Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Contents
Executive Summary
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
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
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
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
2
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
List of Tables
5.12 Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean 44
3
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
4
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Executive Summary
Research Findings
Road Nearly 34 percent of the road users believed that the overall road
Condition & condition in Himachal Pradesh has improved over last few years. This
Perceived phenomenon was more prevalent for national highways. There has been
Impact an increase in the perceived impact on time and fuel economy from 3
percent (baseline) to around 10 percent (midline) respectively.
Comfort & On the issue of congestion of road, around 15 percent road users were
Convenience 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
5
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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 Almost all respondents interviewed mentioned the name of HPPWD
about 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
6
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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 – Among the districts covered under the survey, Sirmaur has achieved the
district-wise 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 Roadside markings, roadside amenities and the basic quality of
satisfaction 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 HPPWD shall also understand the aspirations of educated users and users
condition who are in formal sector employment so as to work out a detailed plan
and Traffic 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
7
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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 The perception about roadside amenities shows a declining trend. Though
amenities on providing amenities is not a core mandate of PWD but the department can
PPP basis 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 Inventory of stretches prone to repair work: The PWD in their respective
Maintenance 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 HPPWD need to have a dedicated communication campaign through mid-
attributes or media and outdoor media to educate local drivers / tourists (who come on
irritants 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
8
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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 The fine structures in the state have to be revised as it can be deterrent for
fine traffic rule violators. “In the National Capital of Delhi during the
structures 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 Overall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among
catalyst for settlements in the state has improved which was more in case of rural
rural areas. The stakeholders and local citizen opined that the connectivity of
villages with main road has opened up their areas. They can transport
development
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.
9
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
– 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.
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.
10
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Source: mapsofindia.com
1.3 Objectives
– 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
11
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
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.
12
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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 km 2. 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
13
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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:
4
Census of India estimates, 2001
14
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Sampling procedure
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
Considering all the above, the minimum required sample size for each reporting level
worked out to be as follows:
= Approximately 672
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.
15
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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:
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
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.
16
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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 All rural roads selected after The additional sample was
interviews took place along random selection of villages. drawn from locations along
halting points like dhabas, Villages were selected to the main roads cutting
filling stations, stands/stops, have representation from across the selected towns
toll booths/check posts, etc. both varieties of RR. (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):
17
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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:
18
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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.
19
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
The below given distribution have used the weightage suggested by the technical committee which was also used during baseline survey.
Sample weightage used during baseline survey (% age) Sample distribution Total base
District
NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T sample
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.
20
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Considering the above mentioned points, the distribution of final base sample is:
21
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
The booster sample across selected towns was redistributed on a pro rata basis of the urban population of each district, as follows:
22
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Therefore, the total sample distribution for this round of the survey worked out to be as follows:
23
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.
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:
Segments
District
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.
24
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
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.
Villages
District
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.
25
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
26
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
27
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
28
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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).
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).
29
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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
30
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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
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.
31
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
The issue of road metalling and layering was explored among main users but it exhibits
more or less a similar trend.
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.
32
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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.
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.
33
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
34
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
Importantly, the major reason which caused journey delay is traffic volume (69%), followed
by accidents (22%), insufficient road capacity, narrow stretches, etc.
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.
35
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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
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,
36
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
37
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
38
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
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.
39
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Table 5.4: Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted
lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – main users
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
Neither Good nor Bad 29.9 30.1 26.3 28.4 27.4 31.7 28.6 28.5
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).
40
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Table 5.6: Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and night –
main users
Table 5.7: Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and
night – vulnerable users
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.
41
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
42
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
43
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Table 5.12: Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean
up – vulnerable users
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).
Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168
44
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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
45
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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).
46
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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% )
NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total
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.
47
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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.
48
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
Road Category (in %)
NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total
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
18.8 15.6 12.5 9.9 11.1 13.6
unsuccessful
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).
49
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Table 7.4: Opinion on HPPWD success in carrying out Road Works Speedily & Efficiently –
all Users
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.
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
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).
50
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Table 7.6: Satisfaction with the Complaint Redressal System – all users
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
51
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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.
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?
52
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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?
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.
53
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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?
54
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
And a high proportion of them (75% to 100%) attributed it to improved connectivity in their
areas which was relatively higher in rural areas.
55
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
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:
56
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Model
Overall satisfaction = (0.356*Main safety features’ availability score) +
(0.342*Road quality and durability score) +
(0.246*Needs & benefits’ score) +
Model
Overall satisfaction = (0.368*Main safety features’ availability score) +
(0.303*Other essentials’ availability score) +
(0.314*Road quality and durability score)
57
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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:
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
58
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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.
59
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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.
60
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Midline RUSI1
th
Completed 10 3.56
Higher secondary/ intermediate 3.54
Above higher sec/ inter 3.55
Farmer/ Cultivator 3.64
Unskilled Labour 3.77
Salaried/ SEPs 3.42
Skilled worker 3.64
Occupational engagements
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.
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.
61
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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.
62
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
63
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
64
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
65
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
66
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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).
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.
67
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Annexure
68
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Annex 1
(Respondent Profile)
69
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
70
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
71
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Age Total
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-60 >60
District 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
72
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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
73
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
74
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Annex 2
(Sample Coverage)
75
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
76
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Annex 3
(Research Instruments)
77
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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)
78
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
79
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Based on your experience of travelling on this road today, please tell me how much satisfied are you with the
following?
D4. Don’t
Quite Somewhat Somewhat Quite
Read out one by one know
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Can’t say
Overall condition of the road in
1 1 2 3 4 5
terms of quality of road surface
Availability of filling stations and
2 1 2 3 4 5
other essential amenities
Adequacy of road width as per
3 1 2 3 4 5
traffic volume
Congestion/traffic jam on
4 1 2 3 4 5
intersections
Quality of road markings (such as
5 painted lines, reflection signs, 1 2 3 4 5
pedestrian crossing markings, etc)
Adequacy and visibility of warning
6 1 2 3 4 5
/ road signs during day and night.
Adequacy and visibility of
7 milestones / distance signs along 1 2 3 4 5
the route
Safety features such as railings,
8 bends, parapets/ guardrails & 1 2 3 4 5
other safety features
80
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Based on your experience of travelling on this road today, please tell me how much satisfied are you with the
following?
D4. Don’t
Quite Somewhat Somewhat Quite
Read out one by one know
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Can’t say
9 Availability of streetlights 1 2 3 4 5
Availability and accessibility of
10 police posts/ police patrolling 1 2 3 4 5
vehicles (PCR Vans)
11 Availability of parking facilities 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of money you have to
12 pay for various kinds of road taxes 1 2 3 4 5
and other related taxes
Adequacy of emergency
telephone services with display of
13 emergency numbers such as 1 2 3 4 5
police posts, police patrolling
vehicles (PCR vans), hospitals, etc
14 Adequacy of Road side plantations 1 2 3 4 5
Durability/ quality of road in
15 terms of the metalling / layering 1 2 3 4 5
done on them
16 Roadside drainage 1 2 3 4 5
17 Maintenance of bridges on this 5
1 2 3 4
roads
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)
Based on your experience of travelling on such road, have the following features improved or worsened as
compared to 2-3 years ago?
D9.
Remained Become
Read out one by one Improved Can’t say
the same worse
81
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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____________?
Frequency of requirement
Whether satisfied with availability
Services Not yet (1) Rarely (2)
Yes (1) No (2) NA (3)
Quite often (3) NA (4)
Public toilets/ bathrooms
Eating food/ drinks at
restaurants/ shops
Drinking water
Medical facilities
82
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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) Prompted
Spontaneous
Somewhat unimportant (3) Not important (4) (use code)
Smoothness of the drive in terms of road condition 01
Quality of the road surface because that effects the maintenance of
02
the vehicle
Less Congestion/traffic jam 03
Others, specify___________________ 99
83
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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 Improved 1
connectivity between different Remained Same 2
settlements in the state has 3
improved or declined Declined
D17. Which government department is HPPWD 1
responsible for developing and
Any other/Don’t Know 2
maintaining these roads?
If they do not know or are wrongly aware, tell them the correct answer and proceed
D18. From where do you usually come Road signs 1
to know about the activities of Hoardings 2
this department? 3
Print media
TV/radio/internet 4
(MULTIPLE RESPONSE POSSIBLE)
Patrolling vehicles 5
[DO NOT PROMPT] Signboards near work-in-progress sites 6
Don’t know about this department 8 TERMINATE
Others____________________ 9
D19. In your opinion, how successful Highly successful 1
has HPPWD been in providing Moderately successful 2
quality roads in Himachal Neither successful nor unsuccessful 3
Pradesh?
Moderately unsuccessful 4
Highly unsuccessful 5
Can’t say 6
D20. In your opinion, how successful Highly successful 1
has HPPWD been in carrying out Moderately successful 2
road works speedily and Neither successful nor unsuccessful 3
efficiently?
Moderately unsuccessful 4
Highly unsuccessful 5
Can’t say 6
D21. Have you ever complaint to Yes 1
HPPWD regarding any problem? No 2 TERMINATE
D22. How satisfied are you with the Highly satisfied 1
complaint redressal system of Moderately satisfied 2
HPPWD? Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3
Moderately dissatisfied 4
Highly dissatisfied 5
84
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
85
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Schedule No.
Say “Thank you & Have a Wonderful Journey” and terminate the interview.
86
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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.
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)
87
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
88
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Based on your experience of travelling on this road, please tell me what do you think about the following?
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)
89
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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____________?
Frequency of requirement Whether satisfied with availability
Services Not yet (1) Rarely (2)
Quite often (3) NA (4) Yes (1) No (2) NA (3)
1 Public toilets/ bathrooms
Eating food/ drinks at
2
restaurants/ shops
3 Drinking water
4 Medical facilities
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) Prompted
Spontaneous
Somewhat unimportant (3) Not important (4) (use code)
Basic connectivity and time taken to travel between settlements 01
90
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
91
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
92
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Going to Shimla
Visiting relations/friends
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)
93
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Schedule No.
Say “Thank you & Have a Wonderful Journey” and terminate the interview.
94
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
to be administered with
Stakeholders
(Bus /Truck / Taxi Operators, Public Representatives, Media Agencies, Hoteliers Associations,
Emergency Service Provides, etc.)
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
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
95
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
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?
96
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Annex 4
(Awareness Raising Material)
97
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
98
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
99