final survey reporthimachalservices.nic.in/hpridc/midline survey report_russ(tns).pdfsurvey reveals...

FINAL SURVEY REPORT

Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012

1

Contents Executive Summary

Chapter No. Titles Page No.

1 Introduction 10 – 11 1.1 Background 1.2 Road Network in Himachal Pradesh 1.3 Objectives

2 Research Design 12 – 27 2.1 Quantitative Survey 2.2 Qualitative Survey

3 Road Condition & Perceived Impact 28 – 29 3.1 Road Condition and Travel Time 3.2 Perceived Impact on Time and Fuel Economy

4 Comfort & Convenience 30 – 35 4.1 Congestion on Roads 4.2 Information on Road Works 4.3 Quality of Roads and Bridges 4.4 Connectivity and Accessibility 4.5 Irritants – negative attributes 4.6 Extent of Delays and Reasons

5 Safety Aspects 36 – 44 5.1 Is commuting on Himachal roads safe enough? 5.2 What are the key reasons cited for feeling unsafe? 5.3 Safety Designs

5.4 Warning & Road signs 5.5 Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling vehicles

5.6 Accident Management 5.7 Opinion on Theft / Robbery on Himachal roads

6 Travel Amenities & Visual Appeal 45 – 47 6.1 Availability of Amenities 6.2 Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities

7 Perception about HPPWD 48 – 51 7.1 Awareness about HPPWD 7.2 Sources of Awareness 7.3 Perception about HPPWD

7.4 Complaint Redressal System & Maintenance Response Time


2

Chapter No. Titles Page No.

8 Gender Aspects 52 – 55 8.1 Whether Feel Safe on Roads? 8.2 Frequency of Travel on Roads 8.3 Usage of Road Network

9 Road User Satisfaction Index 56 – 63 9.1 Development of RUSI 9.2 Index Generation using the Baseline Approach

9.3 Index Generation using the Stated Importance and Perceived Satisfaction Levels

9.4 Logistic Regression to derive the Key Drivers of Satisfaction

9.5 Overall Road Users Satisfaction using Same Construct as in Baseline

10 Conclusion & Recommendations 64 – 67

Annexure Annex 1 Respondent Profile 69 – 74 Annex 2 Sample Coverage 75 – 76

Annex 3 Research Instruments 77 – 96 Annex 4 Awareness Raising Material 97 – 99


3

List of Tables

Table No. Titles Page No.

3.1 Overall condition of road – all users 28 3.2 Travel Time – all users 29 3.3 Fuel Consumption – main users 29 4.1 Congestion / Traffic Jam on Intersections – main users 30 4.2 Adequacy of Road Width as per Traffic Volume – all users 30 4.3 Seen Construction Materials from Roadwork Activities – all users 31 4.4 Sign Explaining a Work-in-Progress – all users 31 4.5 Quality of the Road Surface / Smoothness / Appearance – all

users 32

4.6 Quality of the Road Metalling / Layering – main users 32 4.7 Maintenance of Bridges – all users 33 4.8 Connectivity among Settlements – all users 33 4.9 Accessibility among Settlements – all users 34

4.10 Irritants – main users 34 4.11 Journey Delay – all users 35 4.12 Reasons for Delay – all users 35 5.1 Feeling Safe while Commuting on Himachal roads – all users 36 5.2 Reasons for feeling unsafe – all users 36 5.3 Satisfaction with the Safety Features such as railings, bends,

parapets/ guardrails – main users 39

5.4 Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – main users

40

5.5 Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – vulnerable users

40

5.6 Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and night – main users

41

5.7 Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and night – vulnerable users

41

5.8 Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling Vehicles – main users

42

5.9 Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling Vehicles – vulnerable users

42

5.10 Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling – main users

43

5.11 Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling – vulnerable users

43

5.12 Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean 44


4

Table No. Titles Page No. up – vulnerable users

5.13 Proportion ever experienced theft robbery on the roads of

Himachal Pradesh – vulnerable users 44

6.1 Availability and Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities – all users 45 6.2 Availability of Petrol Pumps – main users 47 6.3 Satisfaction with Road side plantations – all users 47 7.1 Awareness of HPPWD – all users 48 7.2 Source of Awareness regarding HPPWD – all users 49 7.3 Opinion on how successful has HPPWD been in providing Quality

Roads in HP – all users 49

7.4 Opinion on HPPWD success in carrying out Road Works speedily & efficiently – all Users

50

7.5 Proportion Ever Complained HPPWD regarding any Problem – all users

50

7.6 Satisfaction with the Complaint Redressal System– all users 51 7.7 Satisfaction with the Maintenance Response Time – all users 51 8.1 Has it become safer to travel on Himachal Road? 52 8.2 How often do you leave the house and travel on roads? 52 8.3 Do you undertake the following activities using the road

network? 53

8.4 Do you usually walk or use a vehicle or both? 53 8.5 Has frequency of this activity increased over last 2 / 3 years? 54 8.6 If increased, is it due to greater connectivity? 55 9.1 District wise Satisfaction Scores 59 9.2 Satisfaction Scores – Type of Roads 60 9.3 Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores 60 9.4 Satisfaction Scores – Vehicle wise 61 9.5 Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores 63


5

Executive Summary

Research Findings

Road Condition & Perceived Impact

Nearly 34 percent of the road users believed that the overall road condition in Himachal Pradesh has improved over last few years. This phenomenon was more prevalent for national highways. There has been an increase in the perceived impact on time and fuel economy from 3 percent (baseline) to around 10 percent (midline) respectively.

Comfort & Convenience

On the issue of congestion of road, around 15 percent road users were quite satisfied and 54 percent were somewhat satisfied. Similarly, around 19 percent main uses and 16 percent vulnerable users were satisfied with adequacy of road. As far as quality of road is concerned slightly more than one fifth of the main users have reported that they were satisfied with the same. The comparison between baseline and midline data show a major change in the perception related to congestion on road, adequacy of width, quality of road surface.

Overall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among settlements in the state has improved which was more in case of rural areas.

The congestion on the roads / high volume traffic, behaviour of other drivers, air/noise pollution has been rated as major irritants across the districts and road categories. There is no change in the situation from baseline to midline. Infact it has further increased.

Nearly half of the road users faced traffic delays of around half an hour while performing their journeys. The major reason which caused journey delay is traffic volume (69%), followed by accidents (22%), etc.

Safety Aspects Current survey reveals that only around 11.5 percent feel safe moving on Himachal roads. This feeling of safety on Himachal roads has declined from 35 percent of the baseline survey 2007. The major reasons for unsafe feeling included “high speed of traffic” (79%) and “sharp-turns” (33%). This feeling was stronger for urban roads than rural roads.

Around 63 percent road users were satisfied with safety features such as railings, bends, parapets / guardrails and 69 percent were satisfied with quality of road markings. The satisfaction pertaining to safety features such as railing, bends parapets, etc. was naturally on a higher side for urban roads in comparison to rural roads.

Satisfaction with the warning & road sings was comparatively lesser than satisfaction with other safety features and road marking. Nearly 64 percent of main road users and 63 percent of vulnerable road users were satisfied with the warning & roads signs placed on the roads helping drivers for safe & comfortable driving.

Survey reveals that 91 percent main road users while 92 percent of vulnerable road users expressed their satisfaction with the availability and accessibility of police posts or police patrolling vehicles on Himachal roads. Satisfaction was almost same for both rural and urban roads in both the cases of main and vulnerable users. There was significant


6

Research Findings

improvement on this aspect from the baseline. Amenities A more than half of the respondents have confirmed the availability of

amenities such as public toilets, bathrooms, restaurants, drinking water, medical facilities, rain shelter-cum-bus stop, etc. The most lacked amenities were parking facilities and tow services.

Parking is a major problem on national / state highways which pass through cities / towns. Tow service is essential especially in case of accidents or break down of vehicle particularly during rainy / winter season which cause traffic jams.

Perception about HPPWD

Almost all respondents interviewed mentioned the name of HPPWD when they were asked to mention the government department responsible for developing and maintaining the roads, indicating high awareness about HPPWD.

Electronic media emerged out to be the most effective sources of creating awareness about HPPWD. Mentioned by around half of the interviewed respondents, TV/radio/internet emerged as the main source of awareness, followed by Print media (45.7%).

Among the outdoor media, most important source was signboard near the construction work sites (29.9%) which are observed by the respondents moving the road or whenever they got stuck in traffic-jams due to any road construction work being undertaken by HPPWD. Road signs and hoardings were other outdoor media that were mentioned by 26.3 percent and 12.3 percent of the interviewed respondents, respectively as sources of awareness on HPPWD. Then trend observed above is, more or less, similar to the one observed in the baseline survey.

Perception about HPPWD was quantitatively measured using two indicators – (a) opinion on how successful has HPPWD been in providing quality roads and (b) opinion on how successful has HPPWD been in carrying out road works speedily and efficiently. Two separate questions were administered to capture the degree of the perceptions on 5-point scale.

Overall, majority of the respondents held positive image about HPPWD’s performance (83.4%). Of this, 11.1 percent said that HPPWD has been very successful in providing quality roads. The proportion saying so was higher among the rural road-users vis-à-vis urban road users.

Similarly, majority road users (83.1%) perceive that HPPWD has been successful in carrying out the road works speedily & efficiently. However, the proportion of such respondents was higher for urban roads as compared to rural roads.

When asked whether they have ever complained HPPWD regarding any problem, a very meager 2.2 percent responded in affirmation which is an improvement over the baseline where one out of eight had, reportedly, made any such complain. This is further confirmed by looking at the response on satisfaction with the complaint redressal system as three-fourth of those who made any complain, were found to be satisfied with


7

Research Findings

the complain redressal system.

Although little lower than the above two aspects, yet majority (73.1%) were satisfied with the maintenance response time probably because of the reasons cited above. However, there were 14.1 percent road users who were neutral on this aspect and around 12.9 percent who expressed dissatisfaction indicating scope for further improvements.

RUSI score – district-wise

Among the districts covered under the survey, Sirmaur has achieved the highest satisfaction score (3.9) while Hamirpur scored the least (2.9). No significant variations in satisfaction scores was observed across the districts which is also evident from a ‘0.13’ coefficient of variation (or 11%). Sirmaur is followed by the districts of Solan, Chamba, Una, Kullu and Shimla. Apart from Kangra and Hamirpur, the other districts had average satisfaction scores of at least 3.5 on a scale of 5. This suggests that the users of Himachal roads are much more satisfied today as compared to the time of the baseline. Highest increase in satisfaction scores was observed among Kullu district road users followed by the users from Sirmaur. This triggers a hint of raise for Tourism industry which is a welcome change. The following table gives the comparative picture of district wise average (mean) satisfaction scores.

Recommendations Drivers for

satisfaction

Roadside markings, roadside amenities and the basic quality of construction are the three key elements that control satisfaction levels among main users. Driving safety is a key consideration among main users and the perception that a road is safe to drive on drives their satisfaction experience. Markings, amenities and quality of construction are all central to this perception and hence, must remain a central feature of HPPWDs agenda.

In general, vulnerable users were happy with their road usage experience. The key determinants of satisfaction were road signs (always an extremely important feature for a pedestrian), roadside amenities and road construction quality (similar to that of the main users). Because these features are similar to those determining satisfaction scores among main users as well, the job of HPPWD is relatively simpler and focused.

Those travelling by a public bus also had a relatively lower satisfaction levels which is probably affected by the condition of bus as basic features of the state’s roads are common for all respondents and there has been an overall significant improvement as is obvious by the scores.

Districts of Hamirpur, Kangra and Bilaspur still lag behind (relatively) in terms of satisfaction levels and reasons for the same (as mentioned in the report) will need to be recognised and addressed.

Road

condition

and Traffic

HPPWD shall also understand the aspirations of educated users and users who are in formal sector employment so as to work out a detailed plan which could address their problems. These people are mainly based in urban areas and the intra-city traffic situation in the state continues to be


8

Recommendations delays bad owing to extreme congestion.

The stakeholders opined that HPPWD makes good roads but they forget to repair when they are dug for some pipeline work or when the roads are broken during rainy seasons. The maintenance, upkeep and care are missing.

Provision of

amenities on

PPP basis

The perception about roadside amenities shows a declining trend. Though providing amenities is not a core mandate of PWD but the department can join hands with other concerned departments to develop amenities on Public Private Partnership (PPP) model which will not only facilitate road users / tourists but also help these departments to earn additional revenues.

There is an urgent need to not only increase the availability of medical facilities across the road categories but also to improve the quality of services provided by them. It is a crucial amenity as the road accidents are increasing in the state and timely and quality medical aid to the accident victim is of utmost importance. Trauma care facilities can be explored on PPP basis on the various road categories in conjunction with available health infrastructure on these roads. Usually the CHCs and PHCs are not geared up to treat accident victims therefore a state level assessment of existing health care infrastructure of the roads should be undertaken on various trauma levels (I to IV) which can be established on a Hub and Spoke model approach.

Provision of Ambulance services on all major roads and at important intersections and accident prone areas. If the roads are managed by private player then ambulance service provision should be made part of the contract agreement.

Parking is a major problem on national / state highways which pass through cities / towns which can also be developed on a similar approach.

The road side plantations have to be improved further as road construction and widening causes destruction of natural forests. The proper environmental impact assessments (EIAs) will help the concerned departments about the need and extent of the road side plantations to be done on the roads where development works are in progress.

Repair and

Maintenance

Inventory of stretches prone to repair work: The PWD in their respective districts identify and prepare a list of road sections/ stretches which need repair work year on year or season after season or locational factors such as mud slide, tree felling, torrents, land slide. Such sections/ stretches have to be monitored regularly and repair and maintenance activity has to be planned in advance.

Negative

attributes or

irritants

HPPWD need to have a dedicated communication campaign through mid-media and outdoor media to educate local drivers / tourists (who come on their own vehicle) about safe driving as behaviour of drivers emerged as one of the major irritants that causing road accidents. The secondary literate corroborates this fact out of total road accidents cases, 89 percent are due to drivers’ fault.

Create awareness among the rural folks, nomadic herders on road safety


9

Recommendations measures. Sensitizing them especially livestock owners that not to allow their livestock to roam freely on roads and take proper measures that they shouldn’t disrupt the traffic. Concerned department should earmarked the points/sections on the road for animal crossings and aware them about the usage of such points through signage’s etc.

Road safety Around 88 percent people of Himachal Pradesh do not feel safe while they are on roads. The reason is indiscipline driving and overtaking. The self-drive tourism concept is getting popular and tourists flow is also increasing leading to further increase in vehicular traffic in the state. There are large number of accidents particularly on highways and city roads where deaths happen because safety devices like seat belt or helmet are not used by the road users. Not safety norm / standards but enforcement of traffic rules and lack of diligence vigilance are main reasons which cause road accidents.

There are certain stretches on the roads on different categories of roads where accidents happen because of faulty road engineering. The data base of such stretches has to be developed by the department and probe the causes of accidents. The rectification of the causes has to be taken up on priority basis in consultation with other concerned departments such as Transport Department, Traffic Police, local police, etc. In the interim period media campaigns, speed reducing measures, signage’s displaying accident prone area, distribution of pamphlets and advertisement in newspaper about these stretches, etc. has to be made to sensitize the road users to avert any further accidents.

Revision of

fine

structures

The fine structures in the state have to be revised as it can be deterrent for traffic rule violators. “In the National Capital of Delhi during the Commonwealth Games when there was Rs. 2,000 fine for lane violation, the traffic ran very smoothly. People were very careful in following lane discipline and it had overall impact on improving the traffic management scene and accidents came down drastically” (Report of the Working group on Road Safety pertaining to Enforcement).

Road as

catalyst for

rural

development

Overall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among settlements in the state has improved which was more in case of rural areas. The stakeholders and local citizen opined that the connectivity of villages with main road has opened up their areas. They can transport rural produce to the market directly and now not much dependent upon a middleman which has helped them in getting correct prices for their produce and enhanced income. It has a positive impact on their overall socio-economic condition. The credit may be given to PMGSY programme. This intervention has provided connectivity and brought rural areas in the main stream of development. Hence, it is recommended to scale up the current PMGSY programme to saturate the coverage.


10

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Road is the dominant mode of transport in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The total length

of the network in the state is about 32,926 km, of which almost all are managed by the HP

Public Works Department (PWD). About 50% of the total network surface treated. Other

roads are owned and managed by Zilla Panchayat, Forest Department, and Urban Local

bodies.

The road sector suffers from a number of problems. These include:

– Insufficient investment in the primary network given the rapidly growing demand for road transport

– Inadequate and sub-optimal allocation of resources for road maintenance

– Absence of private sector participation in development of the sector

– Inadequate attention to road operation, especially road safety; and

– Institutional constraints of the key road agency, the Public Works Department (PWD)

While a number of road agencies, internationally, are now placing more emphasis on

meeting road users’ expectations and accordingly trying to measure customer satisfaction,

the Government of Himachal Pradesh (GoHP) wishes to pursue a similar approach.

In this context, the Himachal Pradesh Road and Other Infrastructure Development

Corporation Ltd (HPRIDC) has taken a new initiatives to understand and measure road

users’ satisfaction to enhance the services delivery, thereby, giving senior management in

the highways department an insight into the issues and concerns, raised by road users, to

influence future strategic and operational decisions.

1.2 Road Network in Himachal Pradesh

The State has 11 National Highways with a total length of 1,470.606 Km as of March 2011.

The State has 19 State Highways and 48 Major District Roads with a total length of 1,625.70

Km and 1,969.370 Km, respectively. Roads have been assigned a high priority by the

Government of Himachal Pradesh. In 2010-11, the government outlay for road development

and related activities was US$ 110 million.


11

Figure 1.1: Roads Network

Source: mapsofindia.com

1.3 Objectives The specific objectives of the survey would be to:

– Elicit views on public perceptions of current sector outcomes, PWD performance and government policies

– To identify various parameters influencing road users satisfaction

– To develop a Road Users Satisfaction Index (RUSI) comprising of various factors that affect road user satisfaction, with due weightage to each of these factors

– To present the road user satisfaction across different user categories and road categories on satisfaction indicators

– Document the views in a comprehensible format suitable for comparison over time

– To provide recommendations for future course of action based on the survey result

– Present the findings of the survey to senior decision makers in GOHP and the general public


12

2. Research Design

Considering the objectives as outlined above, it was proposed to adopt both quantitative

and qualitative research design. The quantitative technique used a structured questionnaire

with mostly pre-coded options to generate numeric data for all statistical measurements.

However, qualitative protocols using In-depth interview guides provided information and

valuable insights for better programmatic solutions

A Two-Pronged Strategy

2.1 Quantitative Survey

Overall sampling framework

The sampling was based on two key elements, viz.

1. Sample needs to be reflective of the nature of road networks available in the state; and 2. Sample needs to be true for both main users and vulnerable users and within main

users, by broad typologies Given this for a fact, what needs to be fixed was the number of categories of roads, users

and traffic modes that need to be reported on as part of the final deliverables. In addition,

what needs to be determined was the number of districts to be covered out of the total 12

districts in the state.


13

Sampling elements

A. Road networks

The state has a total available road network of 33171 km1 including National Highways. In

terms of different typologies, the major share is contributed by rural roads (over 75%,

including both non B/T and B/T rural roads), followed by major district roads (MRD), state

highways (SH) and national highways (NH).

Eight national highways (NH) pass through the state with a total length of 1235 km2. These

include NH1, NH 20, NH 22, NH 21, NH 70, NH 21A, NH 88 and NH 72.

In addition to the above, there are also 19 state highways with a total length of 1625 km and

45 major district roads with total length of 1753.05 km3. The state also has 713 km of border

roads maintained and used by the Indian army but these are located only in 4 districts and

are usually inaccessible from November to April-May. For this assignment, therefore, we

have drawn the sample in such a manner so as to provide district level estimates by

different road categories, viz.

1. NH 2. SH 3. MDR 4. Rural B/T 5. Rural Non B/T B. Users’ profile As mentioned earlier, respondents for the quantitative survey can be broadly split into two

categories, main users and vulnerable users. Since this was a follow up survey of the one

conducted in 2007, we intend to retain the same profile of respondents in order to ensure

comparability. Therefore, the respondent categories for the quantitative survey were as follows:

Main users 1. Trailer/truck/tanker drivers/owners/staff 2. Bus/taxi/auto drivers/owners/staff 3. Private car/SUV/MUV drivers/owners 4. Bus/taxi/auto passengers 5. Scooter/motorcycle riders 6. Tractor, agricultural vehicle drivers/owners 7. Tempo/matador/LCV drivers/owners/staff

1 Statistical outline of Himachal Pradesh, 2009-10

2 Road Users Satisfaction Survey in Himachal Pradesh, HPRIDC, Shimla, 2007

3 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


14

Vulnerable users 1. Households/shopkeepers living adjacent to the NH, SH, MDR, Rural Roads B/T 2. Pedestrians and porters travelling along the above roads as well as those on rural roads

non B/T 3. Cyclists/rickshaw pullers using the above roads C. Selection of districts As mentioned earlier, the state of Himachal Pradesh has a total of 12 districts. As per the sampling design adopted in the 2007 survey, the districts of Lahul & Spiti and Kinnaur were not part of the survey universe. The four principal reasons why this decision needs to be adhered to even for this round of the survey are as follows: In terms of total road length as per data used in the 2007 survey report, these two districts were the bottom two, accounting for a mere 3% and 1.7% respectively. Moreover, Lahul & Spiti does not have any national highways or major district roads while Kinnaur does not have any state highways. In terms of share of the total population of the state, Lahul & Spiti accounts for only 0.5%4 while Kinnaur accounts for 1.4%. In terms of population density, these are also way below the state average of 109 persons per sq km, registering a mere 2.4 and 13.1 respectively. In peak winter, these also dip further because of seasonal outmigration. The districts remain inaccessible for the period of November to April, which will make it very difficult to conduct in fieldwork there during this period. Therefore, the districts chosen for conducting this round of the Road Users Satisfaction Survey are as follows:

District NH SH BR MDR Total road

length Number of

towns Number of

villages

Kangra 4843.0 9 3868

Shimla 3994.4 10 2895

Mandi 3945.0 5 3338

Sirmaur 2355.0 3 968

Solan 2261.0 8 2536

Chamba 1688.0 5 1118

Hamirpur 1592.0 4 1694

Una 1494.0 5 866

Bilaspur 1343.0 4 1080

Kullu 1139.0 4 172

4 Census of India estimates, 2001


15

Sampling procedure Allocation of samples is a function of the following parameters, viz. 1. Extent of disaggregation of data required while reporting for the state 2. Occurrence of parameter to be measured 3. Level of accuracy desired from the estimation Determination of base sample per reporting level:

At the state level, the indicator that we are looking to measure is proportion of respondents

who were overall satisfied with the improvement in road conditions. Because road

conditions cover a multitude of attributes, a single index for satisfaction cannot be

developed and expressed in percentage terms (as against the RUSI) and hence, if we take

occurrence levels to be 50% (to ensure maximum sample size), and assume a design effect

of 1.75, the minimum required sample size for each reporting level can be worked out using

the standard formula as follows:

t2 p (1-p) f

n = d2

Where

n = required sample size t2 = factor to achieve 95% level of confidence (square of the Z value) p = prevalence of the indicator being measured (50%) d = margin of error to be tolerated (5%) f = design effect (1.75)

Considering all the above, the minimum required sample size for each reporting level

worked out to be as follows:

Sample size = (1.96)2 x 0.5 (1 - 0.5) x 1.75

(0.05)2

= Approximately 672

Determination of reporting levels

The number of reporting levels for the state depends on the level of disaggregated analysis.

This again is a function of the modal split we are likely to come across when the actual

fieldwork is in progress across the different districts and alongside the different road

typologies.


16

Since RUSI scores will have to be reported per district, at a basic level, the number of

reporting units worked out to be as follows:

10 districts x 672 respondents = 6720

However, as per the previous survey, all other indicators were reported at the state level

but disaggregated for different typology of roads. Taking this into consideration, the

required sample size becomes

5 road typologies x 672 respondents = 3360

However, it is important to also provide disaggregated analysis on different indicators by the

respondent categories. Since respondents are going to be asked to comment on the state of

roads by individual road typologies where they are travelling / or mostly use, the sample

required for this level of analysis worked out to be:

5 road typologies x 2 broad respondent segment x 672 respondents = 6720

Therefore, at an overall level, the minimum sample size required to provide HPRIDC with the

estimates at par with the previous survey is 6720 respondents.

We also believe that there are some categories of respondents/users who have been

identified by the client whose numbers had to be bolstered to get adequate representation.

This is simply because we anticipated an under-sampling of these categories if we simply

adopt the methodology used in the previous survey, viz. capturing then at halting points

along sample road segments. These specific categories are:

Porters

Rickshaw pullers

Household/shopkeepers

In intend to thus undertake a booster sample of 480 respondents spread across some of the larger towns in the state (all to be district HQs) over an above the numbers of towns which were covered through the road segment sampling process.

With the booster sample, the overall sample for the study worked out to be 7200 face-to-

face interviews.


17

Recruitment of respondents

For the present survey, we adopted different recruitment criteria for different categories of

respondents.

For NH. SH and MDR Rural B/T and non B/T roads Booster sample

A major part of the

interviews took place along

halting points like dhabas,

filling stations, stands/stops,

toll booths/check posts, etc.

All rural roads selected after

random selection of villages.

Villages were selected to

have representation from

both varieties of RR.

The additional sample was

drawn from locations along

the main roads cutting

across the selected towns

(district HQs) as part of the

booster sample.

Based on the above design, it was expected to get primarily the following distribution (mode

of transport vs. recruitment point):

Main users Primary source of

recruitment Other sources of

recruitment

Trailer/truck/tanker drivers/owners/staff

Along halting points like dhabas, diesel filling stations, stands/stops, check posts in NH, SH and MDR segments

Bus/taxi/auto drivers/owners/staff

Private car/SUV/MUV drivers/owners

Bus/taxi/auto passengers

Scooter/motorcycle riders

Tractor, agricultural vehicle drivers/owners

Along RR (B/T and non B/T) adjacent to identified sample villages

Tempo/matador/LCV drivers/owners/staff

Along RR (B/T and non B/T) adjacent to identified sample villages

Vulnerable users

Households/shopkeepers living adjacent to the roads


Booster sample in key district HQ towns


18

Main users Primary source of

recruitment Other sources of

recruitment

Pedestrians and porters Booster sample in key district HQ towns

Along halting points like dhabas, diesel filling stations, stands/stops, check posts in NH, SH and MDR segments Along RR (B/T and non B/T) adjacent to identified sample villages

Cyclists/rickshaw pullers Booster sample in key district HQ towns


Distribution of sample among districts

The base sample of 6720 respondents was be distributed across districts on a pro rata basis,

using road length as determinant for distribution. The details are as follows:

District Total road length % distribution Sample distribution

Kangra 4843.0 19.6 1320

Mandi 3945.0 16.0 1075

Shimla 3994.4 16.2 1089

Sirmaur 2355.0 9.6 642

Solan 2261.0 9.2 616

Una 1494.0 6.1 407

Chamba 1688.0 6.8 460

Hamirpur 1592.0 6.5 434

Kullu 1139.0 4.6 310

Bilaspur 1343.0 5.4 366

Total 24654.4 100.0 6720


19

Distribution of sample among road categories within a district

The below given table present the percentage share of the NH / SH / MDR / RR B/T / RR Non B/T for each selected district. It illustrate that at the state level the percentage share of national highways, state highways and major district roads are only 5 percent, 8 percent and 9 percent respectively. The district-wise percentage share also depicts a similar picture.

District Road length in Kms.

Total % share within district

Total NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T

Kangra 201.4 327.5 206.6 2780.5 1327 4843 4.2 6.8 4.3 57.4 27.4 100.0

Mandi 270.3 233 398.3 1052.4 1991 3945 6.9 5.9 10.1 26.7 50.5 100.0

Shimla 218.5 302.3 496.8 694.9 2282 3994.5 5.5 7.6 12.4 17.4 57.1 100.0

Sirmaur 57 218.4 358.3 426.3 1295 2355 2.4 9.3 15.2 18.1 55.0 100.0

Solan 153.5 210 201.2 569.3 1127 2261 6.8 9.3 8.9 25.2 49.8 100.0

Una 32.4 125.3 89.9 988.4 258 1494 2.2 8.4 6.0 66.2 17.3 100.0

Chamba 0 413.6 66 541.4 667 1688 0.0 24.5 3.9 32.1 39.5 100.0

Hamirpur 82.3 73.3 83.3 990.2 363 1592.1 5.2 4.6 5.2 62.2 22.8 100.0

Kullu 55 96 216.1 235.9 536 1139 4.8 8.4 19.0 20.7 47.1 100.0

Bilaspur 136.2 13 88.9 687 418 1343.1 10.1 1.0 6.6 51.2 31.1 100.0

Total 1206.5 2012.3 2205.3 8966.2 10264 24654.3 4.9 8.2 8.9 36.4 41.6 100.0

As per the estimates, the national highway alone caters more than 40 percent of the total road traffic in the state of Himachal Pradesh, followed by state highway/major district roads which together cater another 40 percent. Hence, more weightage was given to the highways and major roads than rural roads.


20

The below given distribution have used the weightage suggested by the technical committee which was also used during baseline survey.

District Sample weightage used during baseline survey (% age) Sample distribution Total base

sample NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T

Kangra 15 25 25 25 10 198 330 330 330 132 1320

Mandi 15 25 25 25 10 161 269 269 269 108 1075

Shimla 15 25 25 25 10 163 272 272 272 109 1089

Sirmaur 15 25 25 25 10 96 160 160 160 64 642

Solan 15 25 25 25 10 92 154 154 154 62 616

Una 15 25 25 25 10 61 102 102 102 41 407

Chamba 15 25 25 25 10 69 115 115 115 46 460

Hamirpur 15 25 25 25 10 65 108 108 108 43 434

Kullu 15 25 25 25 10 47 78 78 78 31 310

Bilaspur 15 25 25 25 10 55 92 92 92 37 366

Total 15 25 25 25 10 1008 1680 1680 1680 672 6720

But this distribution needed some adjustments for the following reasons:

1. There is no national highway in the district of Chamba so the sample has to be inflated for national highway among other districts.

2. The sample has to be rounded off in the multiple of 20 and 10 for highways/major roads and rural roads respectively as it was

envisaged to interview 20 respondents in the halt points and 10 in the villages.


21

Considering the above mentioned points, the distribution of final base sample is:

District % distribution Sample Distribution Total Base

Sample NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T

Kangra 15.2 24.2 24.2 23.5 9.8 200 320 320 310 130 1280

Mandi 16.7 24.2 24.2 24.2 9.3 180 260 260 260 100 1060

Shimla 16.5 23.9 23.9 23.9 10.1 180 260 260 260 110 1070

Sirmaur 15.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.9 100 160 160 160 70 650

Solan 16.2 26.0 26.0 26.0 9.7 100 160 160 160 60 640

Una 14.7 24.6 24.6 24.6 9.8 60 100 100 100 40 400

Chamba 0.0 26.1 26.1 26.1 10.9 0 120 120 120 50 410

Hamirpur 18.4 27.7 27.7 27.7 9.2 80 120 120 120 40 480

Kullu 19.3 25.8 25.8 25.8 9.7 60 80 80 80 30 330

Bilaspur 16.4 27.3 27.3 27.3 10.9 60 100 100 100 40 400

Total 14.9 25.5 25.5 25.4 10.0 1020 1680 1680 1670 670 6720


22

The booster sample across selected towns was redistributed on a pro rata basis of the urban population of each district, as follows:

District Total urban population Share of urban population Distribution of booster

sample Adjusted booster sample

distribution Target town

Kangra 72174 12.13% 58 60 Dharamshala

Mandi 60958 10.25% 49 50 Mandi

Sundarnagar

Shimla 166833 28.04% 135 130 Shimla

Sirmaur 47586 8.00% 38 40 Nahan

Paonta Sahib

Solan 91175 15.33% 74 70 Solan Baddi

Una 39422 6.63% 32 30 Una

Chamba 34518 5.80% 28 30 Chamba

Hamirpur 30173 5.07% 24 30 Hamirpur

Kullu 30093 5.06% 24 20 Kullu

Bilaspur 21949 3.69% 18 20 Bilaspur

594881 100.00% 480 480


23

Therefore, the total sample distribution for this round of the survey worked out to be as follows:

Final sample distribution

District Base sample Booster sample Total sample

Kangra 1280 60 1340

Mandi 1060 50 1110

Shimla 1070 130 1200

Sirmaur 650 40 690

Solan 640 70 710

Una 400 30 430

Chamba 410 30 440

Hamirpur 480 30 510

Kullu 330 20 350

Bilaspur 400 20 420

Total 6720 480 7200

24

Distribution of sample areas among districts

The distribution of the sample areas across districts done at three levels, viz.

1. For national highways, state highways and Major district roads, the samples was redistributed across segments or stretches of road which were to be sampled from the total stretch of each road type within a district.

2. For rural roads, the sample was distributed against identified villages which in turn were so chosen to ensure representation of both categories of rural roads. The village selection done from two different lists, one for those having access to B/T roads and one with no access.

3. For the booster sample, the identified sample was distributed across the identified towns on a pro rata basis of their populations.

Selection of road segments for NH, SH and MDR

We intended to cover a total of 20 interviews per road segment. This implies that the

number of road segments to be covered for achieving the NH, SH and MDR sample worked

out to be as follows:

District Segments

NH SH MDR Total

Kangra 10 16 16 42

Mandi 9 13 13 35

Shimla 9 13 13 35

Sirmaur 5 8 8 21

Solan 5 8 8 21

Una 3 5 5 13

Chamba 0 6 6 12

Hamirpur 4 6 6 16

Kullu 3 4 4 11

Bilaspur 3 5 5 13

Total 51 84 84 219

Therefore, a total of 219 road segments were covered across the total length of NH, SH and

MDR in the state.

The average length of each segment considered as 5 km. For the selection of the segments

within any given district, the total road length contributed by each segment was divided by

5 to get the total number of segments.

Thereafter, random numbers was generated using random number tables to select the

requisite number of segments.


25

For example, in the district of Kangra, there is a total of 201.4 km of National Highways. This

means there are a total of 201.4 ÷ 5 = 40 segments. These 40 were sequentially numbered

and the quota of 6 segments was chosen so using random number tables.

However, it may be noted that the selection process undertook several iterations because

We did not want to land up with segments too close to each other; and

We wanted to include segments that have halting points

Selection of villages for covering rural roads

We covered 10 interviews from each sample village. At the onset, the villages in a district

were segregated in terms of approach road (B/T and non B/T) and the sample was selected

exclusively from both separate lists.

District Villages

RR B/T RR Non B/T Total

Kangra 31 13 44

Mandi 26 10 36

Shimla 26 11 37

Sirmaur 16 7 23

Solan 16 6 22

Una 10 4 14

Chamba 12 5 17

Hamirpur 12 4 16

Kullu 8 3 11

Bilaspur 10 4 14

Total 167 67 234

Thus, a total of 234 villages were sampled to cover the RR sample across the 10 districts. It

may be noted that it was not a household interviews conducted within the village. Instead,

we identified two points along the index road but within 2-3 km radius of each sample

village and interviewed users crossing these points.


26

City specific distribution of booster sample

District Adjusted booster sample

distribution Target town

Kangra 60 Dharamshala

Mandi 30 &20 Mandi & Sundarnagar

Shimla 130 Shimla

Sirmaur 20 &20 Nahan & Paonta Sahib

Solan 70 Solan Baddi

Una 30 Una

Chamba 30 Chamba

Hamirpur 30 Hamirpur

Kullu 20 Kullu

Bilaspur 20 Bilaspur

2.2 Qualitative Survey

To get a more holistic view of the improvement (or otherwise) of road conditions in the

state of Himachal Pradesh, it has been decided to hold a series of in-depth interviews with

key user groups / stakeholders. Apart from information on their experiences on the given

road attributes, detailed opinion were elicited on more perceptual issues such as demand

supply gap, quality of execution, responsiveness of concerned government departments,

relevancy and utility of announced policies, impact on local economy and conducting of

business, especially manufacturing and tourist trade, etc.

The list of people/groups contacted for interview has been detailed below.

Sr. No. Target Group Definition

1 Truck and tanker operator unions/associations

To interview with office bearers

2 Inter-bus service operators Office bearers of state road transport corporation as well as private operators

3 Taxi and hired car operators Office bearers of Transport unions, travel agencies and commercial transporters who provide tourist vehicles

4 Agricultural commodity producers

Office bearers of registered mandi associations as well as agents

5 Chambers of commerce, industrial manufacturers and traders

Office bearers of HP chamber of commerce, other industry associations, traders associations, rotary and lions clubs

6 Freight forwarding/shipping agents

Office bearers

7 Insurance industry representatives

Office bearers of major insurance firms operating in the state.

8 Health service providers Office bearers such as medical superintendants and doctors operating in district hospitals and CHC in the state and private hospital and nursing homes

9 Emergency service providers Office bearers such as fire service officials of the state,


27

Sr. No. Target Group Definition

senior officers of the police department (traffic), beat constables doing traffic duty

10 Transport department Directorate of Transport, RTO, PWD, etc.

11 4 and 2 wheeler manufactures, repair workshop representatives

Repair workshop mechanics/owners servicing 4 and 2 wheelers

12 Corporate Houses Ambuja Cement Foundation, etc.

13 NGOs involved with social, environmental issues related to roads

Centre for Sustainable Development, People's Action for People in Need, Paryavaran Avam Gramin Vikas Sansthan, etc.

14 Journalists and media representatives

Bureau chiefs and editors/senior journalists of The Telegraph, The Times of India

15 Media agencies Hindustan Times’ The Tribune, The Statesman, The Asian Age, Divya Himachal’ Amar Ujala, Punjab Kesri

16 Hoteliers associations Large chain hotels government as well as private

17 Public representatives

The local MPs of the state (including environment, transport and public work, and health ministers), MLAs (current and ex) and representatives of public forums like RWAs


28

3. Road Conditions & Perceived

Impact

This chapter presents data on existing road condition and its impact on travel time and fuel

economy.

3.1 Road Condition and Travel Time

It is evident from Tables 3.1 that 34 percent of the road users believed that the overall road

condition in Himachal Pradesh has improved in last two/three years. The trend was

relatively higher for national highways but more or less consistent for other road categories.

The data suggest parity between urban and rural areas. This can also be corroborated with

the qualitative findings which show that in last few years a lot of work has been done in

rural areas specially developing village link roads.

Many stakeholders at the village level mentioned the pertinent role of Pradhan Mantri

Gram Sarak Yojana (PMGSY) in connecting their villages with the main road. The discussions

reveal that due to improvement in road condition and connectivity people can access higher

order education and health facilities. In emergency situation they can rescue the patients

which earlier used to die before reaching the hospital.

Table 3.1: Overall condition of road – all users

Main users Road Category (in %)

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total

Improved substantially 38.1 33.3 31.6 35.8 30.6 34.0

Remained same 59.0 64.7 64.5 61.0 64.2 62.8

Become worse 2.6 1.6 3.7 3.0 5.0 3.0

Can’t say 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3

Total (N) 612 1008 1007 1002 402 4031

Vulnerable Road Category (in %)


Improved substantially 19.4 13.5 14.5 15.9 20.5 15.8

Improved marginally 58.0 70.4 71.0 72.3 64.9 68.5

Remained same 21.6 14.0 11.9 10.9 11.6 13.7

Declined somewhat 1.0 2.1 2.4 0.4 2.6 1.7

Substantially declined

0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2

Total (N) 500 763 959 667 268 3157


29

The other stakeholders mentioned that though the road conditions have improved but

there are seasonal fluctuations. For example, during rainy or winter season the condition of

road relatively deteriorate and this problem further aggravates due to delay in repair works.

The comparative analysis show that in the baseline survey 4 percent road users reported the

road conditions have improved substantially and in the midline it has increased to 16/34

(main / vulnerable users) percent. However, those who said marginal improvement have

increased from 35 percent in baseline to 62/69 (main / vulnerable users) percent in the

midline survey.

3.2 Perceived Impact on Time and Fuel Economy

Further analysis show that 11 percent of the road users opined their travel time has

substantially reduced (Table 3.2). A similar trend has been observed in case of fuel

consumption as well. Statistically5, there is a high significant correlation between

improvement in road condition with travel time and fuel economy (99% level of confidence).

Table 3.2: Travel Time – all users

Road Category (in %)


Substantially reduced 11.3 9.1 11.2 12.0 16.4 11.4

Reduced marginally 55.6 65.6 66.3 71.1 65.2 65.5

Remained same 28.2 21.1 19.0 15.5 17.2 20.0

Increased somewhat 4.1 4.2 3.4 1.3 1.2 3.0

Increased substantially 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188

Table 3.3: Fuel Consumption – main users


NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT N

Substantially reduced 10.0 8.3 10.4 10.9 12.2 10.1

Reduced marginally 52.5 65.4 67.5 73.8 71.4 66.6

Remained same 30.2 20.6 17.9 13.7 14.9 19.1

Increased somewhat 5.9 5.4 3.8 1.5 1.5 3.7

Increased substantially 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4

Total (N) 612 1008 1007 1002 402 4031

There has been an increase in the perceived impact on time and fuel economy from 3

percent (baseline) to 10 and 11 percent (midline) respectively.

5 Pearson’s Correlation at 0.01 level of significance (which denotes 99% level of confidence).


30

4. Comfort & Convenience

The comfort and convenience is one of the important considerations among road users

while performing their journey. The better is the comfort and convenience the higher is the

satisfaction.

4.1 Congestion on Roads

The problem of congestion / traffic jam on intersections was asked from the main users.

Around 15 percent of them were quite satisfied and a good proportion of them were

somewhat satisfied (54%). Table 4.1 shows a disparity between urban and rural areas. The

reason may be attributed to that fact that most of the cities or towns have got nodal

characteristic which attract traffic volume. The problem further aggravates as these cities or

towns are also tourist centres. In order to deal with this situation the local authorities at

times divert traffic or restrict certain areas for one-way traffic flow as also confirmed by

bus/truck and taxi/auto associations.

Table 4.1: Congestion / Traffic Jam on Intersections – main users



Quite satisfied 14.5 14.4 13.3 15.5 16.9 14.7

Somewhat satisfied 56.5 59 54.9 48.4 50.2 54.1

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 13.9 15.4 17 21.5 19.7 17.5

Somewhat dissatisfied 13.9 11 14 13.5 11.7 12.9

Quite dissatisfied 1.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.9

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032

Similarly, on the issue of adequacy of road width around 19 percent main uses and 16

percent vulnerable users were satisfied. As expected, it was more in case of national

highways. It may be noted that it is a perceived adequacy of width.

Table 4.2: Adequacy of Road Width as per Traffic Volume – all users



Quite satisfied 24.2 16.1 17.8 17.9 20.6 18.6

Somewhat satisfied 41.8 44.9 42.8 41.2 37.3 42.2

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 11.4 9.9 12.1 11.7 11.9 11.3

Somewhat dissatisfied 20.6 28.9 24.3 25.7 27.6 25.6

Quite dissatisfied 2 0.2 3.1 3.5 2.5 2.2

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032


31



Very Good 20.3 18 13 15.1 18.7 16.3

Good 38.8 44.7 41.1 43.7 44 42.4

Neither Good Nor Bad 36.1 33.1 38.6 30.4 25 34

Bad 4 3.8 6.2 9.4 11.2 6.4

Very Bad 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0 0.3

Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168

On both aspects there is a significant change in the level of satisfaction. In baseline the

satisfaction (those who said highly satisfied) for congestions on road was 10 percent and for

adequacy of road width was 2 percent.

4.2 Information on Road Works

The analyze data depicts that 25 percent of the road users saw construction material from

roadwork activities most of the times. However, majority (67%) had seen such activities

sometimes. But this also indicate that in recent years series of road activities has taken place

in different parts of Himachal Pradesh particularly in rural areas.

` Table 4.3 Seen Construction Materials from Roadwork Activities – all users



All the time 4.4 5.7 5.0 3.9 7.6 5.1

Most of the time 18.6 22.0 24.4 29.8 29.6 24.6

Some times 68.7 69.5 68.9 64.6 62.5 67.4

Rarely/never 8.3 2.9 1.7 1.7 0.3 2.9

Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188

Encouragingly, those who saw construction work majority of them (79%) had seen sign

board explaining a work-in-progress which is a safety measure to minimize road accidents.

From baseline to midline there is a significant change in sign explaining work-in-progress.

Table 4.4: Sign Explaining a Work-in-Progress – all users



Yes 82.2 78.0 80.4 77.0 80.8 79.3

No 12.5 17.4 14.8 17.4 16.0 15.8

Don’t remember 5.4 4.6 4.8 5.6 3.1 4.9

Total (N) 1020 1720 1933 1641 668 6982


32

4.3 Quality of Roads and Bridges

As far as quality of road in terms of road surface, smoothness, appearance, etc., slightly

more than one fifth of the main users have reported that they were satisfied with the same.

Importantly, there is hardly much disparity between main users and vulnerable users. The

situation is slightly better in national / state highways, in comparison to, major district

roads. Rural bituminous roads have been rated high.

Table 4.5: Quality of the Road Surface / Smoothness / Appearance – all users



Quite satisfied 22.4 22.2 19.2 23.6 19.7 21.6

Somewhat satisfied 50 51.7 51.1 47.2 50 50

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 13.1 13.6 13.4 12.2 13.7 13.1


Quite dissatisfied 0.8 0.1 1.6 0 0 0.5

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032



Very Good 18.5 25.8 21 26.5 24.3 23.2

Good 40.2 38.2 37.2 27.5 31.7 35.4

Neither Good Nor Bad 38.6 34.8 36.1 43 40.7 38

Bad 1.8 1 5.1 2.7 3.4 2.9

Very Bad 0.8 0.1 0.5 0 0 0.3

Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168

The issue of road metalling and layering was explored among main users but it exhibits

more or less a similar trend.

Table 4.6: Quality of the Road Metalling / Layering – main users



Quite satisfied 20.6 18.5 24.2 23.7 20.6 21.7

Somewhat satisfied 55.2 56.8 47.6 52.2 51 52.6

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 12.7 13.8 12.4 12.9 13.7 13

Somewhat dissatisfied 10 10.5 14.8 10.9 14.4 12

Quite dissatisfied 1.5 0.4 1 0.4 0.2 0.7

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032

Consistently, around 8 percent of the main users and vulnerable users were quite satisfied

with the maintenance of bridges. It was relatively higher in case of rural roads.


33

Table 4.7: Maintenance of Bridges – all users



Quite satisfied 9.5 6 9.5 7.7 10.4 8.3

Somewhat satisfied 49.3 51.3 48.3 54 43.5 50.1

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 18.8 23.7 21.8 27.3 32.6 24.3


Quite dissatisfied 5.6 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.2 1.4

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032



Very Good 7.4 7.6 8.2 10.8 12.7 8.8

Good 42 48 41.1 42.4 39.9 43.1

Neither Good Nor Bad 34.9 34.4 40.9 33.2 30.6 35.9

Bad 5 3.8 4 8.7 8.6 5.5

Very Bad 2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0 0.5

Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168

The comparison between baseline and midline data show a major change in the perception

related to quality of road surface and metalling/layering. The change for maintenance of

bridges is positive but not very high.

4.4 Connectivity and Accessibility

Overall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among settlements in the

state has improved which was more in case of rural areas. According to village level

stakeholders and local citizen the connectivity of village with main road has opened up their

areas. The people can transport rural produce to the market and not dependent upon a

middleman that has helped them in getting correct prices for their produce which has

impacted their income and life style.

Table 4.8: Connectivity among Settlements – all users



Improved 62.8 67.1 71.2 79.8 81.9 71.9

Remained Same 35.6 31.6 26.2 19.5 16.4 26.5

Declined 1.6 1.3 2.5 0.7 1.6 1.6

Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188

Infact people opined that it has become easier to reach important destinations and district

head quarters to access various facilities particularly health and education which has

positive impact in the life of local citizen.


34

Table 4.9: Accessibility among Settlements – all users



Yes 85.6 89.1 93.4 90.7 91.8 90.4

No 14.4 10.9 6.6 9.3 8.2 9.6

Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188

4.5 Irritants – negative attributes

While driving one often come across various situations which cause irritation. This results to discomfort and dissatisfaction. During survey the attempt was made to find out such negative attributes. Table 4.9 shows the congestion on the roads/high volume traffic, behaviour of other drivers, air/noise pollution have been rated as major irritants which is universal. It does not vary from one district to another district and from one road category to another.

Table 4.10: Irritants – main users



Congestion on the roads/ High volume of traffic

92.3 98.3 96.7 97.1 94.8 96.4

Behavior of other drivers (Rash driving/ poor overtaking/ not indicating properly)

91.7 89.4 88.8 92 93.3 92.2

Air/ Noise pollution of vehicles 81.5 85.8 82 83.7 83.8 90.6

Beaming headlights of other vehicles

83.3 84.8 85.5 88.9 85.6 87.9

Animals crossing the road (cows, dogs, monkeys etc)

81 83.5 87.5 90.1 88.1 87.5

Pedestrians crossing road where not allowed

88.9 90.2 86.8 86.1 84.3 86.2

Bad roads (potholes, rutting, rough road etc)

91 91.5 91.6 94.4 91.5 85.9

Traffic jams on intersections 85.3 86.7 89.8 89 87.8 85.9

Wrong/ illegal parking 82.2 83.3 86.4 88.3 80.1 84.8

RTO/ Police checking/ Barricades 81 76.9 84.6 88.8 85.1 83.5

Non/ partial construction of roads in many areas/ villages

71.9 80.6 80 79.5 78.4 83.2

Close proximity of shops near roads 86.3 89.1 82.2 86.6 84.3 78.6

The perceptions on irritants seem to be a part of driving or traveling experience. From

baseline to midline there is no change. Infact it has further increased. The problem such as

congestion on roads is a pure planning issue the behaviour of other drivers needs a

communication campaign.


35

4.6 Extent of Delays and Reasons

Journey delays are a common phenomenon particularly in urban areas. In hill areas the

challenge is little more difficult due to road width which aggravates in rainy/winter seasons

or in case of landslide/accident / break down of any vehicle on road.

The survey findings depict that nearly two-third road users often face journey delays while

performing their journey but a considerable proportion (50%) road users experienced delay

within half an hour.

Table 4.11: Journey Delay – all users



No delay 25.9 25.1 34.8 47.3 49.6 35.3

1-30 min 49.5 54.8 50.6 46.3 43.6 49.8

31-60 min 16.5 12.4 10.6 3.8 2.8 9.7

1-2 hrs. 7.8 7.7 4.0 2.5 4.0 5.1

More than 2 hrs. 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1

Total (N) 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200

Importantly, the major reason which caused journey delay is traffic volume (69%), followed

by accidents (22%), insufficient road capacity, narrow stretches, etc.

Table 4.12: Reasons for Delay – all users



Volume of Traffic 57.5 66.6 67.8 73.5 68.9 66.8

Accidents 31.4 21.0 21.2 19.5 17.5 22.4

Insufficient road capacity/ narrow stretches

20.4 19.2 16.4 11.0 15.4 16.8

Road works/ maintenance 16.4 17.1 18.1 11.6 17.2 16.2

Uncompromising Drivers 19.5 13.2 14.9 13.5 19.5 15.3

Police /RTO-checking 13.6 14.3 10.2 11.4 10.9 12.2

Bad weather/fog 13.6 8.3 10.0 6.5 7.7 9.3

Wrong Parking 9.6 8.5 7.0 9.5 14.8 8.9

Bad design of intersections 9.1 8.6 7.9 4.9 7.4 7.7

Pedestrian/animals 10.2 6.2 7.0 4.5 10.9 7.2

Natural calamity/land sliding/snowfall

4.2 2.6 5.5 3.2 4.4 3.9

Total (N) 825 1331 1284 880 338 4658

Hence, from the policy perspectives the aspects related to irritants and reasons for journey

delay have to be taken care as it seriously impacts the satisfaction level.


36

5. Safety Aspects

Safety design is about providing a road environment which ensures vehicle speeds will be

within the human tolerances for serious injury and death wherever conflict points exist. But

the secondary data suggest that over last few years the incidence of road crashes has

increased in the state of Himachal Pradesh. While it is true that there has been a significant

growth in the traffic volume but road accidents causing injury or death is primary due to

attitude of driver, enforcement of traffic rules and lack of diligence vigilance.

5.1 Is commuting on Himachal roads safe enough?

Feeling of safety while commuting on road is an important aspect of overall satisfaction with

the road frequented on. Safety aspect of Himachal roads was gauged by capturing

perception data on safety on two questions – (a) In general, whether road users feel safe

commuting on roads, (b) Possible reasons if they feel unsafe. Current survey reveals that

only around one-tenth (11.5%) feel safe moving on Himachal roads (Table 5.1). This feeling

of safety on Himachal roads has declined from 35 percent of the baseline survey 2007. This

decline may be linked with the 5 percent increase in the road accidents leading to 9 percent

increase in deaths and 3 percent injured people between 2007 and 2011 on Himachal roads.

Table 5.1: Feeling Safe while Commuting on Himachal roads – all users

Respondent Category (in %) Road Category (in %)

Total Main Users Vulnerable Users NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT

Feeling safe 11.6 11.3 14.6 12.4 12.2 7.7 10.6 11.5

Feeling unsafe 88.4 88.7 85.4 87.6 87.8 92.3 89.4 88.5

Total (N) 4032 3168 163 221 241 1670 670 7200

Analyzing the ‘perception of road safety’ by user type, we see that both main users and

vulnerable group have similar feelings of safety while moving on Himachal roads. This trend

is similar to the one observed in the baseline where safety perception of the both user types

was almost same.

From one of the in-depth qualitative discussions with the vulnerable segment revealed that

in last few years the number of motorcycles has increased. Young chaps drive rashly as they

are eager to flaunt their style, but it is very risky. Driving hasty, often they collide with

pedestrians, hawkers with stone or with trees because the roads narrow and sometimes

broken roads. Tourist who come from big cities are sue to driving fast on huge city roads,


37

they continue driving the same here on hills. They opined that accidents are increasing and

it is very unsafe even to walk on road these days.

A closer look into the perception of road safety by the type of road indicate that road safety

perception is probably linked with the road’s degree of traffic jams/congestions. For

instance in urban areas, the unsafe feeling is relatively higher in district roads vis-à-vis the

national highways.

The in-depth discussion with a member of truck association puts forth that the district or

state highways are relatively smaller and less smooth in traffic flows. When the loaded

trucks and Lorries enter district or state roads from their smooth drive on the national

highways, they confront the city/town population of small vehicles. They are unable to cope

with sudden change in the type of road traffic. Similarly, the city / district traffic finds it

difficult to manage with the rash highway type driving behavior of these heavy vehicles

leading to chaos in the traffic fabric of the road. Thus, the chances of accidents and injuries

increase on state/district roads – a truck association member.

To validate above, one-tailed bivariate correlation was run between the ‘perceptions on

road safety’ with the question on ‘satisfaction with the degree of traffic jam/congestion’.

The Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.076 (p<0.000) indicates existence of significant

positive association between the ‘road safety perception’ and ‘traffic jam/congestion’. In

simple terms, this all means that as satisfaction on congestion/traffic jams decreases, the

perception on road safety also decreases making road users feel unsafe. This further implies

that to enhance the safety perception better road management is required to ease out the

traffic jam/congestion, especially at crossings and intersection points when national

highways meet state/district roads. Hence, the action required to improve safety perception

is to have better road management.

In rural areas there is additional problem. The poor maintenance of rural roads leads to

accidents, especially during rainy season when roads become slippery, broken with water

loggings, etc. And, this could be the main concern for users of rural non-bituminous roads

simply because non-blacktopped roads accumulate muddy substance on its surface.

5.2 What are the key reasons cited for feeling unsafe? Respondents were particularly probed to find out the reasons for unsafe feeling on roads.

As presented in Table 5.2 below, “High speed of traffic” emerged as the main reason behind

the ‘unsafe feeling’ on roads (79%). This was felt more strongly among in case of rural roads

probably because rural road users are very simple and hence more fearful of the high speed

traffic. “Sharp-turns” was the second reason cited by almost two-third respondents. The

fear of sharp turn was again relatively more prominent in case of rural roads. Around one-

third expressed it was heavy vehicles on road and another 28 percent said that it was poor


38

and aggressive driving with bad overtaking that made them feel unsafe on roads. And as

expected, this feeling was stronger for urban roads than rural roads. Among other reasons

cited were – high volume traffic/congestion (26%), bad or narrow roads (24%) and other

lack of adequate safety features such as signage, etc.

Table 5.2: Reasons for feeling unsafe – all users

Road Category (in %) Total

NH SH MDR Total RR B/T RR NBT Total

High speed of traffic 79.8 75.3 77.0 77.0 83.0 83.6 83.2 79.1

Sharp turns 60.0 58.5 65.1 61.5 71.1 67.4 70.1 64.4

Heavy vehicles 44.4 34.0 32.7 35.8 35.0 22.5 31.5 34.4

Poor/ aggressive driving with bad overtaking

24.9 32.2 26.0 27.0 30.4 30.9 30.6 28.2

High volume of traffic / congestion

27.5 33.3 24.2 27.4 24.9 18.0 22.9 25.9

Bad roads/ narrow roads 21.2 22.1 24.8 23.0 26.1 26.7 26.3 24.1

Bad signage 12.0 13.4 14.3 13.5 15.1 17.4 15.7 14.2

Land/Rock sliding 7.6 5.1 18.6 11.1 16.0 17.2 16.4 12.9

Foggy weather 17.2 9.8 12.6 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.6

Wrong Parking 7.9 8.7 7.7 8.1 8.8 8.5 8.7 8.3

Absence of streetlights 12.0 9.4 6.2 8.7 6.0 4.7 5.7 7.7

Unsafe retaining walls 7.5 5.9 8.2 7.2 6.2 3.8 5.6 6.6

Traffic converging into fewer lanes

3.5 4.9 6.3 5.1 5.0 6.7 5.5 5.3

Slippery roads in rainy seasons

3.5 3.5 4.8 4.0 6.2 7.3 6.5 4.8

Animal Crossing 6.1 3.0 1.8 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.9 3.1

Joining/leaving service lanes 4.8 3.2 2.4 3.2 1.8 3.7 2.3 2.9

Poor condition of breast walls 3.9 2.4 1.9 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.3 2.8

Absent/ loose parapets 2.0 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.7

Robbery/ theft 2.4 0.6 0.4 .9 1.0 .8 .9 0.9

Total (N) 163 221 241 4860 1670 670 2340 7200


39

5.3 Safety Designs

Two questions pertaining related to safety designs of the road were asked – (a) satisfaction

on safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/guardrails & other safety features, (b)

satisfaction with the quality of road markings. On the first aspect around 63 percent were

satisfied while on the second aspect 69 percent of the road users mentioned their

satisfaction. The satisfaction pertaining to safety features such as railing, bends parapets,

etc. was naturally on a higher side for urban roads in comparison to rural roads. The

combined proportion of satisfied was 66 percent for urban roads while it was 58 percent for

rural roads. There did not appear to be significant difference between the types of road

both in urban and rural areas on this aspect.

Table 5.3: Satisfaction with the Safety Features such as railings, bends,

parapets/ guardrails – main users


Total NH SH MDR Total RR B/T RR NBT Total

Quite Satisfied 19 19.5 22.9 20.5 22.1 23.6 22.9 21.3

Somewhat Satisfied 47.1 45.2 44.8 45.7 37.2 34.1 35.7 42.3

Neither Satisfied Nor

Dissatisfied 12.4 12 16 13.5 22.2 17.2 19.7 16.1

Somewhat Dissatisfied 20.1 22.4 13.7 18.7 14.9 21.4 18.2 17.9

Quite Dissatisfied 1.5 0.8 2.6 1.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.4

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032

To supplement this argument a truck association member told us that national highways are

better constructed with all beautifications and several safety features… there are railings all

over, roads are constructed to bend properly at turns, proper road markings and

signs…probably because there is exclusive department i.e. national highway authority to

take care about all these in a methodical manner regularly.

Road markings such as painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc., are

primarily made on the road to help the road users especially those with vehicles to drive and

move in a safe manner. Again, as expected satisfaction with the quality of such road

markings was higher with urban roads (65%) as compared to rural roads (61%) among main

users.


40

Table 5.4: Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted

lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – main users


Total NH SH MDR Total RR B/T RR NBT Total

Quite Satisfied 20.3 20.5 19.5 20.1 25 26.6 25.8 21.9

Somewhat Satisfied 52.8 53.4 48.4 51.5 39.8 36.3 38.1 47


Dissatisfied 12.1 13.2 17.9 14.4 21.3 17.7 19.5 16.6

Somewhat Dissatisfied 12.6 12.1 13 12.6 13.9 19.2 16.6 13.5

Quite Dissatisfied 2.3 0.8 1.2 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032

Regarding vulnerable users, satisfaction with the quality of road markings was relatively

lesser, in comparison to, main users (Table 5.5). However, the level of satisfaction was

higher with urban roads (62%) as compared to rural roads (57%).

Table 5.5: Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted

lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – vulnerable users



Very Good 18.7 13.8 18.4 16.9 21.1 18.7 20.4 17.9

Good 44.8 53.0 40.9 45.9 36.4 38.4 37.0 43.3

Neither Good nor Bad 29.9 30.1 26.3 28.4 27.4 31.7 28.6 28.5

Bad 3.6 2.1 8.7 5.3 5.2 4.1 4.9 5.2

Very bad 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4

Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168

5.4 Warning & Road signs Satisfaction with the warning & road sings was comparatively lesser than satisfaction with

other safety features and road marking discussed above. Around 64 percent of main road

users and 63 percent of vulnerable road users were satisfied with the warning & roads signs

placed on the roads helping drivers for safe & comfortable driving (Table 5.6 & Table 5.7).


41

Table 5.6: Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and night –

main users


NH SH MDR Total RR B/T Total

Quite Satisfied 19.8 17.6 17.3 18.2 21.5 21.5 19.4

Somewhat Satisfied 45.9 45.4 44.4 45.2 44.2 44.2 44.2


Dissatisfied 11.4 12.3 17.9 13.9 21.1 21.1 16.4

Somewhat Dissatisfied 21.1 24 19.9 21.7 13 13 19.3

Quite Dissatisfied 1.8 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.6

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 1002 4032

* Rural non-bituminous (NBT) roads were not considered for this aspect as no signage is provided there

Table 5.7: Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and

night – vulnerable users


NH SH MDR Total RR B/T Total

Very Good 19.7 25.5 25.5 24.2 26.5 28.1 18.2

Good 48.0 54.4 49.0 50.6 44.2 44.3 44.7

Neither Good nor Bad 25.7 18.2 18.9 20.2 19.3 18.2 27.1

Bad 4.0 0.8 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.5 4.8

Very bad 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.7

Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 936 3168

* Rural non-bituminous (NBT) roads were not considered for this aspect as no signage is provided there

5.5 Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling vehicles

Survey reveals that road users are very satisfied on this aspect. Around 91 percent main

road users and equal percent of vulnerable road users expressed their satisfaction with the

availability and accessibility of police posts or police patrolling vehicles on Himachal roads

(Table 5.8 & Table 5.9). Satisfaction was almost same for both rural and urban roads in both

the cases of main and vulnerable users. There was significant improvement on this aspect

from the baseline.


42

Table 5.8: Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling

Vehicles – main users



Quite Satisfied 72.4 69.8 62.5 68.2 63.5 58.5 61.0 65.7

Somewhat Satisfied 19.1 22.1 27.9 23.0 28.4 30.8 29.6 25.5


Dissatisfied 3.9 4.5 5.6 4.7 6.5 7 6.8 5.4

Somewhat Dissatisfied 4.1 3.5 3.8 3.8 1.6 3.7 2.7 3.2

Quite Dissatisfied 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.0 0.2

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032

Table 5.9: Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling

Vehicles – vulnerable users



Very Good 57.4 66.1 56.7 60.1 59.1 56.7 58.4 59.6

Good 32.7 28.6 34.4 32.0 33.5 36.6 34.4 32.7


Bad 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5

Very bad 0.6 0.1 0.1

Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168

Similar trend as noticed above was observed regarding satisfaction with the adequacy of

emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as police posts,

police patrolling. The proportion of main road users indicating their satisfaction on this

aspect was 90 percent while it was 92 percent in case of vulnerable road users (Table 5.10 &

Table 5.11). Again, satisfaction was almost same for both rural and urban roads in both the

cases of main and vulnerable users on this aspect also.


43

Table 5.10: Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services

with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling –

main users



Quite Satisfied 70.3 73.6 63.2 69.0 59.4 58.2 58.8 65.4

Somewhat Satisfied 18.1 20 26.6 21.6 29.2 29.6 29.4 24.6


Dissatisfied 6.2 4.1 6.5 5.6 10.2 9.2 9.7 7

Somewhat Dissatisfied 5.2 2.2 3.6 3.7 1.1 3 2.1 2.8

Quite Dissatisfied 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032

Table 5.11: Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services

with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling –

vulnerable users



Very Good 54.8 63.3 61.5 60.6 56.0 53.4 55.2 59.0

Good 33.3 31.5 28.6 30.6 37.1 39.2 37.7 32.7


Bad 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.8

Very bad 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2

Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168

5.6 Accident Management

Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean up on roads of Himachal

Pradesh show that almost two-third find it good or very good. However, one-fourth were

neutral on this aspect while 7 percent said that it was not (Table 5.12). The responses

regarding accident management was almost same for both urban and rural roads.


44

Table 5.12: Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean

up – vulnerable users



Very Good 4.4 5.3 5.8 5.3 5.7 4.9 5.4 5.4

Good 54.4 64.6 64.2 62.1 61.5 61.2 61.4 61.9


Bad 12.7 9.4 5.7 8.6 3.7 4.9 4.1 7.2

Very bad 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168

5.7 Opinion on Theft / Robbery on Himachal roads

In line with the baseline findings, almost all (95%) feel that Himachal roads are safe as far as

theft or robbery is concerned. Again this was, reportedly, same for both urban and rural

roads (Table 5.13).

Table 5.13: Proportion ever experienced theft robbery on the roads of

Himachal Pradesh – vulnerable users



Yes 12.0 2.6 4.4 5.5 5.5 2.2 4.6 5.2

No 88.0 97.4 95.6 94.5 94.5 97.8 95.4 94.8

Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168


45

6. Travel Amenities & Visual Appeal

Travel Amenities like public toilets / bathrooms, restaurants / shops, drinking water, medical

facilities, rain shelter-cum-bus stop, mechanics / tow car service, petrol pumps and road

side plantations are important aspects for commuters while traveling on roads. These

amenities are of significant importance for Himachal Pradesh as it is most preferred tourist

destination in the country where road is the main transportation means.

The better roadside amenities do not only give road users with refreshment, recreation and

rest that help in making their journeys comfortable but also provide a livelihood opportunity

for the local people. Though road side amenities is not a core deliverable of PWD

department but often developed by the local entrepreneurs.

6.1 Availability of Amenities A more than half of the respondents have confirmed that the amenities such as public

toilets / bathrooms, restaurants, drinking water, medical facilities, rain shelter-cum-bus

stop, etc. The most lacked amenities were parking facilities and tow services. Parking is a

major problem on national / state highways which pass through cities / towns. Tow service

is essential especially in case of accidents or break down of vehicle particularly during rainy /

winter season which cause traffic jams.

Table 6.1: Availability and Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities – all users

Amenities Available / Satisfied

Road Category (in% ) Total

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT

Public toilets / bathrooms

Available 52.7 58.2 63.4 48.7 54.0 56.2

Satisfied 42.1 44.3 44.2 44.6 49.0 44.4

Eating food drinks at restaurants shops

Available 48.0 59.6 46.6 51.3 50.8 51.5

Satisfied 72.4 72.4 76.3 65.8 66.8 71.5

Drinking water Available 52.9 61.3 46.2 51.8 50.5 52.7

Satisfied 63.7 68.5 71.3 62.7 63.0 66.7

Medical facilities Available 59.9 58.9 62.1 51.8 50.1 57.4

Satisfied 33.7 26.4 30.6 28.0 30.6 29.5

Rain shelter-cum- bus stop

Available 56.3 50.9 56.7 50.1 45.7 52.6

Satisfied 44.7 45.2 46.7 33.6 33.5 41.8

Mechanics / Tow car services

Available 32.8 36.1 28.3 29.1 31.5 31.4

Satisfied 22.5 25.2 23.6 22.4 21.7 23.4

Parking facilities Available 28.8 32.5 27.5 31.9 32.3 30.4

Satisfied 23.8 24.0 22.8 29.2 30.1 25.4


46

6.2 Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities

Public toilets/bathrooms: 56 percent of them reported that the public toilets / bathrooms

are available on the roads and 44 percent of them reported that they were satisfied with

this facility (Table 6.1). Though people perception about this facility has increased from

baseline but there is a need to further improve the quality of this facility across the road

categories and provide road users with clean and hygienic toilets and bathrooms.

Restaurants/Shops: 52 percent of the road users reported that the restaurants / shops are

available on the roads and 72 percent of them reported that they were satisfied with this

facility (Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility has decreased from which

needs to be improved across road categories. The PWD can open up these facilities on the

strategic locations (tourists potential etc) on PPP basis.

Drinking Water: 53 percent of them responded that the drinking water facility is available

on the roads and 67 percent of them responded that they are satisfied with this facility

(Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility has decreased from which needs to be

improved across road categories.

Medical Facilities: 57 percent of the road users reported that the medical facilities are

available on the roads but 70 percent of them were not satisfied with these facilities (Table

6.1). There is an urgent need to not only increase the availability of medical facilities across

the road categories but also to improve the quality of services provided by them. It is a

crucial amenity as the road accidents are increasing in the state and timely and quality

medical aid to the accident victim is of utmost importance. Trauma care facilities can be

explored on PPP basis on the various road categories in conjunction with available health

infrastructure on these roads. Usually the CHCs and PHCs are not geared up to treat

accident victims therefore a state level assessment of existing health care infrastructure of

the roads should be undertaken on various trauma levels (I to IV) which can be established

on a Hub and Spoke model approach.

Rain Shelter cum Bus Stop: 53 percent of the road users reported that the road shelters

cum bus stop are available on the roads but 58 percent of them were not satisfied with the

available road shelter cum bus stops (Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility

has decreased from which needs to be improved across road categories (except for rural

non bituminous road).

Mechanics / Tow Car services: 31 percent of the road users reported that mechanics / tow

car services are available on the roads but 77 percent of them were not satisfied with the

availability of such services (Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility has

decreased from which needs to be improved across road categories (except for rural non

bituminous road).


47

Parking Facilities: 28 percent of the road users reported that the parking facilities were

available on the roadsides but 76 percent of them were not satisfied with the available

parking facilities (Table 6.1). There has been slight increase in the perception of road users

with respect to the availability and their satisfaction about the parking facilities from the

baseline to midline. Parking facilities for motor vehicles is essential amenities which do not

only provide safe parking for vehicles / passengers but also helps in smooth movement of

traffic on the roads.

Petrol Pumps: 45 percent opined that they are quite satisfied with the availability of petrol pumps, followed by somewhat satisfied (39%). It shows an increasing trend from baseline to midline.

Table 6.2: Availability of Petrol Pumps – main users

Road Category (in% )


Quite satisfied 48.9 46.8 47.6 41.8 40.3 45.4

Somewhat satisfied 34.2 36.2 37.2 46.3 45 39.5

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 8.5 9.2 8.1 9 8 8.7

Somewhat dissatisfied 8 7.7 6.6 2.9 6.7 6.2

Quite dissatisfied 0.5 0 0.4 0 0 0.2

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032

Roadside Plantation: The roadside plantations are essential as the construction of roads

lead to the destruction of natural flora. Around 54 percent main users 45 percent vulnerable

users reported that they are quite satisfied with the road side plantation which is

significantly high from the baseline survey. One of the reasons for this increase could be the

natural greenery in Himachal Pradesh which respondents might have in their mind.

Table 6.3: Satisfaction with Road side plantations – all users

Main Users Road Category (in% )


Quite satisfied 58.8 55.4 55.1 49.3 54.2 54.2

Somewhat satisfied 26.1 32.5 31.9 39.4 33.8 33.3

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 9.6 10.4 9.5 10 9.2 9.8


Quite dissatisfied 0.7 0 0.4 0 0.2 0.2

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032

Vulnerable Users Road Category (in% )


Very Good 47.2 48.7 42.4 41.5 48.5 45

Good 32.3 34 34.6 34.7 32.5 33.9

Neither Good Nor Bad 16.9 15.9 20.4 23.1 16.8 19

Bad 2.4 1.2 0.9 0.1 0 1

Very Bad 0.4 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1

Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168


48

7. Perception about HPPWD While HPPWD’s role is to develop and maintain roads, it is imperative to understand the

perception of road users about the work done by department in the state.

7.1 Awareness about HPPWD

HPPWD has been doing lot of construction work in Himachal Pradesh. Hence to check road-

users awareness with HPPWD and other related aspects certain questions were asked. As

presented in Table 7.1, almost all respondents interviewed mentioned the name of HPPWD

when they were asked to mention the government department responsible for developing

and maintaining the roads, indicating high awareness about HPPWD. Awareness levels were

relatively higher among the users of rural roads in comparison to those using urban roads.

Table 7.1: Awareness of HPPWD – all users



Yes 94.4 97.6 96.8 98.3 98.4 97.1

No 5.6 2.4 3.2 1.7 1.6 2.9

Total (N) 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200

7.2 Sources of Awareness

The small proportion of 2.9 percent respondents who did not mention HPPWD as the

government department responsible for developing and maintaining the Himachal roads

were told the correct answer and the next question pertaining to the source of awareness

was asked to all of them. Electronic media emerged out to be the most effective sources of

creating awareness about HPPWD. Mentioned by around half of the interviewed

respondents, TV/radio/internet emerged as the main source of awareness, followed by Print

media (45.7%).

Among the outdoor media, most important source was signboard near the construction

work sites (29.9%) which are observed by the respondents moving the road or whenever

they got stuck in traffic-jams due to any road construction work being undertaken by

HPPWD. Road signs and hoardings were other outdoor media that were mentioned by 26.3

percent and 12.3 percent of the interviewed respondents, respectively as sources of

awareness on HPPWD (Table 7.2). Then trend observed above is, more or less, similar to the

one observed in the baseline survey.


49

Table 7.2: Source of Awareness regarding HPPWD – all users



Road signs 25.3 29.7 26.8 24.1 23.4 26.3

Hoardings 10.9 11.0 14.1 13.2 10.4 12.3

Print media 49.2 49.0 39.9 46.5 45.8 45.7

TV/radio/internet 47.6 50.7 50.3 56.7 57.3 52.1

Patrolling vehicles 4.9 4.2 5.1 9.5 12.7 6.6

Signboards near work-in-progress sites

33.8 31.3 30.8 25.8 27.3 29.9

Don’t know about this department

0.8 0.3 2.4 6.2 4.8 2.7

Others 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1

Total (N) 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200

7.3 Perception about HPPWD

Perception about HPPWD was quantitatively measured using two indicators – (a) opinion on

how successful has HPPWD been in providing quality roads and (b) opinion on how

successful has HPPWD been in carrying out road works speedily and efficiently. Two

separate questions were administered to capture the degree of the perceptions on 5-point

scale.

Regarding the first aspect, majority of the respondents held positive image about HPPWD’s

performance (83.4%). Of this, 11.1 percent said that HPPWD has been very successful in

providing quality roads (Table 7.3). The proportion saying so was higher among the rural

road-users vis-à-vis urban road users.

Table 7.3: Opinion on how successful has HPPWD been in providing Quality Roads in HP – all users



Highly successful 10.2 8.1 12.4 12.0 14.4 11.1

Moderately successful 64.7 72.4 72.2 77.0 73.4 72.3

Neither successful nor unsuccessful

18.8 15.6 12.5 9.9 11.1 13.6

Moderately unsuccessful 4.1 3.3 2.7 0.8 0.8 2.5

Highly unsuccessful 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.2

0.4

Total (N) 1105 1770 1923 1567 638 7003

Similar levels of opinion are observed regarding the second aspect, too. Majority road users

(83.1%) perceive that HPPWD has been successful in carrying out the road works speedily &

efficiently. However, the proportion of such respondents was higher for urban roads as

compared to rural roads, which is the reverse to scenario observed on the first aspect

related to opinion on providing quality roads (Table 7.4).


50

Table 7.4: Opinion on HPPWD success in carrying out Road Works Speedily & Efficiently –

all Users

Road Category ( in%) Total


Highly successful 12.6 12.4 14.5 14.2 19.1 14.0

Moderately successful 60.6 67.7 70.3 74.8 69.9 69.1

Neither successful nor unsuccessful

18.9 15.4 12.3 9.8 10.2 13.4

Moderately unsuccessful 5.0 4.0 2.7 1.1 0.6 2.8

Highly unsuccessful 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.1

0.4

Total (N) 1105 1770 1923 1567 638 7003

The stakeholders opined that HPPWD makes good roads but they forget to repair when they

are dug for some pipeline work or when the roads are broken during rainy seasons. The

maintenance, upkeep and care are missing. They construct and then vanish completely.

7.4 Complaint Redressal System & Maintenance Response Time

Two questions were included pertaining to satisfaction with the complaint redressal

mechanism and maintenance response time. When asked whether they have ever

complained HPPWD regarding any problem, a very meager 2.2 percent responded in

affirmation which is an improvement over the baseline where one out of eight had,

reportedly, made any such complain (Table 7.5). There could be two possible reasons for

this – (a) as seen above majority are satisfied with the quality and maintenance of the roads,

(b) people might be avoiding the hassle of complaining.

Table 7.5: Proportion Ever Complained HPPWD regarding any Problem – all users


Total NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT

Yes 3.7 2.5 2.5 1.0 0.9 2.2

No 96.3 97.5 97.5 99.0 99.1 97.8

Total (N) 1105 1770 1923 1567 638 7003

This is further confirmed by looking at the response on satisfaction with the complaint

redressal system as three-fourth of those who made any complain, were found to be

satisfied with the complain redressal system (Table 7.6).


51

Table 7.6: Satisfaction with the Complaint Redressal System – all users



Highly satisfied 7.3 4.5 2.0 12.5 16.7 5.8

Moderately satisfied 75.6 61.4 75.5 81.3 50.0 71.2

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

9.8 20.5 14.3

12.8

Moderately dissatisfied 4.9 13.6 6.1

7.1

Highly dissatisfied 2.4 0.0 2.0 6.3 33.3 3.2

Total (N) 41 44 49 16 6 156

Although little lower than the above two aspects, yet majority (73.1%) were satisfied with

the maintenance response time probably because of the reasons cited above (Table 7.7).

However, there were 14.1 percent road users who were neutral on this aspect and around

12.9 percent who expressed dissatisfaction indicating scope for further improvements.

Table 7.7: Satisfaction with the Maintenance Response Time – all users



Highly satisfied 9.8 4.5 8.2 12.5

7.7

Moderately satisfied 63.4 65.9 65.3 68.8 66.7 65.4

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

12.2 18.2 16.3 6.3

14.1

Moderately dissatisfied 9.8 9.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 7.1

Highly dissatisfied 4.9 2.3 4.1 12.5 33.3 5.8

Total (N) 41 44 49 16 6 156


52

8 Gender Aspects

The study covered altogether 729 women which constitute 10 percent of the total sample

(N= 7200). Among women, 498 were main users and 231 belonged to vulnerable users. The

analysis of data does not suggest much gender-wise variation for all indicators, hence, not

presented in this chapter. But among vulnerable users, certain questions were specifically

asked from women to understand how safe they feel on roads and what are their travel

characteristics, etc.

8.1 Whether Feel Safe on Roads?

Table 8.1 depicts that a sizable proportion of women (58%) do not feel safe on Himachal

roads. This feeling was relatively higher on MDR, RR B/T and RR Non B/T roads. The

qualitative findings reveal that the major reason why women do not feel safe is high traffic

volume particularly in cities/towns and lack of pedestrian foot paths.

Table 8.1 Has it become safer to travel on Himachal Road?



Yes 54.1 53.6 59.7 59.3 63.6 57.6

No 45.9 46.4 40.3 40.7 36.4 42.4

Total (N) 37 56 62 54 22 231

8.2 Frequency of Travel on Roads

The analyzed data presented in Table 8.2 show that 44 percent of women were frequent

traveler on road, though, a considerable proportion of them (38%) travel few times a week.

Thus, women usually come of their homes to make trips for various purposes.

Table 8.2 How often do you leave the house and travel on roads?



Every day 51.3 42.8 41.9 46.3 36.3 44.2

Few times a week 29.7 37.5 43.5 38.9 40.9 38.5

At least once a week 8.1 8.9 11.3 7.4 9.1 9.1

Once or twice a month 2.7 5.4 3.2 5.6 0 3.9

Less frequently 8.1 5.4 0 1.9 13.6 4.3

Total (N) 37 56 62 54 22 231


53

8.3 Usage of Road Network

The two major purpose for which majority of women use road network is: going to the local

market (92%) and visiting relations friends (73%). The data does not show much disparity

among road categories.

Table 8.3 Do you undertake the following activities using the road network?



Going to school/college 16.2 28.6 16.1 22.2 18.2 20.8

Going to work 27 39.3 30.6 16.7 18.2 27.7

Going to the local market 89.2 94.6 91.9 96.3 81.8 92.2

Taking kids to school 37.8 39.3 27.4 29.6 13.6 31.2

Going to the district HQ 13.5 33.9 16.1 44.4 45.5 29.4

Visiting relations friends 73 75 80.6 72.2 50 73.2

Total (N) 37 56 62 54 22 231

For most of the purposes, vehicle was used relatively more than walk/cycle as exclusive

mode of transportation. Though considerable proportion of women used both (walks and

use vehicle) while performing their trips.

Table 8.4 Do you usually walk or use a vehicle or both?



Going to school/college

Walk/Cycle 66.7 12.5 30 50 75 37.5

Vehicle 33.3 18.8 50 41.7 25 33.3

Both 0 68.8 20 8.3 0 29.2

Total 6 16 10 12 4 48

Going to work Walk/Cycle 30 40.9 31.6 22.2 0 31.3

Vehicle 70 45.5 57.9 55.6 75 56.3

Both 0 13.6 10.5 22.2 25 12.5

Total 10 22 19 9 4 64

Going to the local market

Walk/Cycle 45.5 39.6 45.6 21.2 16.7 35.7

Vehicle 45.5 47.2 36.8 59.6 61.1 48.4

Both 9.1 13.2 17.5 19.2 22.2 16

Total 33 53 57 52 18 213

Taking kids to school

Walk/Cycle 50 27.3 23.5 18.8 0 27.8

Vehicle 35.7 50 52.9 68.8 66.7 52.8

Both 14.3 22.7 23.5 12.5 33.3 19.4

Total 14 22 17 16 3 72

Going to the Walk/Cycle 20 5.3 0 8.3 0 5.9


54



district HQ Vehicle 60 57.9 70 83.3 90 73.5

Both 20 36.8 30 8.3 10 20.6

Total 5 19 10 24 10 68

Visiting relations friends

Walk/Cycle 22.2 14.3 20 12.8 9.1 16.6

Vehicle 48.1 57.1 50 56.4 36.4 52.1

Both 29.6 28.6 30 30.8 54.5 31.4

Total 27 42 50 39 11 169

The women were also probed whether the frequency of such trips has increased in last two

/ three years, from 40 percent to 60 percent women affirmed this phenomenon.

Table 8.5 Has frequency of this activity increased over last 2 / 3 years?




Increased 66.7 37.5 90 58.3 50 58.3

Remain Same 33.3 56.3 10 33.3 50 37.5

Decreased 0 6.3 0 8.3 0 4.2

Total 6 16 10 12 4 48

Going to work Increased 30 45.5 57.9 22.2 0 40.6

Remain Same 70 50 42.1 55.6 25 50

Decreased 0 4.5 0 22.2 75 9.4

Total 10 22 19 9 4 64


Increased 69.7 52.8 64.9 53.8 61.1 59.6

Remain Same 30.3 43.4 33.3 46.2 33.3 38.5

Decreased 0 3.8 1.8 0 5.6 1.9

Total 33 53 57 52 18 213


Increased 57.1 54.5 64.7 62.5 66.7 59.7

Remain Same 42.9 40.9 35.3 31.3 33.3 37.5

Decreased 0 4.5 0 6.3 0 2.8

Total 14 22 17 16 3 72

Going to the district HQ

Increased 40 52.6 60 41.7 60 50

Remain Same 40 47.4 40 50 30 44.1

Decreased 20 0 0 8.3 10 5.9

Total 5 19 10 24 10 68


Increased 66.7 57.1 64 53.8 81.8 61.5

Remain Same 33.3 42.9 36 46.2 18.2 38.5

Decreased 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27 42 50 39 11 169


55

And a high proportion of them (75% to 100%) attributed it to improved connectivity in their

areas which was relatively higher in rural areas.

Table 8.6 If increased, is it due to greater connectivity?




Yes 100 100 100 100 100 100

No 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4 6 9 7 2 28

Going to work Yes 66.7 70 90.9 50 0 76.9

No 33.3 30 9.1 50 0 23.1

Total 3 10 11 2 0 26


Yes 82.6 96.4 89.2 78.6 81.8 86.6

No 17.4 3.6 10.8 21.4 18.2 13.4

Total 23 28 37 28 11 127


Yes 100 83.3 90.9 40 100 79.1

No 0 16.7 9.1 60 0 20.9

Total 8 12 11 10 2 43


Yes 100 90 100 80 83.3 88.2

No 0 10 0 20 16.7 11.8

Total 2 10 6 10 6 34


Yes 100 100 88.5 100 100 95.2

No 0 0 11.5 0 0 4.8

Total 10 12 26 12 2 62


56

9 Road User Satisfaction Index

9.1 Development of RUSI

For construction of the Road Users’ Satisfaction Index (RUSI), three different types of

analyses were attempted. The first two analyses were targeted to obtain an index while the

last analysis was attempted to derive the key drivers of satisfaction. This is a key element

done only during the midline because it was deemed to be a crucial input for providing

recommendations to the client on the way forward. It may be recalled that that two

different questionnaires were designed and administered for main and vulnerable groups.

Hence, any analysis attempted was done differently for the two groups, post which the

scores were combined to get the overall scores. The three types of analyses are:

1. Index generation using the same construct used in the baseline survey report

2. Index generation using the stated importance and perceived satisfaction method

derived from the responses to the midline survey

3. Logistic regression to derive the key drivers of overall satisfaction

9.2 Index Generation using the Baseline Approach

We used the same approach that has been employed during baseline to generate the index

for road user satisfaction. The following steps were employed during the analysis:

1. All perceptions on satisfaction with respect to individual components (5-point scale)

of a travel on the current road were used along with the perceived satisfaction levels

with the available amenities (which were collected as a simple binary response).

2. All the perception-related statements were analyzed under principal component

analysis which has helped us derive 4 key factors for main and vulnerable users viz.,

main safety features availability, road quality and durability, needs and benefits and

other essentials availability.

3. A composite score of satisfaction on amenities was derived using simple addition

which was also used for further analysis.

4. The factors obtained from step 2 and combined ‘amenities’ variable derived in step 3

were used to regress the perceived overall satisfaction level which equips us with the

weights for each of these independents in the score.

5. Using these weights and average satisfaction scores, index (RUSI1) was calculated. It

is worth noting that the weightage of a variable remains same for all the individuals

in the group.


57

For Main Users

For Vulnerable Users

Model

Overall satisfaction = (0.368*Main safety features’ availability score) +

(0.303*Other essentials’ availability score) +

(0.314*Road quality and durability score)

Model

Overall satisfaction = (0.356*Main safety features’ availability score) +

(0.342*Road quality and durability score) +

(0.246*Needs & benefits’ score) +


58

9.3 Index Generation using the Stated Importance and Perceived Satisfaction Levels

In this second approach, we have used the information captured on perceived importance

levels of each individual travel component by respondents. This method was attempted to

account for individualized scoring based on the individual road user’s (main and vulnerable)

perceived importance of a component. The following are the detailed construction steps:

1. The same set of variables used in the first analysis was used for analysis.

2. After mapping the same variables, for each of the reconstructed variables (factors or

amenities’ variable) the importance score was calculated as simple average of

components’ importance in the variable.

3. We now have an importance score against a satisfaction score of each reconstructed

variable. It is evident we have these scores differ from one individual to the other.

4. The importance scores were treated as the weightage for that variable and a

combined weighted average was calculated to arrive at the index (RUSI2).

Since weights and satisfaction scores remain the same, no such fixed effects of independent

variables can be shown. The RUSI score in this case was calculated at respondent level using

the following formula:

9.4 Logistic Regression to derive the Key Drivers of Satisfaction

Logistic regression is mainly used to derive drivers of the study behaviour (in our case

satisfaction in road usage). However, binary logistic only uses dummy variables as

dependent we were restricted to reconstruct the 5-point satisfaction scale to a dummy

variable. The steps followed are detailed below:

1. Same set of independent variables as used in above two analyses were used in this

analysis.

2. The 5-point satisfaction variable was converted to a dummy variable in order to

facilitate the binary logistic procedure by categorizing the highly satisfied and

somewhat satisfied individuals as satisfied group and the others as not-satisfied

group.

3. Logistic regression procedure was run which clearly provides us the significant

drivers along with their quantified effects on the dependent variable.

4. The logistic regression was fitted and the resultant model was not significant. Hence,

further analysis was not presented in the report. However, we have attempted

CHAID analysis which suggested that the key drivers for the satisfaction levels are

Overall satisfaction of ith respondent

Where SI indicates stated importance and SC indicated Satisfaction score;

k is the number of variables created;


59

other essentials’ availability, Road quality & durability and availability of main safety

features. Hence, it is safe to say that the index calculated using the baseline

approach has yielded good results.

9.5 Overall Road Users Satisfaction using Same Construct as in Baseline

RUSI Score – District-wise

Among the districts covered under the survey, Sirmaur has achieved the highest satisfaction

score (3.9) while Hamirpur scored the least (2.9). No significant variations in satisfaction

scores was observed across the districts which is also evident from a ‘0.13’ coefficient of

variation (or 11%). Sirmaur is followed by the districts of Solan, Chamba, Una, Kullu and

Shimla. Apart from Kangra and Hamirpur, the other districts had average satisfaction scores

of at least 3.5 on a scale of 5. This suggests that the users of Himachal roads are much more

satisfied today as compared to the time of the baseline. Highest increase in satisfaction

scores was observed among Kullu district road users followed by the users from Sirmaur.

This triggers a hint of raise for Tourism industry which is a welcome change. The following

table gives the comparative picture of district wise average (mean) satisfaction scores.

Table 9.1: District wise Satisfaction Scores

Sl. # District Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI

1 Sirmaur 3.88 2.11 (9)

2 Solan 3.86 2.55 (6)

3 Chamba 3.75 2.91 (2)

4 Una 3.70 2.81 (3)

5 Kullu 3.64 2.59 (4)

6 Shimla 3.64 2.59 (4)

7 Mandi 3.59 1.88 (10)

8 Bilaspur 3.55 2.33 (7)

9 Kangra 3.28 3.12 (1)

10 Hamirpur 2.88 2.32 (8)

Overall 3.57 2.58

Std. deviation 0.45

Coefficient of variation 0.13 (13%) (Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; Figures represent average scores on a scale of 1 to 5;

Figures in brackets represent rank among the districts)


60

RUSI Score – Based on type of road

Not much of a difference was found among the satisfaction scores on different road types

which came as a surprise. However, it is encouraging to know that the state highway users

have expressed highest satisfaction level with the roads followed by rural roads (both

varieties) mostly constructed under PMGSY. In fact the vast improvement in rural

connectivity has been instrumental in the significant improvements in RUSI scores in

districts with predominantly hilly terrains. The table below explains.

Table 9.2: Satisfaction Scores – Type of Roads

Sl. # District Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI

1 State Highway 3.62 2.36

2 National Highway 3.57 2.94

3 Major District Road 3.56 2.50

4 Rural-BT 3.56 2.77

5 Rural-Non-BT 3.54 2.34 (Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; Figures represent average scores on a scale of 1 to 5)

RUSI Score – Demographic Analysis

Even though urban respondents have slightly higher satisfaction levels, the difference was

very minimal suggesting no disparity in urban and rural roads. When RUSI scores were

compared over gender, males have higher satisfaction than females (3.58 for males

compared to 3.49 for females). When the RUSI scores were compared with respect to

respondents’ educational attainments, it was observed that the satisfaction levels have

gradually come down with increase in educational attainment. This is understandable as

those with higher education aspire for more from roads in terms of its quality and other

related factors. The table clearly shows a difference in RUSI scores between those with an

education of up to 7th and those with above 7th. The following is the consolidated table with

average RUSI scores with respect to typology, gender, education and occupation of

respondents.

Table 9.3: Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores

Midline RUSI1

Typology Urban 3.58

Rural 3.55

Gender Male 3.58

Female 3.49

Educational attainments

Illiterate/ no formal schooling 3.65

Upto 4th 3.73

5th-7th 3.69

8th-9th 3.46


61

Midline RUSI1

Completed 10th 3.56

Higher secondary/ intermediate 3.54

Above higher sec/ inter 3.55

Occupational engagements

Farmer/ Cultivator 3.64

Unskilled Labour 3.77

Salaried/ SEPs 3.42

Skilled worker 3.64

Own account worker 3.55

Business 3.75

Driver/ helper/ conductor 3.44

Student/ unemployed/ others 3.56 (Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; Figures represent average scores on a scale of 1 to 5)

In line with the findings with respect to education, RUSI scores of those in formal

occupations were relatively lower than that of those in informal work force. For eg: Salaried

and self employed professionals had the least satisfaction score (3.4) among all types of

respondents. Unskilled labourers are the ones with high satisfaction scores nearly up to 3.8.

During the baseline, the RUSI score for male and female respondents (main and vulnerable

users combined) were 2.56 and 2.88 respectively. In both cases the score have improved

over time and slightly at a higher rate among men. Once again we see a very high

satisfaction rating among farmers/cultivators indicating that rural connectivity between

lower-order settlements to larger settlements/market nodes have improved substantially in

the state.

RUSI Score – Vehicle wise Analysis

Differences were found across different respondents driving different types of vehicles.

Compared to any vehicle driver, the vulnerable users of the roads had highest RUSI score.

The drivers of local vehicles (other than bus) had highest satisfaction levels followed by the

public bus drivers. Out of state vehicle drivers expressed least satisfaction levels which is

supported by the fact that these people might not have much of an experience in driving on

these types of roads. The following table explains.

Table 9.4: Satisfaction Scores – Vehicle wise

Sl. # Type of vehicle RUSI1

1 Vulnerable users 3.80

2 Local taxi/auto/car/SUV/MUV 3.43

3 Public bus 3.41

4 Private bus 3.40

5 Trailer/ truck/ tanker 3.39

6 LCVs 3.38


62

Sl. # Type of vehicle RUSI1

7 Two-wheeler 3.38

8 Out of state taxi/auto/car/SUV/MUV 3.28

9 Others 3.32 (Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; Figures represent average scores on a scale of 1 to 5)

During the baseline survey, the satisfaction scores among bus drivers 2.61. This has

improved by over one point for both private and public sector bus drivers. This is crucial as

for a state which also has a large tourism based revenue, this endorsement is important.

During baseline, LCV drivers had given a rating of 2.45, which has increased to 3.38.

Himachal’s development profile has undergone a tremendous transformation and local

business enterprises have become the driver of a bubbling economy. LCVs are now the

lifeline of local trade and commerce and having a road network which meets their whole

hearted approval is a significant achievement.

During baseline, taxies, autos, cars, SUVs and MUVs had given a rating ranging between 2.27

and 2.41. This has also significantly increased to 3.43. The vulnerable users as a whole have

a satisfaction score of 3.80, which is a significant improvement over the baseline scores of

any of the vulnerable user categories.

RUSI Score –Road users’ category wise Analysis

There are minimal differences between different categories of respondents. Among the

main users, the owners who drive their vehicle have expressed lowest satisfaction levels.

Regular drivers have expressed high satisfaction levels. This is an interesting space to work

upon as one should clearly look out for the reasons resulting in low satisfaction levels of

vehicle owners.

Among vulnerable users, it was found that porters have had highest satisfaction levels in

excess of 4. It can also be seen that all but one group of vulnerable users have satisfaction

scores in excess of sub groups among main users. Cyclists have expressed low satisfaction

levels, which suggest a potential area to act upon.

The following table highlights the clear improvements in satisfaction scores over the

baseline, especially among road users representing regular households and pedestrians.

Public opinion is a very important measure of success or failure and this endorsement from

the local residents of Himachal is testimony to the good work done by the project and the

executing department.


63

Table 9.5: Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores

Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI

Main users

Driver 3.43 2.46

Passenger 3.39 2.76

Owner-cum-driver 3.32 2.32

Vulnerable users

Household 3.76 2.75

Pedestrian 3.79 2.73

Porter 3.86 2.69

Cyclist 3.74 2.75

Shopkeeper 3.79 2.61

Rickshaw puller/ Thelawala /Bullock Cart Driver

3.85 2.91

(Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; 4032 main and 3168 vulnerable users; Figures represent

average scores on a scale of 1 to 5)

Indicators used to construct RUSI

Main safety features:

Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling vehicles (PCR Vans)

Adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as

police posts, police patrolling

Road quality and durability:

Overall condition of the road in terms of quality of road surface

Adequacy of road width as per traffic volume

Congestion/traffic jam on intersections

Durability/ quality of road in terms of the metalling / layering done on them

Roadside drainage

Maintenance of bridges on this roads

Needs & benefits:

Availability of filling stations and other essential amenities

Availability of parking facilities

The amount of money you have to pay for various kinds of road taxes and other related

taxes

Signage and markings’ availability:

Quality of road markings (painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing marks etc.,)

Adequacy and visibility of warning / road signs during day and night.

Adequacy and visibility of milestones / distance signs along the route

Safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/ guardrails & other safety features

Availability of streetlights.


64

10. Conclusion & Recommendations

Drivers for satisfaction

Roadside markings, roadside amenities and the basic quality of construction

are the three key elements that control satisfaction levels among main

users. Driving safety is a key consideration among main users and the

perception that a road is safe to drive on drives their satisfaction

experience. Markings, amenities and quality of construction are all central

to this perception and hence, must remain a central feature of HPPWDs

agenda.

In general, vulnerable users were happy with their road usage experience.

The key determinants of satisfaction were road signs (always an extremely

important feature for a pedestrian), roadside amenities and road

construction quality (similar to that of the main users). Because these

features are similar to those determining satisfaction scores among main

users as well, the job of HPPWD is relatively simpler and focussed.

Those travelling by a public bus also had a relatively lower satisfaction

levels which is probably affected by the condition of bus as basic features of

the state’s roads are common for all respondents and there has been an

overall significant improvement as is obvious by the scores.

Districts of Hamirpur, Kangra and Bilaspur still lag behind (relatively) in

terms of satisfaction levels and reasons for the same (as mentioned in the

report) will need to be recognised and addressed.

Road condition and Traffic delays

HPPWD shall also understand the aspirations of educated users and users

who are in formal sector employment so as to work out a detailed plan

which could address their problems. These people are mainly based in

urban areas and the intra-city traffic situation in the state continues to be

bad owing to extreme congestion.

The stakeholders opined that HPPWD makes good roads but they forget to

repair when they are dug for some pipeline work or when the roads are

broken during rainy seasons. The maintenance, upkeep and care are

missing.


65

Provision of amenities on PPP basis

The perception about roadside amenities shows a declining trend. Though

providing amenities is not a core mandate of PWD but the department can

join hands with other concerned departments to develop amenities on

Public Private Partnership (PPP) model which will not only facilitate road

users / tourists but also help these departments to earn additional

revenues.

There is an urgent need to not only increase the availability of medical

facilities across the road categories but also to improve the quality of

services provided by them. It is a crucial amenity as the road accidents are

increasing in the state and timely and quality medical aid to the accident

victim is of utmost importance. Trauma care facilities can be explored on

PPP basis on the various road categories in conjunction with available

health infrastructure on these roads. Usually the CHCs and PHCs are not

geared up to treat accident victims therefore a state level assessment of

existing health care infrastructure of the roads should be undertaken on

various trauma levels (I to IV) which can be established on a Hub and Spoke

model approach.

Provision of Ambulance services on all major roads and at important

intersections and accident prone areas. If the roads are managed by private

player then ambulance service provision should be made part of the

contract agreement.

Parking is a major problem on national / state highways which pass

through cities / towns which can also be developed on a similar approach.

The road side plantations have to be improved further as road construction

and widening causes destruction of natural forests. The proper

environmental impact assessments (EIAs) will help the concerned

departments about the need and extent of the road side plantations to be

done on the roads where development works are in progress.

Repair and Maintenance

Inventory of stretches prone to repair work: The PWD in their respective

districts identify and prepare a list of road sections/ stretches which need

repair work year on year or season after season or locational factors such

as mud slide, tree felling, torrents, land slide. Such sections/ stretches have

to be monitored regularly and repair and maintenance activity has to be

planned in advance.


66

Negative attributes or irritants

HPPWD need to have a dedicated communication campaign through mid-

media and outdoor media to educate local drivers / tourists (who come on

their own vehicle) about safe driving as behaviour of drivers emerged as

one of the major irritants that causing road accidents. The secondary

literate corroborates this fact out of total road accidents cases, 89 percent

are due to drivers’ fault.

Create awareness among the rural folks, nomadic herders on road safety

measures. Sensitizing them especially livestock owners that not to allow

their livestock to roam freely on roads and take proper measures that they

shouldn’t disrupt the traffic. Concerned department should earmarked the

points/sections on the road for animal crossings and aware them about the

usage of such points through signage’s etc.

Road safety

Around 88 percent people of Himachal Pradesh do not feel safe while they

are on roads. The reason is indiscipline driving and overtaking. The self-

drive tourism concept is getting popular and tourists flow is also increasing

leading to further increase in vehicular traffic in the state. There are large

number of accidents particularly on highways and city roads where deaths

happen because safety devices like seat belt or helmet are not used by the

road users. Not safety norm / standards but enforcement of traffic rules

and lack of diligence vigilance are main reasons which cause road

accidents.

There are certain stretches on the roads on different categories of roads

where accidents happen because of faulty road engineering. The data base

of such stretches has to be developed by the department and probe the

causes of accidents. The rectification of the causes has to be taken up on

priority basis in consultation with other concerned departments such as

Transport Department, Traffic Police, local police, etc. In the interim period

media campaigns, speed reducing measures, signage’s displaying accident

prone area, distribution of pamphlets and advertisement in newspaper

about these stretches, etc. has to be made to sensitize the road users to

avert any further accidents.


67

Revision of fine structures

The fine structures in the state have to be revised as it can be deterrent for

traffic rule violators. “In the National Capital of Delhi during the

Commonwealth Games when there was Rs. 2,000 fine for lane violation, the

traffic ran very smoothly. People were very careful in following lane

discipline and it had overall impact on improving the traffic management

scene and accidents came down drastically” (Report of the Working group

on Road Safety pertaining to Enforcement).

Road as catalyst for rural development

Overall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among

settlements in the state has improved which was more in case of rural

areas. The stakeholders and local citizen opined that the connectivity of

villages with main road has opened up their areas. They can transport rural

produce to the market directly and now not much dependent upon a

middleman which has helped them in getting correct prices for their

produce and enhanced income. It has a positive impact on their overall

socio-economic condition. The credit may be given to PMGSY programme.

This intervention has provided connectivity and brought rural areas in the

main stream of development. Hence, it is recommended to scale up the

current PMGSY programme to saturate the coverage.


68

Annexure


69

Annex 1 (Respondent Profile)


70

Profile of Road Users

Residential status of the main users – all users

District

Stay within this same district

Stay somewhere else in this state

From out of state N

N

N

N

Bilaspur 196 81.7 43 17.9 1 0.4 240 100

Chamba 226 91.9 20 8.1

246 100

Hamirpur 266 92.4 21 7.3 1 0.3 288 100

Kangra 714 93.0 53 6.9 1 0.1 768 100

Kullu 136 68.7 62 31.3

198 100

Mandi 544 85.5 90 14.2 2 0.3 636 100

Shimla 510 79.4 117 18.2 15 2.3 642 100

Sirmaur 381 97.7 7 1.8 2 0.5 390 100

Solan 310 80.7 74 19.3

384 100

Una 175 72.9 60 25.0 5 2.1 240 100

Total 3458 85.8 547 13.6 27 0.7 4032 100

Frequency of travel – all users

Quite often/very

regularly Several times

Few times/rarely

First time N

District N

N

N

N

Bilaspur 138 76.2 39 21.5 3 1.7 1 0.6 181 100

Chamba 32 16.5 141 72.7 16 8.2 5 2.6 194 100

Hamirpur 91 40.8 118 52.9 14 6.3

223 100

Kangra 394 68.8 154 26.9 25 4.4

573 100

Kullu 51 33.6 92 60.5 7 4.6 2 1.3 152 100

Mandi 197 41.4 260 54.6 18 3.8 1 0.2 476 100

Shimla 259 45.2 289 50.4 24 4.2 1 0.2 573 100

Sirmaur 154 51.0 144 47.7 3 1.0 1 0.3 302 100

Solan 23 7.1 279 85.6 24 7.4

326 100

Una 57 29.2 119 61.0 18 9.2 1 0.5 195 100

Total 1396 43.7 1635 51.2 152 4.8 12 0.4 3195 100


71

Purpose of Travel – all users

%

Work 60.8

Work and Shopping 10.0

Visiting friends / relation and Shopping 6.2

Work and Visiting friend / relation 5.6

Visiting friends / relation 4.4

Work and Visiting friend / relation and Shopping 3.9

Work and Tourism 3.3

Work and Shopping and Tourism 2.7

Work and Visiting friend / relation and Tourism 0.9

Other trips 2.2

Category of Vehicle – all users

N %

Trailer/ Truck/ Tanker 699 17.3

Inter-state private bus 218 5.4

Local private bus 816 20.2

Inter-state public bus 57 1.4

Local public bus 186 4.6

Local taxi/auto 551 13.6

Out of state tourist taxi 43 1.0

Local private car/SUV/MUV 275 6.8

Out of state private car/SUV/MUV 40 0.9

Government vehicle 5 0.12

Scooter/motorbike 493 12.2

Police/ Fire/ Ambulance/ Emergency vehicles 5 0.12

LCV (Matador, Tractor, small lorries, pickup etc) 644 15.9

Total 4032 100


72

Age of Respondents – all users

Age Total

District 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-60 >60

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Bilaspur 75 17.9 195 46.4 103 24.5 41 9.8 6 1.4 420 100

Chamba 14 3.2 166 37.7 225 51.1 32 7.3 3 0.7 440 100

Hamirpur 45 8.8 193 37.8 213 41.8 53 10.4 6 1.2 510 100

Kangra 127 9.5 611 45.6 431 32.2 132 9.9 39 2.9 1340 100

Kullu 54 15.4 146 41.7 108 30.9 41 11.7 1 0.3 350 100

Mandi 150 13.5 445 40.1 348 31.4 139 12.5 28 2.5 1110 100

Shimla 159 13.3 533 44.4 385 32.1 112 9.3 11 0.9 1200 100

Sirmaur 65 9.4 335 48.6 208 30.1 75 10.9 7 1.0 690 100

Solan 182 25.6 407 57.3 88 12.4 28 3.9 5 0.7 710 100

Una 54 12.6 170 39.5 139 32.3 60 14.0 7 1.6 430 100

Total 925 12.8 3201 44.5 2248 31.2 713 9.9 113 1.6 7200 100

Educational Attainment – all users

N %

Illiterate 130 1.8

Literate but without formal schooling 108 1.5

Up to 4th standard 911 12.7

Completed 5th - 7th standard 559 7.8

Completed 8th to 9th standard 1265 17.6

Completed 10th standard 1829 25.4

Higher secondary/ intermediate 1689 23.5

Technical education diploma / certificate / Vocational 109 1.5

Graduate 500 6.9

Post-Graduate and Professional degree and higher research degrees 100 1.4

Total 7200 100


73

Primary Occupation– all users

N %

Cultivator / Farmer / Livestock rearing 430 6.0

Wage labor (Agriculture / Construction related) 213 3.0

Salaried (Government / Private) other than driver/helper/co 536 7.4

Skilled worker 309 4.3

Unskilled worker 829 11.5

Own Account Worker 1292 17.9

Self employed professional (Lawyer, Doctor, C.A., etc) 26 0.4

Trade /Retail Business / Other business 893 12.4

Unpaid family worker 44 0.6

Student 226 3.1

Social worker 19 0.3

Driver/helper/conductor 2220 30.8

Unemployed seeking employment 82 1.1

Housewife 81 1.1

Total 7200 100


74

Monthly Household Income – all users

District

Monthly Household Income Total

No Income Less than Rs.

3,000 Rs. 3001 to Rs.

5,000 Rs 5001 to Rs.

10,000 Rs 10,001 to Rs

20,000 Rs 20,001 to

Rs 30,000 More than Rs.

30,000 N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Bilaspur 11 2.6 24 5.7 87 20.7 148 35.2 144 34.3 6 1.4 420 100

Chamba 13 3.0 9 2.0 13 3.0 294 66.8 103 23.4 8 1.8 440 100

Hamirpur 35 6.9 31 6.1 142 27.8 172 33.7 106 20.8 14 2.7 10 2.0 510 100

Kangra 82 6.1 65 4.9 292 21.8 579 43.2 287 21.4 28 2.1 7 0.5 1340 100

Kullu 21 6.0 9 2.6 44 12.6 119 34.0 148 42.3 9 2.6 350 100

Mandi 55 5.0 70 6.3 148 13.3 529 47.7 281 25.3 24 2.2 3 0.3 1110 100

Shimla 67 5.6 30 2.5 104 8.7 507 42.3 467 38.9 24 2.0 1 0.1 1200 100

Sirmaur 30 4.3 19 2.8 201 29.1 296 42.9 135 19.6 7 1.0 2 0.3 690 100

Solan 25 3.5 5 0.7 77 10.8 354 49.9 239 33.7 10 1.4 710 100

Una 18 4.2 19 4.4 67 15.6 225 52.3 98 22.8 3 0.7 430 100

Total 357 5.0 281 3.9 1175 16.3 3223 44.8 2008 27.9 133 1.8 23 0.3 7200 100


75

Annex 2 (Sample Coverage)


76

Sample Coverage – by district

District Main Users Vulnerable Users Booster Total

Bilaspur 240 160 20 420

Chamba 246 164 30 440

Hamirpur 288 192 30 510

Kangra 768 512 60 1340

Kullu 198 132 20 350

Mandi 636 424 50 1110

Shimla 642 428 130 1200

Sirmaur 390 260 40 690

Solan 384 256 70 710

Una 240 160 30 430

Total 4032 2688 480 7200

Sample Coverage – by Road Category

District NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T Total

Bilaspur 80 100 100 100 40 420

Chamba 4 146 120 120 50 440

Hamirpur 110 120 120 120 40 510

Kangra 200 320 380 310 130 1340

Kullu 60 80 100 80 30 350

Mandi 190 260 300 260 100 1110

Shimla 180 260 390 260 110 1200

Sirmaur 100 160 200 160 70 690

Solan 100 230 160 160 60 710

Una 90 100 100 100 40 430

Total 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200


77

Annex 3 (Research Instruments)


78

Questionnaire for Main Users

Schedule No.

PREAMBLE

Good ……………: I am from TNS India Private Limited, one of the largest market research agencies in the world. On behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, we are currently conducting a survey among road users of Himachal Pradesh. We would be grateful if you could give us 15 minutes of your precious time. Please answer the following questions keeping in mind your experience in travelling on this road where we are interacting now. In the following questions roads will imply either this particular road or this category of roads (category name…………………………) of Himachal Pradesh.

SECTION A: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS (The Identification section has to be filled using CODING SHEET provided to you)

A1. Name of District___________________________ A2. Type of Area URBAN (1) RURAL (2)________

A3. Name of Town/Village_________________ A4. Nearest town/village_________________________

A5. Predominant Landmark ______________________________________________________________

A6. If RURAL (Crosscheck with A2), Village road – BT (1) Village road – NBT (2)

A7. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), National Highway (1) State Highway (2) Major District Road (3)

A8. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), Halt Point / Stretch No.

SECTION B: INTERVIEW DETAILS

Name of the interviewer: ______________ Date

Back checked by (Name): ______________ Date

Name of Supervisor:_____________ Sign______________ Name of Editor:____________ Sign______________

Date of scrutiny Date of scrutiny


79

SECTION C: RESPONDENT PROFILE (A person below 18 years cannot be interviewed)

No. Questions and Filters Coding Categories Code Skip

C1. Name of respondent _________________________________

C2. Age of the respondents In completed years

C3. Sex of the respondent Male 1

Female 2

C4. Your telephone / mobile Number

C5. Category of Vehicle

Trailer/ Truck/ Tanker 01

Inter-state private bus 02

Local private bus 03

Inter-state public bus 04

Local public bus 05

Local taxi/auto 06

Out of state tourist taxi 07

Local private car/SUV/MUV 08

Out of state private car/SUV/MUV 09

Government vehicle 10

Scooter/motorbike 11

Police/ Fire/ Ambulance/ Emergency vehicles 12

LCV (Matador, Tractor, small lorries, pickup etc)

13

Others, specify _________________ 14

C6. Category of respondent

Driver 01

Staff on Vehicle 02

Passenger 03

Owner-cum-driver 04

C7. Education of respondent

Illiterate 01

Literate but without formal schooling 02

Up to 4th standard 03

Completed 5th - 7th standard 04

Completed 8th to 9th standard 05

Completed 10th standard 06

Higher secondary/ intermediate 07

Technical education diploma / certificate / Vocational

08

Graduate 09

Post-Graduate 10

Professional degree and higher research degrees

11

C8. Occupation of respondent Cultivator / Farmer / Livestock rearing 01

Wage labor (Agriculture / Construction related) 02

Salaried (Government / Private) other than driver/helper/conductor

03

Skilled worker 04

Unskilled worker 05

Own Account Worker 06

Self employed professional (Lawyer, Doctor, C.A., etc)

07

Trade /Retail Business / Other business 08

Unpaid family worker 09

Student 10

Social worker 11

Driver/helper/conductor 12

Unemployed seeking employment 13


80

No. Questions and Filters Coding Categories Code Skip Other specify_____________ 99

C9. Where are you from? Stay within this same district 1 Go to C11

Stay somewhere else in this state 2 Go to C11

From out of state 3

C10. How many times have you travelled on this particular road over the PAST SIX MONTHS?

Quite often/very regularly 1

Several times 2

Few times/rarely 3

First time 4

C11. Please give me some idea about your total monthly household income. Please include all sources including salary, bonus, pension, interest, dividend, rental income, etc.

Less than Rs. 3,000 1

Rs. 3001 to Rs. 5,000 2

Rs 5001 to Rs. 10,000 3

Rs 10,001 to Rs 20,000 4

Rs 20,001 to Rs 30,000 5

More than Rs. 30,000 6

SECTION D: MAIN INTERVIEW


D1. For what purpose are you making this particular trip using this road?

[MULTIPLE CODE POSSIBLE]

Work related 1 Visiting friends/relations 2

Shopping 3 Sight-seeing/tourism 4

Other (specify)__________________ 9 D2. What would you say has been

your overall experience in using

this particular road today?

Quite satisfying 1 Somewhat satisfying 2

Neither satisfying nor dissatisfying 3 Somewhat dissatisfying 4

Quite dissatisfying 5 D3. During this trip, did you find any

police posts/ police patrolling vehicles (PCR Vans) along the way?

Yes 1 No 2

D4.

Based on your experience of travelling on this road today, please tell me how much satisfied are you with the following?

Read out one by one Quite

satisfied Somewhat

satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied

Quite dissatisfied

Don’t know

Can’t say

1 Overall condition of the road in terms of quality of road surface

1 2 3 4 5

2 Availability of filling stations and other essential amenities

1 2 3 4 5

3 Adequacy of road width as per traffic volume

1 2 3 4 5

4 Congestion/traffic jam on intersections

1 2 3 4 5

5 Quality of road markings (such as painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc)

1 2 3 4 5

6 Adequacy and visibility of warning / road signs during day and night.

1 2 3 4 5

7 Adequacy and visibility of milestones / distance signs along the route

1 2 3 4 5

8 Safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/ guardrails & other safety features

1 2 3 4 5


81

D4.

Based on your experience of travelling on this road today, please tell me how much satisfied are you with the following?

Read out one by one Quite

satisfied Somewhat

satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied

Quite dissatisfied

Don’t know

Can’t say

9 Availability of streetlights 1 2 3 4 5

10 Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling vehicles (PCR Vans)

1 2 3 4 5

11 Availability of parking facilities 1 2 3 4 5

12 The amount of money you have to pay for various kinds of road taxes and other related taxes

1 2 3 4 5

13

Adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling vehicles (PCR vans), hospitals, etc

1 2 3 4 5

14 Adequacy of Road side plantations 1 2 3 4 5

15 Durability/ quality of road in terms of the metalling / layering done on them

1 2 3 4 5

16 Roadside drainage 1 2 3 4 5

17 Maintenance of bridges on this roads

1 2 3 4 5

PLEASE ASK D5 - D9 TO ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3

YEARS. DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C10 – code 4)


D5.

During these last 2-3 years, what would you say the travel time between two places on roads such as this _______ has reduced or increased?

Substantially reduced 1

Reduced marginally 2

Remained same 3

Increased somewhat 4 Increased substantially 5

D6.

Looking at the current condition of roads such as this ______, has your fuel consumption and maintenance costs of your vehicle reduced or increased in the last 2-3 years?



Remained same 3


D7.

How often have you seen construction materials from any kind of roadwork activities (road construction, maintenance, laying of telephone lines, sewer lines, water pipes, etc.) lining the roadside while travelling on road such as this _______during the last 2-3 years?

All the time 1 Most of the time 2

Some times 3 Rarely/never 4

Go to D9

D8.

As you saw this last time, do you remember any sign explaining that there was a work-in-progress?

Yes 1 No 2

Don’t remember 3

D9.

Based on your experience of travelling on such road, have the following features improved or worsened as compared to 2-3 years ago?

Read out one by one Improved Remained the same

Become worse

Can’t say


82

1 Overall condition of the road in terms of quality of road

surface 1 2 3 4

2 Availability of filling stations and other essential amenities 1 2 3 4

3 Adequacy of road width as per traffic volume 1 2 3 4

4 Quality of road markings (such as painted lines, reflection

signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) 1 2 3 4

5 Adequacy and visibility of warning / road signs 1 2 3 4

6 Adequacy and visibility of milestones / distance signs along

the route 1 2 3 4

7 Safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/ guardrails

& others 1 2 3 4

8 Availability of streetlights 1 2 3 4

9 Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling

vehicles (PCR Vans) 1 2 3 4

10 Availability of parking facilities 1 2 3 4

11 Adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling

vehicles (PCR vans), hospitals, etc 1 2 3 4

12 Road side plantations 1 2 3 4

13 Maintenance of bridges on this road 1 2 3 4

D10. Do you get irritated on roads such as this ______with followings________?

D11. Has the situation improved over the past 2-3 years? (Do not ask from first time visitor; cross check with C10 – code 4)

Read out one by one Yes No Yes No Can’t Say

1 Congestion on the roads/ High volume of traffic 1 2 1 2 3

2 Behavior of other drivers (Rash driving/ poor overtaking/ not

indicating properly) 1 2 1 2 3

3 Air/ Noise pollution of vehicles 1 2 1 2 3

4 Beaming headlights of other vehicles 1 2 1 2 3

5 Animals crossing the road (cows, dogs, monkeys etc) 1 2 1 2 3

6 Pedestrians crossing road where not allowed 1 2 1 2 3

7 Bad roads (potholes, rutting, rough road etc) 1 2 1 2 3

8 Traffic jams on intersections 1 2 1 2 3

9 Wrong/ illegal parking 1 2 1 2 3

10 RTO/ Police checking/ Barricades 1 2 1 2 3

11 Non/ partial construction of roads in many areas/ villages 1 2 1 2 3

12 Close proximity of shops near roads 1 2 1 2 3

D12. In your experience of having driven on Himachal roads, could you give us your opinion on requirement and

availability of the following services on roads such as this____________?

Services Frequency of requirement

Not yet (1) Rarely (2) Quite often (3) NA (4)

Whether satisfied with availability Yes (1) No (2) NA (3)

Public toilets/ bathrooms

Eating food/ drinks at restaurants/ shops

Drinking water

Medical facilities

Rain shelter-cum-Bus stop

Mechanics/ tow car services


83

Parking facilities

D13.

When you are travelling on a road such as this ________, which of the following elements play an important part in determining your level of satisfaction with the journey? INSTRUCTION: please circle the appropriate codes for all spontaneous responses. For the balance responses, you have to prompt the elements one by one and put the following codes:

Important (1) Somewhat important (2) Somewhat unimportant (3) Not important (4) Spontaneous

Prompted (use code)

Smoothness of the drive in terms of road condition 01

Quality of the road surface because that effects the maintenance of the vehicle

02

Less Congestion/traffic jam 03

Availability of filling stations 04

Availability of other essential amenities like repair shops, halting points with food/water, etc.

05

Good drainage system 06

Protection against land-slides 07

Adequate Road/Bridge width 08

Good street lights 09

Less pedestrian traffic 10

Overall cleanliness on road and along sides, including clearance of construction materials

11

Availability of proper road signage 12

Visibility and adequacy of distance markers 13

Proper safety features such as railings, bends, parapets, etc. 14

Roadside parking facilities 15

Presence of police posts and patrolling vans 16

Proper maintenance of culverts and bridges 17

Expenses on road taxes 18

Less Air/Noise pollution 19

Good roadside plantations 20

Availability of Public Toilet 21

Availability of emergency medical facility 22

Others, specify___________________ 99


D14. In general, do you feel safe while commuting on roads such as this _____________?

Yes 1 Go to D16

No

2

D15. Could you tell me the possible

reasons as to why you feel

unsafe?

High speed of traffic 01 High volume of traffic/congestion 02

Heavy vehicles 03 Poor/ aggressive driving with bad overtaking 04


84


[MULTIPLE RESPONSES

POSSIBLE]

[DO NOT PROMPT]

Joining/leaving service lanes 05 Bad roads/ narrow roads 06

Poor condition of breast walls 07 Absent/ loose parapets 08

Unsafe retaining walls 09 Land/Rock sliding 10

Foggy weather 11 Slippery roads in rainy seasons 12

Absence of streetlights 13 Traffic converging into fewer lanes 14

Sharp turns 15 Bad signage 16

Robbery/ theft 17 Wrong Parking 18

Animal Crossing 19 Others________________________ 99

PLEASE ASK D16 TO ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3 YEARS.

DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C10 – code 4)

D16. What would you say the connectivity between different settlements in the state has improved or declined

Improved 1 Remained Same 2

Declined 3

D17. Which government department is responsible for developing and maintaining these roads?

HPPWD 1

Any other/Don’t Know 2

If they do not know or are wrongly aware, tell them the correct answer and proceed D18. From where do you usually come

to know about the activities of this department? (MULTIPLE RESPONSE POSSIBLE) [DO NOT PROMPT]

Road signs 1

Hoardings 2

Print media 3

TV/radio/internet 4

Patrolling vehicles 5

Signboards near work-in-progress sites 6 Don’t know about this department 8 TERMINATE

Others____________________ 9

D19. In your opinion, how successful has HPPWD been in providing quality roads in Himachal Pradesh?

Highly successful 1 Moderately successful 2

Neither successful nor unsuccessful 3 Moderately unsuccessful 4

Highly unsuccessful 5 Can’t say 6

D20. In your opinion, how successful has HPPWD been in carrying out road works speedily and efficiently?




D21. Have you ever complaint to HPPWD regarding any problem?

Yes 1

No 2 TERMINATE

D22. How satisfied are you with the complaint redressal system of HPPWD?

Highly satisfied 1 Moderately satisfied 2

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3 Moderately dissatisfied 4

Highly dissatisfied 5


85


D23. How satisfied are you with the maintenance response time (time taken in repairing/ maintaining roads) by HPPWD authorities in resolving maintenance/ repairing related problems?





D24. On an average, how much delay

do you experience due

to…………………..

(READ OUT REASONS)

No delay 1 Go to D26

1-30 min 2

31-60 min 3

1-2 hrs. 4

More than 2 hrs. 5

D25. Reasons and time of delay?

(USE CODES FROM D28)

Volume of Traffic 01 Time of delay

Road works/ maintenance 02 Time of delay

Bad design of intersections 03 Time of delay

Uncompromising Drivers 04 Time of delay

Insufficient road capacity/ narrow

stretches 05 Time of delay

Police /RTO-checking 06 Time of delay

Accidents 07 Time of delay

Pedestrian/animals 08 Time of delay

Wrong Parking 09 Time of delay

Bad weather/fog 10 Time of delay

Natural calamity/land sliding/snowfall 11 Time of delay

Others________ 99 Time of delay

D26 How the accidents on the roads

can be minimized?

(TO BE POST CODED)

______________________________________

D27 Please could you rank the

following in order of importance

that you consider while

commuting on these roads in

Himachal Pradesh?

Please rank them from 1 to 6,

where 1 being the most

important reason and 2 being the

next important reason and so on.

Value for Money ( Road related taxes

and charges, saving in fuel consumption,

vehicle maintenance cost, tyres etc.

Value for Time( Total time taken in

journey, availing facilities etc.)

Comfort & Convenience( condition of

road, smooth ride, congestion level etc.

Safety on the road (Safety from land

sliding, signage, police posts, medical

aid availability, emergency telephone

availability etc.)

Travel amenities (Food, water, toilets,

bathrooms, rest rooms, mechanics

availability etc.)


86


Visual appeal( Beautification on the

roads, landscaping, planting trees,

greenery etc.)

D27 Please can you rank what road

authorities should do for better

road management?





Wider Roads

Widening of curves/ improving curves

More wayside facilities

Tougher road traffic enforcement

Information/Warning Signs

D28 Finally, can you give any

suggestions for further

improvements in road-

infrastructure in Himachal

Pradesh?

(TO BE POST CODED)

______________________________________

Schedule No.

Say “Thank you & Have a Wonderful Journey” and terminate the interview.


87

Questionnaire for Vulnerable Users

Schedule No.

DEFINITION OF VULNERABLE USERS: Vulnerable are found adjacent to roads like shopkeeper, household, pedestrian, and the person operating non-motor vehicle like Cycle, Rickshaw wala, Bullock cart, etc .

PREAMBLE

Good ……………: I am from TNS India Private Limited, one of the largest market research agencies in the world. On behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, we are currently conducting a survey among road users of Himachal Pradesh. We would be grateful if you could give us 15 minutes of your precious time. Please answer the following questions keeping in mind your experience in travelling on this road where we are interacting now. In the following questions roads will imply either this particular road or this category of roads (category name…………………………) of Himachal Pradesh.

SECTION A: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS (The Identification section has to be filled using CODING SHEET provided to you)

A1. Name of District___________________________ A2. Type of Area URBAN (1) RURAL (2)________

A3. Name of Town/Village_________________ A4. Nearest town/village_________________________

A5. Predominant Landmark ______________________________________________________________

A6. If RURAL (Crosscheck with A2), Village road – BT (1) Village road – NBT (2)

A7. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), National Highway (1) State Highway (2) Major District Road (3)

A8. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), Halt Point / Stretch No.

SECTION B: INTERVIEW DETAILS

Name of the interviewer: ______________ Date

Back checked by (Name): ______________ Date

Name of Supervisor:_____________ Sign______________ Name of Editor:______________ Sign__________

Date of scrutiny Date of scrutiny


88

SECTION C: RESPONDENT PROFILE (A person below 18 years cannot be interviewed)


C1. Name of respondent _________________________________

C2. Age of the respondents In completed years

C3. Sex of the respondent Male 1

Female 2

C4. Your telephone / mobile Number

C5. Category of respondent

Household 1

Pedestrian 2

Porter 3

Cyclist 4

Shopkeeper 5

Rickshaw puller/ Thelewala /Bullock Cart Driver 6

Others 9

C6. Education of respondent

Illiterate 01

Literate but without formal schooling 02

Up to 4th standard 03

Completed 5th - 7th standard 04

Completed 8th to 9th standard 05

Completed 10th standard 06

Higher secondary/ intermediate 07

Technical education diploma / certificate / Vocational

08

Graduate 09

Post-Graduate 10

Professional degree and higher research degrees

11

C7. Occupation of respondent Cultivator / Farmer / Livestock rearing 01

Wage labor (Agriculture / Construction related) 02

Salaried (Government / Private) other than driver/helper/conductor

03

Skilled worker 04

Unskilled worker 05

Own Account Worker 06

Self employed professional (Lawyer, Doctor, C.A., etc)

07

Businessman / Shop owner with employees 08

Unpaid family worker 09

Student 10

Social worker 11

Driver/helper/conductor 12

Unemployed seeking employment 13

Petty trader 14

Housewife 15

Other specify_____________ 99

C8. How many times have you travelled on this particular road over the PAST SIX MONTHS?

Quite often/very regularly 1

Several times 2

Few times/rarely 3

First time 4

C9. Please give me some idea about your total monthly household income. Please include all sources including salary, bonus, pension, interest, dividend, rental income, etc.

Less than Rs. 3,000 1

Rs. 3001 to Rs. 5,000 2

Rs 5001 to Rs. 10,000 3

Rs 10,001 to Rs 20,000 4

Rs 20,001 to Rs 30,000 5


89

No. Questions and Filters Coding Categories Code Skip More than Rs. 30,000 6

SECTION D: MAIN INTERVIEW


D1. Mostly, What is your purpose of using this road?

[MULTIPLE CODE POSSIBLE]

Business / Work related 1 Visiting friends/relations 2

Shopping 3 Sight-seeing/tourism 4

OTHER (specify)__________________ 9 D2. Looking at this particular road, in

your view usually how congested is this road? (Congestion means reduced traffic-speed due to overcrowding of vehicles)

Absolutely free from congestion 1 Somewhat free 2

Neither free nor congested 3 Somewhat congested 4

Highly congested 5

D3.

Based on your experience of travelling on this road, please tell me what do you think about the following?

Read out one by one Very Good

Good Neither

Good Nor Bad

Bad Very Bad Don’t know

Can’t say

1 Overall condition of the road in terms of quality of road surface, smoothness and appearance

1 2 3 4 5 6

2 Adequacy of road width as per traffic volume

1 2 3 4 5 6

3 Quality of road markings (such as painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc)

1 2 3 4 5 6

4 Adequacy and Visibility of warning / road signs during day and night.

1 2 3 4 5 6

5 Adequacy and visibility of milestones / distance signs along the route

1 2 3 4 5 6

6 Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling vehicles (PCR Vans)

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

Adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling vehicles (PCR vans), hospitals, etc

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 Adequacy of Road side plantations 1 2 3 4 5 6

9 Maintenance of bridges on this roads

1 2 3 4 5 6

PLEASE ASK D4 – D7 TO ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3

YEARS. DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C8 – code 4)


D4. During the last 2-3 years, time between particular places on the roads you use frequently such as this ______ has reduced or increased?



Remained same 3


D5. In your opinion has the condition of roads such as this____

Improved substantially 1 Improved marginally 2


90


improved in the last 2-3 years? Remained same 3 Declined somewhat 4

Substantially declined 5 D6. How often have you seen

construction materials from any kind of roadwork activities (road construction, maintenance, laying of telephone lines, sewer lines, water pipes, etc.) lining the roadside while travelling on road such as this _______during the last 2-3 years?

All the time 1 Most of the time 2

Some times 3 Rarely/never 4

Go to D8

D7. As you saw this last time, do you remember any sign explaining that there was a work-in-progress?

Yes 1 No 2

Don’t remember 3

D8. Do you get irritated on roads such as this ______with followings________?

D9. Has the situation improved over the past 2-3 years? (Do not ask from first time visitor; cross check with C10 – code 4)

Read out one by one Yes No Yes No Can’t Say

1 Congestion on the roads/ High volume of traffic 1 2 1 2 3

2 Air Pollution from Vehicles 1 2 1 2 3

3 Noise Pollution from Vehicles 1 2 1 2 3

4 Insufficient pedestrian crossings 1 2 1 2 3

5 No separate lane for pedestrians/ cyclists/ rickshaw pullers 1 2 1 2 3

6 Bad roads (potholes, rutting, rough road etc) 1 2 1 2 3

7 Traffic jams on intersections 1 2 1 2 3

8 Non/ partial construction of roads in many areas/ villages 1 2 1 2 3

9 Close proximity of shops near roads 1 2 1 2 3

D10. In your experience of using roads such as this _______, could you give us your opinion on requirement and

availability of the following services on roads such as this____________?

Services Frequency of requirement

Not yet (1) Rarely (2) Quite often (3) NA (4)

Whether satisfied with availability

Yes (1) No (2) NA (3)

1 Public toilets/ bathrooms

2 Eating food/ drinks at

restaurants/ shops

3 Drinking water

4 Medical facilities

5 Rain shelter-cum-Bus stop

D11.

When you are travelling on a road such as this ________, which of the following elements play an important part in determining your level of satisfaction with the journey? INSTRUCTION: please circle the appropriate codes for all spontaneous responses. For the balance responses, you have to prompt the elements one by one and put the following codes:

Important (1) Somewhat important (2) Somewhat unimportant (3) Not important (4) Spontaneous

Prompted (use code)

Basic connectivity and time taken to travel between settlements 01

Road surface condition 02


91

Congestion level on road 03

Noise and air pollution 04

Quality of traffic (vehicle size, discipline of drivers) 05

Width of road allowing for pedestrian movement 06

Road safety features like pedestrian crossings, warning signs, emergency numbers displayed on signposts, etc.

07

Availability of parapets and railings 08

Availability of essential travel amenities like toilets, bathrooms, drinking water, etc.)

09

Visual appeal (beautification on the roads, landscaping, planting trees, greenery, etc)

10

Other Specify_____________________________ 99


D12. In general, do you feel safe while commuting on roads such as this___________?

Yes 1 Go to D14

No

2

D13. Could you tell me the possible

reasons as to why you feel

unsafe?

[MULTIPLE RESPONSE POSSIBLE]

[DO NOT PROMPT]

High speed of traffic 01 High volume of traffic/congestion 02

Heavy vehicles 03 Poor/ aggressive driving with bad overtaking 04

Joining/leaving service lanes 05 Bad roads/ narrow roads 06

Poor condition of breast walls 07 Absent/ loose parapets 08

Unsafe retaining walls 09 Land/Rock sliding 10

Foggy weather 11 Slippery roads in rainy seasons 12

Absence of streetlights 13 Traffic converging into fewer lanes 14

Sharp turns 15 Bad signage 16

Robbery/ theft 17 Others________________________ 99

PLEASE ASK D14 TO ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3 YEARS.

DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C8 – code 4)

D14. What would you say the connectivity between different settlements in the state has improved or declined

Improved 1 Remained Same 2

Declined 3

D15. What do you think about the management and time taken in accident clean up on this type of roads of Himachal Pradesh?

Very Good 1 Good 2

Neither Good nor Bad 3 Bad 4

Very Bad 5 D16. Have you ever experienced theft/

robbery on the roads of Himachal Pradesh?

Yes 1 No 2

PLEASE ASK D17 & D18 FOR RURAL ROADS ONLY AND TO THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING

THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3 YEARS. DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C8 – code 4) D17. Has connectivity between villages Improved substantially 1


92


improved over the past 2-3 years? Improved somewhat 2 Remained the same 3

D18. Has it become easier to reach important facilities in the major towns/district HQ today as compared to 2-3 years ago?

Yes 1 No 2

D19. Which government department is responsible for developing and maintaining these roads?

HPPWD 1

Any other/Don’t Know 2

if they do not know or are wrongly aware, tell them the correct answer and proceed D20. From where do you usually come

to know about the activities of this department? (MULTIPLE RESPONSE POSSIBLE) [DO NOT PROMPT]

Road signs 1

Hoardings 2

Print media 3

TV/radio/internet 4

Patrolling vehicles 5

Signboards near work-in-progress sites 6 Don’t know about this department 8 Go to D26

Others____________________ 9

D21. In your opinion, how successful has HPPWD been in providing quality roads in Himachal Pradesh?




D22. In your opinion, how successful has HPPWD been in carrying out road works speedily and efficiently?




D23. Have you ever complaint to HPPWD regarding any problem?

Yes 1

No 2 Go to D26

D24. How satisfied are you with the complaint redressal system of HPPWD?



Highly dissatisfied 5 D25. How satisfied are you with the

maintenance response time (time taken in repairing/ maintaining roads) by HPPWD authorities in resolving maintenance/ repairing related problems?




PLEASE ASK QUESTION D26 TO D31 ONLY TO WOMEN RESPONDENTS D26. For a woman, do you feel it has

become safer to travel on Himachal roads as compared to few years before?

Yes 1 No 2

D27. How often do you leave the house and travel on roads? (exclude travel on rural non BT road)

Every day 1 Almost every day 2

Few times a week 3 At least once a week 4

Once or twice a month 5 Less frequently 6


93

D28. Do you

undertake this activity using the road network? Yes (1), No (2)

D29. Do you usually walk or use a vehicle or both (mixed mode)? Walk/Cycle(1), Ride(2), Both(3)

D30. Has frequency of this activity increased over last 2/3 years? Increased(1), Remain Same(2), Decreased(3)

D31. If increased, is it due to greater connectivity? Yes (1), No (2)


Going to work




Going to Shimla

Visiting relations/friends


D28. On an average, how much delay

do you experience due

to…………………..

(READ OUT REASONS)

No delay 1 Go to D30

1-30 min 2

31-60 min 3

1-2 hrs. 4

More than 2 hrs. 5

D29. Reasons and time of delay?

(USE CODES FROM D28)

Volume of Traffic 01 Time of delay

Road works/ maintenance 02 Time of delay

Bad design of intersections 03 Time of delay

Uncompromising Drivers 04 Time of delay

Insufficient road capacity/ narrow

stretches 05 Time of delay

Police /RTO-checking 06 Time of delay

Accidents 07 Time of delay

Pedestrian/animals 08 Time of delay

Wrong Parking 09 Time of delay

Bad weather/fog 10 Time of delay

Natural calamity/land sliding/snowfall 11 Time of delay

Others________ 99 Time of delay

D30 How the accidents on the roads

can be minimized?

(TO BE POST CODED)

______________________________________


94


D31 Please could you rank the

following in order of importance

that you consider while

commuting on these roads in

Himachal Pradesh?





Value for Time( Total time taken in

journey, availing facilities etc.)

Comfort & Convenience( condition of

road, smooth ride, congestion level etc.

Safety on the road (Safety from land

sliding, signage, police posts, medical

aid availability, emergency telephone

availability etc.)

Travel amenities (Food, water, toilets,

bathrooms, rest rooms, mechanics

availability etc.)

Visual appeal( Beautification on the

roads, landscaping, planting trees,

greenery etc.)

D32 What kinds of problems do you

feel due to these roads?

Air Pollution 1

Noise Pollution 2

Fear of Accidents 3

Traffic Jams. 4

Road Works 5

Non availability of pedestrian crossings

near schools, builtup areas 6

Other (specify) 9

D33 Please can you rank what road

authorities should do for better

road management?





Wider Roads

Widening of curves/ improving curves

More wayside facilities

Tougher road traffic enforcement

Information/Warning Signs

D34 Finally, can you give any

suggestions for further

improvements in road-

infrastructure in Himachal

Pradesh?

(TO BE POST CODED)

______________________________________

Schedule No.

Say “Thank you & Have a Wonderful Journey” and terminate the interview.


95

In-depth Interview Guidelines

to be administered with

Stakeholders

(Bus /Truck / Taxi Operators, Public Representatives, Media Agencies, Hoteliers Associations, Emergency Service Provides, etc.)

IDENTIFICATION DETAILS

a) District Name________________________ b) Stakeholder Name ______________________

c) Department Name____________________ d) Designation____________________________

e) Contact No.__________________________

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this interview is to understand the aspects related to development of roads in the state of Himachal Pradesh.

1. Are you originally from Himachal Pradesh? If no, from which part of India you belong to? 2. How long ago you came and settled here? For what reasons you have settled here? 3. Have you travelled all parts of Himachal Pradesh? Have you travelled all parts of

this________ district? 4. How is the road connectivity among districts in Himachal Pradesh? 5. How easy is to move from one place to another place? 6. What are the facilities available? 7. What is the frequency of bus/taxi services? Are they adequate? 8. How long it takes to go from one place to another place. 9. How convenient it is to go from one place to another place. 10. How safe and secure is to go from one place to another place. 11. Does the physical condition and development status of roads vary from one district to

another district in Himachal Pradesh? If yes, which are those districts? What are the reasons for this variation?

12. How is the road connectivity among towns / villages in this__________ district? 13. Whether majority of rural roads are metalled or non-metalled? 14. What is the physical condition of majority of highways or rural roads (smooth or uneven or

pot holes)? 15. Does this problem aggravate during rainy / winter seasons? 16. What is the status of road infrastructure in this ______district?

o Like bridges, culverts, retaining wall, tunnels, signage and markings, electrical systems (street lighting/traffic lights), edge treatments (curves, side-walks, landscaping), drainage, road maintenance depots and rest areas, etc.

17. What is the status of amenities/ services available? o Like railway station, bus terminus, bus stand, taxi/auto stands, petrol pumps, sign

boards, warning boards, emergency numbers board, speed limit boards, street lights and pedestrian way for facilitating easier and safe traveling, phone booth, drinking


96

water facility parking facilities, public toilets, hotel/ eateries, repair shops, hotel/ eateries, etc.

18. How are the safety / security arrangements? o What are different safety and security arrangements for saving travelers from theft

and robbery while traveling on roads particularly during night? o What actions taken by police when someone do not follow/ break driving rules? o Whether PCR or patrol vans reaches on time at the required place?

19. Incidence of road accidents. o How often road accidents takes place in your district? Whether they are mainly on

highways or major roads or village roads? Has it increased or decreased over last few years? What are the reasons for accident? What is the interface between passenger traffic and traffic that carries goods?

o Have any measures have been taken by local administration/government to reduce the number of road accidents? Do road accidents fluctuate with seasons?

o How long it take to clear the road in case of any road accident? o What all emergency services are available in case of road accidents? o How fast medical facilities are provided if someone is badly hurt / injured?

20. Emergency services. o During situation such as road accident, hospital emergency, landslide, etc. what

difficulties is faced on road? How challenging is to rescue the victim? What are major barriers?

o Does it also affects / trouble passengers on road? If yes, how? o What are the arrangements of local administration/government to deal with such

incidence? 21. Environmental degradation.

o Do you think development of roads and other infrastructure causes landslide or other natural calamity? If yes, how? What according to you would be the better way to deal with development of roads and other infrastructure?

22. Perception about HPPWD/HPRIDC. o Do you know HPPWD/HPRIDC? o Do you think that in last 3/4 years these departments have done lot of work related

to road in this ______district? If yes, please describe the type of work undertaken by them?

o Do you think these works has helped in improving the physical condition of roads and infrastructure in this _________district? If yes, please describe? If no, reasons?

o Do you think that periodic maintenance / repair work on road is done time to time particularly during rainy/winter seasons?

23. Level of satisfaction o What is your level of satisfaction related to road conditions, infrastructure, amenities

/services, safety / security, journey time, etc. in your ___________ district? Are you satisfied with the progress of the development work undertaken? What is your overall satisfaction with the development of roads of your ___________ district?

24. Suggestions. o What suggestion would you like to give to improve the road conditions and other

infrastructure better in your ___________ district?


97

Annex 4 (Awareness Raising Material)


98


99

final survey reporthimachalservices.nic.in/hpridc/midline survey report_russ(tns).pdfsurvey reveals...

Documents