.
A lot of attention though needs to be directed to the unpaved load network which is
generally poor despite the heavy investments. The bulk of the unpaved network in
Zambia is in poor condition. A meaningful strategy is to gradually start upgrading
portions of the unpaved road network to bituminous standard in order to lower the life
cycle costs.
The method of Passability as proposed in the RoadSIP II Addendum is also captured in
this report and in the data collection that was conducted on the CRN as it is part of
the Term of Reference for the Road Network Data Collection Consultant.

PAGE | 28
ANNEX-I : CONDITION TRENDS

Condition Trend NOTES

Condition Trend by Class - TMD Paved

95%
85%
75%
65%
55% This method is what is
45% presented in the
35% RoadSIP II Bankable
25% Document and was
15% used consistently from
2006 to date
5%
% of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of
Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net Net
wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor
k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201
6T 6M 6D 7T 7M 7D 8T 8M 8D 9T 9M 9D 1T 1M 1D 3T 3M 3D 4T 4M 4D
G 32 32 15 24 17 7 32 42 23 23. 25 4.6 72 65 45 86 88 69 90 89 79
o 142 666
o 857 666
d 142 666
857 666
1 7
F 65 56 65 69 67 71 65 49 68 74 72 78 25 32 42 13 10 16 7 8 7
PAGE | 29
a
i
r
P 3 12 20 8 16 21 3.1 8 9 2.8 3 17 3 3 13 2 2 15 3 3 14
o 428 571
 Condition Trend of Trunk Roads Condition Trend of Main Roads

Condition Trend - Main Roads (ROADSIP Method)

Condition Trend - Trunk Roads (ROADSIP
Method) 100

100
80
80
60
60
40
40

20 20

0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor

Condition Trend of District Roads

Condition Trend - District Roads (ROADSIP Method)

100

80

60

40

20

0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014

Good Fair Poor

PAGE | 30
PAGE | 31
ANNEX-IIA : CONDITION BASED ON PROVINCES – PAVED ROADS

N Province Road Paved Road Network Condition - TMD

o Class 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Poo
d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r r
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
1 Lusaka Trunk 14 86 0 5 94 1 17 83 0 29 69 2 83 14 3 76 16 9 92 7 1
Main 30 57 13 39 61 0 90 10 0 50 50 0 98 2 0 98 1 1 99 1 0
Distric 11 84 5 10 59 31 12 62 26 6 78 16 51 35 16 74 22 4 90 8 2
t
2 Central Trunk 50 49 1 67 33 0 62 38 0 75 25 0 77 22 1 97 3 0 99 1 0
Main 72 28 0 29 63 8 58 42 0 43 54 3 64 31 5 78 21 1 87 12 1
Distric 10 87 3 6 89 5 32 66 2 5 81 14 74 25 1 83 7 10 96 3 1
t
3 Copperbe Trunk 76 24 0 29 70 1 59 41 0 20 77 3 88 11 0 87 11 2 86 11 2
lt
Main 1 70 29 14 34 52 20 52 28 24 70 7 40 51 8 66 25 9 67 26 7
Distric 2 43 55 0 71 29 22 71 7 2 76 22 72 13 15 62 25 13 81 9 10
t
4 Eastern1 Trunk 15 78 7 12 81 7 26 68 6 9 86 5 79 19 2 85 14 1 89 11 1
Main 0 64 36 0 36 64 0 57 43 - - - 30 67 3 94 6 0 96 4 0
Distric 0 43 57 0 45 55 0 87 13 6 79 16 14 59 26 69 25 7 84 15 1
t
5 Luapula2 Trunk
Main 6 93 1 6 93 1 59 41 0 24 71 5 70 29 1 80 7 13 94 5 1
Distric 6 93 1 6 93 1 22 78 0 5 82 13 60 40 0 86 14 0 95 5 0
t
6 Northern Trunk 0 91 9 0 95 5 5 95 0 0 96 4 51 39 11
Main 11 77 12 14 80 6 37 60 3 12 82 5 72 27 1 90 9 1 92 8 0
Distric 0 92 8 0 95 3 2 95 3 5 82 12 55 31 15 28 49 24 97 1 2
t
7 N/ Trunk 22 72 6 0 72 28 11 78 11 1 95 4 47 52 0 75 24 1 82 17 1
Western
Main 84 15 1 34 66 0 82 18 0 30 70 0 99 0 1 99 1 0 99 1 0
Distric 88 10 2 38 60 2 90 10 0 8 85 6 4 96 0 40 9 52 96 4 0
t
8 Southern Trunk 45 52 3 53 36 11 41 54 5 28 70 2 81 16 3 91 8 1 94 6 0
Main 77 23 0 8 90 2 10 89 1 1 96 3 58 40 3 94 6 0 95 5 0
Distric 0 70 30 0 51 49 3 68 29 2 79 19 28 36 36 70 24 6 76 20 4
t
Trunk 32 67 1

PAGE | 32
 N Province Road Paved Road Network Condition - TMD
o Class 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Poo
d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r r
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
9 Western3 Main 5 75 20 7 80 13 25 74 1 12 86 3 58 36 6 83 16 1 88 11 1
Distric 7 80 13 25 74 1 3 60 36 45 43 12 78 17 5 83 15 2
t
Trunk 75 24 1 90 7 3
10 Muchinga Main 91 9 0 90 9 0
Distric 50 47 3 94 5 0
t

ANNEX IIB : CONDITION BASED ON PROVINCES – UNPAVED ROADS

Unpaved Road Network Condition - TMD

2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
No Road
Province Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Poo
. Class
d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r r
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
1 Lusaka1 Trunk
Main
District 17 31 52 21 36 43 9 28 63 9 9 82 9 20 70 16 33 51 15 30 55
2 Central Trunk 100 0 0
Main 7 45 48 60 36 4 8 30 62 0 2 98 68 29 3
District 25 36 39 35 35 30 4 14 82 10 9 81 25 29 46 15 42 42 15 42 42
Copperbe
3 Trunk
lt
Main 26 58 16 90 19 5 0 0 100 0 0 100 1 51 48 13 43 44 13 43 44
District 37 27 36 35 43 22 0 3 97 8 9 83 40 18 42 25 30 46 22 27 52
4 Eastern Trunk
Main
District 11 23 66 25 28 47 11 12 77 10 9 80 32 28 40 9 42 49 8 39 53
5 Luapula1 Trunk
Main 39 33 28 68 15 17 0 2 98 4 14 81 65 33 3 12 64 25 12 64 25
District 22 33 45 32 27 41 17 12 71 30 14 56 18 39 43 11 52 37 11 52 37
6 Northern Trunk

PAGE | 33
 Unpaved Road Network Condition - TMD
2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014
No Road
Province Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Po Goo Fai Poo
. Class
d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r or d r r
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Main 36 44 20 57 18 25 1 3 96 7 16 77 10 29 61 2 29 69 8 17 75
District 17 30 53 40 12 48 1 5 94 12 10 78 28 36 35 17 45 38 10 39 52
N/
7 Trunk 14 26 60 0 1 99 0 0 100 16 13 71 36 9 55 36 9 55
Western
Main 95 55 0 92 7 1 0 2 98 6 12 82 7 93 0
District 22 25 53 47 14 39 0 0 100 7 9 84 39 39 23 30 24 46 27 22 51
8 Southern Trunk
Main 5 28 67 2 90 8 0 6 94 0 4 96 100 0 0
District 17 28 55 23 32 45 6 13 81 5 9 86 27 23 51 28 32 40 27 32 41
9 Western2 Trunk
Main 0 4 96 21 12 67 1 1 98 0 6 94 2 37 60 2 37 60
District 22 21 56 64 6 30 44 6 50 7 9 84 47 10 44 21 27 52 17 22 61
10 Muchinga Trunk
Main 0 34 66
District 23 38 39

PAGE | 34