Midline Survey Report - RUSS (TNS)

FINAL SURVEY REPORT
Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012
Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter No. Titles Page No.
1 Introduction 10 – 11
1.1 Background
1.2 Road Network in Himachal Pradesh
1.3 Objectives
2 Research Design 12 – 27
2.1 Quantitative Survey
2.2 Qualitative Survey
3 Road Condition & Perceived Impact 28 – 29

3.1 Road Condition and Travel Time
3.2 Perceived Impact on Time and Fuel Economy
4 Comfort & Convenience 30 – 35

4.1 Congestion on Roads
4.2 Information on Road Works
4.3 Quality of Roads and Bridges
4.4 Connectivity and Accessibility
4.5 Irritants – negative attributes
4.6 Extent of Delays and Reasons
5 Safety Aspects 36 – 44
5.1 Is commuting on Himachal roads safe enough?
5.2 What are the key reasons cited for feeling unsafe?
5.3 Safety Designs
5.4 Warning & Road signs
5.5 Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police
patrolling vehicles
5.6 Accident Management
5.7 Opinion on Theft / Robbery on Himachal roads
6 Travel Amenities & Visual Appeal 45 – 47

6.1 Availability of Amenities
6.2 Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities
7 Perception about HPPWD 48 – 51

7.1 Awareness about HPPWD
7.2 Sources of Awareness
7.3 Perception about HPPWD
7.4 Complaint Redressal System & Maintenance
Response Time
1
Chapter No. Titles Page No.
8 Gender Aspects 52 – 55
8.1 Whether Feel Safe on Roads?
8.2 Frequency of Travel on Roads
8.3 Usage of Road Network
9 Road User Satisfaction Index 56 – 63

9.1 Development of RUSI
9.2 Index Generation using the Baseline Approach
9.3 Index Generation using the Stated Importance and
Perceived Satisfaction Levels
9.4 Logistic Regression to derive the Key Drivers of
Satisfaction
9.5 Overall Road Users Satisfaction using Same Construct
as in Baseline
10 Conclusion & Recommendations 64 – 67
Annexure
Annex 1 Respondent Profile 69 – 74
Annex 2 Sample Coverage 75 – 76
Annex 3 Research Instruments 77 – 96
Annex 4 Awareness Raising Material 97 – 99
2
List of Tables
Table No. Titles Page No.
3.1 Overall condition of road – all users 28

3.2 Travel Time – all users 29
3.3 Fuel Consumption – main users 29
4.1 Congestion / Traffic Jam on Intersections – main users 30
4.2 Adequacy of Road Width as per Traffic Volume – all users 30
4.3 Seen Construction Materials from Roadwork Activities – all users 31
4.4 Sign Explaining a Work-in-Progress – all users 31
4.5 Quality of the Road Surface / Smoothness / Appearance – all
32
users
4.6 Quality of the Road Metalling / Layering – main users 32
4.7 Maintenance of Bridges – all users 33
4.8 Connectivity among Settlements – all users 33
4.9 Accessibility among Settlements – all users 34
4.10 Irritants – main users 34
4.11 Journey Delay – all users 35
4.12 Reasons for Delay – all users 35
5.1 Feeling Safe while Commuting on Himachal roads – all users 36
5.2 Reasons for feeling unsafe – all users 36
5.3 Satisfaction with the Safety Features such as railings, bends,
39
parapets/ guardrails – main users
5.4 Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted
lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – main 40
users
5.5 Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted
lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – 40
vulnerable users
5.6 Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and
41
night – main users
5.7 Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and
41
night – vulnerable users
5.8 Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling
42
Vehicles – main users
5.9 Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling
42
Vehicles – vulnerable users
5.10 Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services
with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police 43
patrolling – main users
5.11 Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services
with display of emergency numbers such as police posts, police 43
patrolling – vulnerable users
5.12 Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean 44
3
Table No. Titles Page No.

up – vulnerable users
5.13 Proportion ever experienced theft robbery on the roads of
44
Himachal Pradesh – vulnerable users
6.1 Availability and Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities – all users 45
6.2 Availability of Petrol Pumps – main users 47
6.3 Satisfaction with Road side plantations – all users 47
7.1 Awareness of HPPWD – all users 48
7.2 Source of Awareness regarding HPPWD – all users 49
7.3 Opinion on how successful has HPPWD been in providing Quality
49
Roads in HP – all users
7.4 Opinion on HPPWD success in carrying out Road Works speedily
50
& efficiently – all Users
7.5 Proportion Ever Complained HPPWD regarding any Problem – all
50
users
7.6 Satisfaction with the Complaint Redressal System– all users 51
7.7 Satisfaction with the Maintenance Response Time – all users 51
8.1 Has it become safer to travel on Himachal Road? 52
8.2 How often do you leave the house and travel on roads? 52
8.3 Do you undertake the following activities using the road
53
network?
8.4 Do you usually walk or use a vehicle or both? 53
8.5 Has frequency of this activity increased over last 2 / 3 years? 54
8.6 If increased, is it due to greater connectivity? 55
9.1 District wise Satisfaction Scores 59
9.2 Satisfaction Scores – Type of Roads 60
9.3 Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores 60
9.4 Satisfaction Scores – Vehicle wise 61
9.5 Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores 63
4
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
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
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
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
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
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Road is the dominant mode of transport in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The total length
of the network in the state is about 32,926 km, of which almost all are managed by the HP
Public Works Department (PWD). About 50% of the total network surface treated. Other
roads are owned and managed by Zilla Panchayat, Forest Department, and Urban Local
bodies.
The road sector suffers from a number of problems. These include:
– Insufficient investment in the primary network given the rapidly growing demand for
road transport
– Inadequate and sub-optimal allocation of resources for road maintenance
– Absence of private sector participation in development of the sector
– Inadequate attention to road operation, especially road safety; and
– Institutional constraints of the key road agency, the Public Works Department (PWD)
While a number of road agencies, internationally, are now placing more emphasis on
meeting road users’ expectations and accordingly trying to measure customer satisfaction,
the Government of Himachal Pradesh (GoHP) wishes to pursue a similar approach.
In this context, the Himachal Pradesh Road and Other Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd (HPRIDC) has taken a new initiatives to understand and measure road
users’ satisfaction to enhance the services delivery, thereby, giving senior management in
the highways department an insight into the issues and concerns, raised by road users, to
influence future strategic and operational decisions.
1.2 Road Network in Himachal Pradesh
The State has 11 National Highways with a total length of 1,470.606 Km as of March 2011.
The State has 19 State Highways and 48 Major District Roads with a total length of 1,625.70
Km and 1,969.370 Km, respectively. Roads have been assigned a high priority by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh. In 2010-11, the government outlay for road development
and related activities was US$ 110 million.
10
Figure 1.1: Roads Network
Source: mapsofindia.com
1.3 Objectives
The specific objectives of the survey would be to:
– Elicit views on public perceptions of current sector outcomes, PWD performance and
government policies
– To identify various parameters influencing road users satisfaction
– To develop a Road Users Satisfaction Index (RUSI) comprising of various factors that
affect road user satisfaction, with due weightage to each of these factors
– To present the road user satisfaction across different user categories and road
categories on satisfaction indicators
– Document the views in a comprehensible format suitable for comparison over time
– To provide recommendations for future course of action based on the survey result
– Present the findings of the survey to senior decision makers in GOHP and the general
public
11
2. Research Design
Considering the objectives as outlined above, it was proposed to adopt both quantitative
and qualitative research design. The quantitative technique used a structured questionnaire
with mostly pre-coded options to generate numeric data for all statistical measurements.
However, qualitative protocols using In-depth interview guides provided information and
valuable insights for better programmatic solutions
A Two-Pronged Strategy
2.1 Quantitative Survey
Overall sampling framework
The sampling was based on two key elements, viz.
1. Sample needs to be reflective of the nature of road networks available in the state; and
2. Sample needs to be true for both main users and vulnerable users and within main
users, by broad typologies
Given this for a fact, what needs to be fixed was the number of categories of roads, users
and traffic modes that need to be reported on as part of the final deliverables. In addition,
what needs to be determined was the number of districts to be covered out of the total 12
districts in the state.
12
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
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:
Total road Number of Number of

District NH SH BR MDR
length towns villages
Kangra     4843.0 9 3868
Shimla     3994.4 10 2895
Mandi     3945.0 5 3338
Sirmaur     2355.0 3 968
Solan     2261.0 8 2536
Chamba    1688.0 5 1118
Hamirpur     1592.0 4 1694
Una     1494.0 5 866
Bilaspur     1343.0 4 1080
Kullu     1139.0 4 172
4
Census of India estimates, 2001
14
Sampling procedure
Allocation of samples is a function of the following parameters, viz.
1. Extent of disaggregation of data required while reporting for the state

2. Occurrence of parameter to be measured
3. Level of accuracy desired from the estimation
Determination of base sample per reporting level:
At the state level, the indicator that we are looking to measure is proportion of respondents
who were overall satisfied with the improvement in road conditions. Because road
conditions cover a multitude of attributes, a single index for satisfaction cannot be
developed and expressed in percentage terms (as against the RUSI) and hence, if we take
occurrence levels to be 50% (to ensure maximum sample size), and assume a design effect
of 1.75, the minimum required sample size for each reporting level can be worked out using
the standard formula as follows:
t2 p (1-p) f
n= d2
Where
n = required sample size

t2 = factor to achieve 95% level of confidence (square of the Z value)
p = prevalence of the indicator being measured (50%)
d = margin of error to be tolerated (5%)
f = design effect (1.75)
Considering all the above, the minimum required sample size for each reporting level
worked out to be as follows:
Sample size = (1.96)2 x 0.5 (1 - 0.5) x 1.75

(0.05)2
= Approximately 672
Determination of reporting levels
The number of reporting levels for the state depends on the level of disaggregated analysis.
This again is a function of the modal split we are likely to come across when the actual
fieldwork is in progress across the different districts and alongside the different road
typologies.
15
Since RUSI scores will have to be reported per district, at a basic level, the number of
reporting units worked out to be as follows:
10 districts x 672 respondents = 6720
However, as per the previous survey, all other indicators were reported at the state level
but disaggregated for different typology of roads. Taking this into consideration, the
required sample size becomes
5 road typologies x 672 respondents = 3360
However, it is important to also provide disaggregated analysis on different indicators by the

respondent categories. Since respondents are going to be asked to comment on the state of
roads by individual road typologies where they are travelling / or mostly use, the sample
required for this level of analysis worked out to be:
5 road typologies x 2 broad respondent segment x 672 respondents = 6720
Therefore, at an overall level, the minimum sample size required to provide HPRIDC with the
estimates at par with the previous survey is 6720 respondents.
We also believe that there are some categories of respondents/users who have been
identified by the client whose numbers had to be bolstered to get adequate representation.
This is simply because we anticipated an under-sampling of these categories if we simply
adopt the methodology used in the previous survey, viz. capturing then at halting points
along sample road segments. These specific categories are:
Porters
Rickshaw pullers
Household/shopkeepers
In intend to thus undertake a booster sample of 480 respondents spread across some of
the larger towns in the state (all to be district HQs) over an above the numbers of towns
which were covered through the road segment sampling process.
With the booster sample, the overall sample for the study worked out to be 7200 face-to-
face interviews.
16
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):
Primary source of Other sources of

Main users
recruitment recruitment
Trailer/truck/tanker
drivers/owners/staff
Bus/taxi/auto
Private car/SUV/MUV
drivers/owners Along halting points like
dhabas, diesel filling
Bus/taxi/auto passengers stations, stands/stops, check
Scooter/motorcycle riders posts in NH, SH and MDR
Tractor, agricultural vehicle segments Along RR (B/T and non B/T)
drivers/owners adjacent to identified sample
villages
Along RR (B/T and non B/T)
Tempo/matador/LCV
adjacent to identified sample
villages
Vulnerable users
Along halting points like
dhabas, diesel filling
Households/shopkeepers Booster sample in key district
stations, stands/stops, check
living adjacent to the roads HQ towns
posts in NH, SH and MDR
segments
17
Primary source of Other sources of

Main users
recruitment recruitment

dhabas, diesel filling stations,
stands/stops, check posts in
Booster sample in key
Pedestrians and porters NH, SH and MDR segments
district HQ towns
Along RR (B/T and non B/T)
adjacent to identified sample
villages

Booster sample in key dhabas, diesel filling stations,
Cyclists/rickshaw pullers stands/stops, check posts in
district HQ towns
NH, SH and MDR segments
Distribution of sample among districts
The base sample of 6720 respondents was be distributed across districts on a pro rata basis,
using road length as determinant for distribution. The details are as follows:
District Total road length % distribution Sample distribution

Kangra 4843.0 19.6 1320
Mandi 3945.0 16.0 1075
Shimla 3994.4 16.2 1089
Sirmaur 2355.0 9.6 642
Solan 2261.0 9.2 616
Una 1494.0 6.1 407
Chamba 1688.0 6.8 460
Hamirpur 1592.0 6.5 434
Kullu 1139.0 4.6 310
Bilaspur 1343.0 5.4 366
Total 24654.4 100.0 6720
18
Distribution of sample among road categories within a district
The below given table present the percentage share of the NH / SH / MDR / RR B/T / RR Non B/T for each selected district. It illustrate that at
the state level the percentage share of national highways, state highways and major district roads are only 5 percent, 8 percent and 9 percent
respectively. The district-wise percentage share also depicts a similar picture.
Road length in Kms. % share within district

District Total Total
NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T
Kangra 201.4 327.5 206.6 2780.5 1327 4843 4.2 6.8 4.3 57.4 27.4 100.0
Mandi 270.3 233 398.3 1052.4 1991 3945 6.9 5.9 10.1 26.7 50.5 100.0
Shimla 218.5 302.3 496.8 694.9 2282 3994.5 5.5 7.6 12.4 17.4 57.1 100.0
Sirmaur 57 218.4 358.3 426.3 1295 2355 2.4 9.3 15.2 18.1 55.0 100.0
Solan 153.5 210 201.2 569.3 1127 2261 6.8 9.3 8.9 25.2 49.8 100.0
Una 32.4 125.3 89.9 988.4 258 1494 2.2 8.4 6.0 66.2 17.3 100.0
Chamba 0 413.6 66 541.4 667 1688 0.0 24.5 3.9 32.1 39.5 100.0
Hamirpur 82.3 73.3 83.3 990.2 363 1592.1 5.2 4.6 5.2 62.2 22.8 100.0
Kullu 55 96 216.1 235.9 536 1139 4.8 8.4 19.0 20.7 47.1 100.0
Bilaspur 136.2 13 88.9 687 418 1343.1 10.1 1.0 6.6 51.2 31.1 100.0
Total 1206.5 2012.3 2205.3 8966.2 10264 24654.3 4.9 8.2 8.9 36.4 41.6 100.0
As per the estimates, the national highway alone caters more than 40 percent of the total road traffic in the state of Himachal Pradesh,
followed by state highway/major district roads which together cater another 40 percent. Hence, more weightage was given to the highways
and major roads than rural roads.
19
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
Considering the above mentioned points, the distribution of final base sample is:
% distribution 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 15.2 24.2 24.2 23.5 9.8 200 320 320 310 130 1280
Mandi 16.7 24.2 24.2 24.2 9.3 180 260 260 260 100 1060
Shimla 16.5 23.9 23.9 23.9 10.1 180 260 260 260 110 1070
Sirmaur 15.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.9 100 160 160 160 70 650
Solan 16.2 26.0 26.0 26.0 9.7 100 160 160 160 60 640
Una 14.7 24.6 24.6 24.6 9.8 60 100 100 100 40 400
Chamba 0.0 26.1 26.1 26.1 10.9 0 120 120 120 50 410
Hamirpur 18.4 27.7 27.7 27.7 9.2 80 120 120 120 40 480
Kullu 19.3 25.8 25.8 25.8 9.7 60 80 80 80 30 330
Bilaspur 16.4 27.3 27.3 27.3 10.9 60 100 100 100 40 400
Total 14.9 25.5 25.5 25.4 10.0 1020 1680 1680 1670 670 6720
21
The booster sample across selected towns was redistributed on a pro rata basis of the urban population of each district, as follows:
Distribution of booster Adjusted booster sample

District Total urban population Share of urban population Target town
sample distribution
Kangra 72174 12.13% 58 60 Dharamshala
Mandi
Mandi 60958 10.25% 49 50
Sundarnagar
Shimla 166833 28.04% 135 130 Shimla
Nahan
Sirmaur 47586 8.00% 38 40
Paonta Sahib
Solan 91175 15.33% 74 70 Solan Baddi
Una 39422 6.63% 32 30 Una
Chamba 34518 5.80% 28 30 Chamba
Hamirpur 30173 5.07% 24 30 Hamirpur
Kullu 30093 5.06% 24 20 Kullu
Bilaspur 21949 3.69% 18 20 Bilaspur
594881 100.00% 480 480
22
Therefore, the total sample distribution for this round of the survey worked out to be as follows:
Final sample distribution
District Base sample Booster sample Total sample

Kangra 1280 60 1340
Mandi 1060 50 1110
Shimla 1070 130 1200
Sirmaur 650 40 690
Solan 640 70 710
Una 400 30 430
Chamba 410 30 440
Hamirpur 480 30 510
Kullu 330 20 350
Bilaspur 400 20 420
Total 6720 480 7200
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.
Selection of road segments for NH, SH and MDR
We intended to cover a total of 20 interviews per road segment. This implies that the
number of road segments to be covered for achieving the NH, SH and MDR sample worked
out to be as follows:
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
For example, in the district of Kangra, there is a total of 201.4 km of National Highways. This
means there are a total of 201.4 ÷ 5 = 40 segments. These 40 were sequentially numbered
and the quota of 6 segments was chosen so using random number tables.
However, it may be noted that the selection process undertook several iterations because
We did not want to land up with segments too close to each other; and
We wanted to include segments that have halting points
Selection of villages for covering rural roads
We covered 10 interviews from each sample village. At the onset, the villages in a district
were segregated in terms of approach road (B/T and non B/T) and the sample was selected
exclusively from both separate lists.
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
City specific distribution of booster sample
Adjusted booster sample

District Target town
distribution
Kangra 60 Dharamshala
Mandi 30 &20 Mandi & Sundarnagar
Shimla 130 Shimla
Sirmaur 20 &20 Nahan & Paonta Sahib
Solan 70 Solan Baddi
Una 30 Una
Chamba 30 Chamba
Hamirpur 30 Hamirpur
Kullu 20 Kullu
Bilaspur 20 Bilaspur
2.2 Qualitative Survey
To get a more holistic view of the improvement (or otherwise) of road conditions in the
state of Himachal Pradesh, it has been decided to hold a series of in-depth interviews with
key user groups / stakeholders. Apart from information on their experiences on the given
road attributes, detailed opinion were elicited on more perceptual issues such as demand
supply gap, quality of execution, responsiveness of concerned government departments,
relevancy and utility of announced policies, impact on local economy and conducting of
business, especially manufacturing and tourist trade, etc.
The list of people/groups contacted for interview has been detailed below.
Sr. No. Target Group Definition

Truck and tanker operator
1 To interview with office bearers
unions/associations
Office bearers of state road transport corporation as
2 Inter-bus service operators
well as private operators
Office bearers of Transport unions, travel agencies
3 Taxi and hired car operators and commercial transporters who provide tourist
vehicles
Agricultural commodity Office bearers of registered mandi associations as well
4
producers as agents
Chambers of commerce, Office bearers of HP chamber of commerce, other
5 industrial manufacturers and industry associations, traders associations, rotary and
traders lions clubs
Freight forwarding/shipping
6 Office bearers
agents
Insurance industry Office bearers of major insurance firms operating in
7
representatives the state.
Office bearers such as medical superintendants and
8 Health service providers doctors operating in district hospitals and CHC in the
state and private hospital and nursing homes
9 Emergency service providers Office bearers such as fire service officials of the state,
26
Sr. No. Target Group Definition

senior officers of the police department (traffic), beat
constables doing traffic duty
10 Transport department Directorate of Transport, RTO, PWD, etc.
4 and 2 wheeler manufactures, Repair workshop mechanics/owners servicing 4 and 2
11
repair workshop representatives wheelers
12 Corporate Houses Ambuja Cement Foundation, etc.
NGOs involved with social, Centre for Sustainable Development, People's Action
13 environmental issues related to for People in Need, Paryavaran Avam Gramin Vikas
roads Sansthan, etc.
Journalists and media Bureau chiefs and editors/senior journalists of The
14
representatives Telegraph, The Times of India
Hindustan Times’ The Tribune, The Statesman, The
15 Media agencies
Asian Age, Divya Himachal’ Amar Ujala, Punjab Kesri
16 Hoteliers associations Large chain hotels government as well as private
The local MPs of the state (including environment,
transport and public work, and health ministers),
17 Public representatives
MLAs (current and ex) and representatives of public
forums like RWAs
27
3. Road Conditions & Perceived

Impact
This chapter presents data on existing road condition and its impact on travel time and fuel
economy.
3.1 Road Condition and Travel Time
It is evident from Tables 3.1 that 34 percent of the road users believed that the overall road
condition in Himachal Pradesh has improved in last two/three years. The trend was
relatively higher for national highways but more or less consistent for other road categories.
The data suggest parity between urban and rural areas. This can also be corroborated with
the qualitative findings which show that in last few years a lot of work has been done in
rural areas specially developing village link roads.
Many stakeholders at the village level mentioned the pertinent role of Pradhan Mantri
Gram Sarak Yojana (PMGSY) in connecting their villages with the main road. The discussions
reveal that due to improvement in road condition and connectivity people can access higher
order education and health facilities. In emergency situation they can rescue the patients
which earlier used to die before reaching the hospital.
Table 3.1: Overall condition of road – all users
Road Category (in %)

Main users
NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total
Improved substantially 38.1 33.3 31.6 35.8 30.6 34.0
Remained same 59.0 64.7 64.5 61.0 64.2 62.8
Become worse 2.6 1.6 3.7 3.0 5.0 3.0
Can’t say 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
Total (N) 612 1008 1007 1002 402 4031
Vulnerable
Improved substantially 19.4 13.5 14.5 15.9 20.5 15.8
Improved marginally 58.0 70.4 71.0 72.3 64.9 68.5
Remained same 21.6 14.0 11.9 10.9 11.6 13.7
Declined somewhat 1.0 2.1 2.4 0.4 2.6 1.7
Substantially declined 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2
Total (N) 500 763 959 667 268 3157
28
The other stakeholders mentioned that though the road conditions have improved but
there are seasonal fluctuations. For example, during rainy or winter season the condition of
road relatively deteriorate and this problem further aggravates due to delay in repair works.
The comparative analysis show that in the baseline survey 4 percent road users reported the
road conditions have improved substantially and in the midline it has increased to 16/34
(main / vulnerable users) percent. However, those who said marginal improvement have
increased from 35 percent in baseline to 62/69 (main / vulnerable users) percent in the
midline survey.
3.2 Perceived Impact on Time and Fuel Economy
Further analysis show that 11 percent of the road users opined their travel time has
substantially reduced (Table 3.2). A similar trend has been observed in case of fuel
consumption as well. Statistically5, there is a high significant correlation between
improvement in road condition with travel time and fuel economy (99% level of confidence).
Table 3.2: Travel Time – all users

Substantially reduced 11.3 9.1 11.2 12.0 16.4 11.4
Reduced marginally 55.6 65.6 66.3 71.1 65.2 65.5
Remained same 28.2 21.1 19.0 15.5 17.2 20.0
Increased somewhat 4.1 4.2 3.4 1.3 1.2 3.0
Increased substantially 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188
Table 3.3: Fuel Consumption – main users

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT N
Substantially reduced 10.0 8.3 10.4 10.9 12.2 10.1
Reduced marginally 52.5 65.4 67.5 73.8 71.4 66.6
Remained same 30.2 20.6 17.9 13.7 14.9 19.1
Increased somewhat 5.9 5.4 3.8 1.5 1.5 3.7
Increased substantially 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4
Total (N) 612 1008 1007 1002 402 4031
There has been an increase in the perceived impact on time and fuel economy from 3
percent (baseline) to 10 and 11 percent (midline) respectively.
5
Pearson’s Correlation at 0.01 level of significance (which denotes 99% level of confidence).
29
4. Comfort & Convenience

The comfort and convenience is one of the important considerations among road users
while performing their journey. The better is the comfort and convenience the higher is the
satisfaction.
4.1 Congestion on Roads
The problem of congestion / traffic jam on intersections was asked from the main users.
Around 15 percent of them were quite satisfied and a good proportion of them were
somewhat satisfied (54%). Table 4.1 shows a disparity between urban and rural areas. The
reason may be attributed to that fact that most of the cities or towns have got nodal
characteristic which attract traffic volume. The problem further aggravates as these cities or
towns are also tourist centres. In order to deal with this situation the local authorities at
times divert traffic or restrict certain areas for one-way traffic flow as also confirmed by
bus/truck and taxi/auto associations.
Table 4.1: Congestion / Traffic Jam on Intersections – main users

Quite satisfied 14.5 14.4 13.3 15.5 16.9 14.7
Somewhat satisfied 56.5 59 54.9 48.4 50.2 54.1
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 13.9 15.4 17 21.5 19.7 17.5
Somewhat dissatisfied 13.9 11 14 13.5 11.7 12.9
Quite dissatisfied 1.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.9
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032
Similarly, on the issue of adequacy of road width around 19 percent main uses and 16
percent vulnerable users were satisfied. As expected, it was more in case of national
highways. It may be noted that it is a perceived adequacy of width.
Table 4.2: Adequacy of Road Width as per Traffic Volume – all users

Main users
Quite satisfied 24.2 16.1 17.8 17.9 20.6 18.6
Somewhat satisfied 41.8 44.9 42.8 41.2 37.3 42.2
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 11.4 9.9 12.1 11.7 11.9 11.3
Somewhat dissatisfied 20.6 28.9 24.3 25.7 27.6 25.6
Quite dissatisfied 2 0.2 3.1 3.5 2.5 2.2
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032
30

Vulnerable
Very Good 20.3 18 13 15.1 18.7 16.3
Good 38.8 44.7 41.1 43.7 44 42.4
Neither Good Nor Bad 36.1 33.1 38.6 30.4 25 34
Bad 4 3.8 6.2 9.4 11.2 6.4
Very Bad 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0 0.3
Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168
On both aspects there is a significant change in the level of satisfaction. In baseline the
satisfaction (those who said highly satisfied) for congestions on road was 10 percent and for
adequacy of road width was 2 percent.
4.2 Information on Road Works
The analyze data depicts that 25 percent of the road users saw construction material from
roadwork activities most of the times. However, majority (67%) had seen such activities
sometimes. But this also indicate that in recent years series of road activities has taken place
in different parts of Himachal Pradesh particularly in rural areas.
` Table 4.3 Seen Construction Materials from Roadwork Activities – all users

All the time 4.4 5.7 5.0 3.9 7.6 5.1
Most of the time 18.6 22.0 24.4 29.8 29.6 24.6
Some times 68.7 69.5 68.9 64.6 62.5 67.4
Rarely/never 8.3 2.9 1.7 1.7 0.3 2.9
Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188
Encouragingly, those who saw construction work majority of them (79%) had seen sign
board explaining a work-in-progress which is a safety measure to minimize road accidents.
From baseline to midline there is a significant change in sign explaining work-in-progress.
Table 4.4: Sign Explaining a Work-in-Progress – all users

Yes 82.2 78.0 80.4 77.0 80.8 79.3
No 12.5 17.4 14.8 17.4 16.0 15.8
Don’t remember 5.4 4.6 4.8 5.6 3.1 4.9
Total (N) 1020 1720 1933 1641 668 6982
31
4.3 Quality of Roads and Bridges
As far as quality of road in terms of road surface, smoothness, appearance, etc., slightly
more than one fifth of the main users have reported that they were satisfied with the same.
Importantly, there is hardly much disparity between main users and vulnerable users. The
situation is slightly better in national / state highways, in comparison to, major district
roads. Rural bituminous roads have been rated high.
Table 4.5: Quality of the Road Surface / Smoothness / Appearance – all users

Main users
Quite satisfied 22.4 22.2 19.2 23.6 19.7 21.6
Somewhat satisfied 50 51.7 51.1 47.2 50 50
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 13.1 13.6 13.4 12.2 13.7 13.1
Quite dissatisfied 0.8 0.1 1.6 0 0 0.5
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032
Vulnerable
Very Good 18.5 25.8 21 26.5 24.3 23.2
Good 40.2 38.2 37.2 27.5 31.7 35.4
Neither Good Nor Bad 38.6 34.8 36.1 43 40.7 38
Bad 1.8 1 5.1 2.7 3.4 2.9
Very Bad 0.8 0.1 0.5 0 0 0.3
Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168
The issue of road metalling and layering was explored among main users but it exhibits
more or less a similar trend.
Table 4.6: Quality of the Road Metalling / Layering – main users

Quite satisfied 20.6 18.5 24.2 23.7 20.6 21.7
Somewhat satisfied 55.2 56.8 47.6 52.2 51 52.6
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 12.7 13.8 12.4 12.9 13.7 13
Somewhat dissatisfied 10 10.5 14.8 10.9 14.4 12
Quite dissatisfied 1.5 0.4 1 0.4 0.2 0.7
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032
Consistently, around 8 percent of the main users and vulnerable users were quite satisfied
with the maintenance of bridges. It was relatively higher in case of rural roads.
32
Table 4.7: Maintenance of Bridges – all users

Main users
Quite satisfied 9.5 6 9.5 7.7 10.4 8.3
Somewhat satisfied 49.3 51.3 48.3 54 43.5 50.1
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 18.8 23.7 21.8 27.3 32.6 24.3
Quite dissatisfied 5.6 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.2 1.4
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032
Vulnerable
Very Good 7.4 7.6 8.2 10.8 12.7 8.8
Good 42 48 41.1 42.4 39.9 43.1
Neither Good Nor Bad 34.9 34.4 40.9 33.2 30.6 35.9
Bad 5 3.8 4 8.7 8.6 5.5
Very Bad 2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0 0.5
Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168
The comparison between baseline and midline data show a major change in the perception
related to quality of road surface and metalling/layering. The change for maintenance of
bridges is positive but not very high.
4.4 Connectivity and Accessibility
Overall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among settlements in the
state has improved which was more in case of rural areas. According to village level
stakeholders and local citizen the connectivity of village with main road has opened up their
areas. The people can transport rural produce to the market and not dependent upon a
middleman that has helped them in getting correct prices for their produce which has
impacted their income and life style.
Table 4.8: Connectivity among Settlements – all users

Improved 62.8 67.1 71.2 79.8 81.9 71.9
Remained Same 35.6 31.6 26.2 19.5 16.4 26.5
Declined 1.6 1.3 2.5 0.7 1.6 1.6
Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188
Infact people opined that it has become easier to reach important destinations and district
head quarters to access various facilities particularly health and education which has
positive impact in the life of local citizen.
33
Table 4.9: Accessibility among Settlements – all users

Yes 85.6 89.1 93.4 90.7 91.8 90.4
No 14.4 10.9 6.6 9.3 8.2 9.6
Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188
4.5 Irritants – negative attributes
While driving one often come across various situations which cause irritation. This results to
discomfort and dissatisfaction. During survey the attempt was made to find out such
negative attributes. Table 4.9 shows the congestion on the roads/high volume traffic,
behaviour of other drivers, air/noise pollution have been rated as major irritants which is
universal. It does not vary from one district to another district and from one road category
to another.
Table 4.10: Irritants – main users

Congestion on the roads/ High
92.3 98.3 96.7 97.1 94.8 96.4
volume of traffic
Behavior of other drivers (Rash
driving/ poor overtaking/ not 91.7 89.4 88.8 92 93.3 92.2
indicating properly)
Air/ Noise pollution of vehicles 81.5 85.8 82 83.7 83.8 90.6
Beaming headlights of other
83.3 84.8 85.5 88.9 85.6 87.9
vehicles
Animals crossing the road (cows,
81 83.5 87.5 90.1 88.1 87.5
dogs, monkeys etc)
Pedestrians crossing road where
88.9 90.2 86.8 86.1 84.3 86.2
not allowed
Bad roads (potholes, rutting, rough
91 91.5 91.6 94.4 91.5 85.9
road etc)
Traffic jams on intersections 85.3 86.7 89.8 89 87.8 85.9
Wrong/ illegal parking 82.2 83.3 86.4 88.3 80.1 84.8
RTO/ Police checking/ Barricades 81 76.9 84.6 88.8 85.1 83.5
Non/ partial construction of roads
71.9 80.6 80 79.5 78.4 83.2
in many areas/ villages
Close proximity of shops near roads 86.3 89.1 82.2 86.6 84.3 78.6
The perceptions on irritants seem to be a part of driving or traveling experience. From

baseline to midline there is no change. Infact it has further increased. The problem such as
congestion on roads is a pure planning issue the behaviour of other drivers needs a
communication campaign.
34
4.6 Extent of Delays and Reasons
Journey delays are a common phenomenon particularly in urban areas. In hill areas the
challenge is little more difficult due to road width which aggravates in rainy/winter seasons
or in case of landslide/accident / break down of any vehicle on road.
The survey findings depict that nearly two-third road users often face journey delays while
performing their journey but a considerable proportion (50%) road users experienced delay
within half an hour.
Table 4.11: Journey Delay – all users

No delay 25.9 25.1 34.8 47.3 49.6 35.3
1-30 min 49.5 54.8 50.6 46.3 43.6 49.8
31-60 min 16.5 12.4 10.6 3.8 2.8 9.7
1-2 hrs. 7.8 7.7 4.0 2.5 4.0 5.1
More than 2 hrs. 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1
Total (N) 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200
Importantly, the major reason which caused journey delay is traffic volume (69%), followed
by accidents (22%), insufficient road capacity, narrow stretches, etc.
Table 4.12: Reasons for Delay – all users

Volume of Traffic 57.5 66.6 67.8 73.5 68.9 66.8
Accidents 31.4 21.0 21.2 19.5 17.5 22.4
Insufficient road capacity/ narrow
20.4 19.2 16.4 11.0 15.4 16.8
stretches
Road works/ maintenance 16.4 17.1 18.1 11.6 17.2 16.2
Uncompromising Drivers 19.5 13.2 14.9 13.5 19.5 15.3
Police /RTO-checking 13.6 14.3 10.2 11.4 10.9 12.2
Bad weather/fog 13.6 8.3 10.0 6.5 7.7 9.3
Wrong Parking 9.6 8.5 7.0 9.5 14.8 8.9
Bad design of intersections 9.1 8.6 7.9 4.9 7.4 7.7
Pedestrian/animals 10.2 6.2 7.0 4.5 10.9 7.2
Natural calamity/land
4.2 2.6 5.5 3.2 4.4 3.9
sliding/snowfall
Total (N) 825 1331 1284 880 338 4658
Hence, from the policy perspectives the aspects related to irritants and reasons for journey
delay have to be taken care as it seriously impacts the satisfaction level.
35
5. Safety Aspects
Safety design is about providing a road environment which ensures vehicle speeds will be
within the human tolerances for serious injury and death wherever conflict points exist. But
the secondary data suggest that over last few years the incidence of road crashes has
increased in the state of Himachal Pradesh. While it is true that there has been a significant
growth in the traffic volume but road accidents causing injury or death is primary due to
attitude of driver, enforcement of traffic rules and lack of diligence vigilance.
5.1 Is commuting on Himachal roads safe enough?
Feeling of safety while commuting on road is an important aspect of overall satisfaction with
the road frequented on. Safety aspect of Himachal roads was gauged by capturing
perception data on safety on two questions – (a) In general, whether road users feel safe
commuting on roads, (b) Possible reasons if they feel unsafe. Current survey reveals that
only around one-tenth (11.5%) feel safe moving on Himachal roads (Table 5.1). This feeling
of safety on Himachal roads has declined from 35 percent of the baseline survey 2007. This
decline may be linked with the 5 percent increase in the road accidents leading to 9 percent
increase in deaths and 3 percent injured people between 2007 and 2011 on Himachal roads.
Table 5.1: Feeling Safe while Commuting on Himachal roads – all users
Respondent Category (in %) Road Category (in %)

Total
Main Users Vulnerable Users NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT
Feeling safe 11.6 11.3 14.6 12.4 12.2 7.7 10.6 11.5
Feeling unsafe 88.4 88.7 85.4 87.6 87.8 92.3 89.4 88.5
Total (N) 4032 3168 163 221 241 1670 670 7200
Analyzing the ‘perception of road safety’ by user type, we see that both main users and
vulnerable group have similar feelings of safety while moving on Himachal roads. This trend
is similar to the one observed in the baseline where safety perception of the both user types
was almost same.
From one of the in-depth qualitative discussions with the vulnerable segment revealed that
in last few years the number of motorcycles has increased. Young chaps drive rashly as they
are eager to flaunt their style, but it is very risky. Driving hasty, often they collide with
pedestrians, hawkers with stone or with trees because the roads narrow and sometimes
broken roads. Tourist who come from big cities are sue to driving fast on huge city roads,
36
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
and aggressive driving with bad overtaking that made them feel unsafe on roads. And as
expected, this feeling was stronger for urban roads than rural roads. Among other reasons
cited were – high volume traffic/congestion (26%), bad or narrow roads (24%) and other
lack of adequate safety features such as signage, etc.
Table 5.2: Reasons for feeling unsafe – all users

Total
NH SH MDR Total RR B/T RR NBT Total
High speed of traffic 79.8 75.3 77.0 77.0 83.0 83.6 83.2 79.1
Sharp turns 60.0 58.5 65.1 61.5 71.1 67.4 70.1 64.4
Heavy vehicles 44.4 34.0 32.7 35.8 35.0 22.5 31.5 34.4
Poor/ aggressive driving with
24.9 32.2 26.0 27.0 30.4 30.9 30.6 28.2
bad overtaking
High volume of traffic /
27.5 33.3 24.2 27.4 24.9 18.0 22.9 25.9
congestion
Bad roads/ narrow roads 21.2 22.1 24.8 23.0 26.1 26.7 26.3 24.1
Bad signage 12.0 13.4 14.3 13.5 15.1 17.4 15.7 14.2
Land/Rock sliding 7.6 5.1 18.6 11.1 16.0 17.2 16.4 12.9
Foggy weather 17.2 9.8 12.6 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.6
Wrong Parking 7.9 8.7 7.7 8.1 8.8 8.5 8.7 8.3
Absence of streetlights 12.0 9.4 6.2 8.7 6.0 4.7 5.7 7.7
Unsafe retaining walls 7.5 5.9 8.2 7.2 6.2 3.8 5.6 6.6
Traffic converging into fewer
3.5 4.9 6.3 5.1 5.0 6.7 5.5 5.3
lanes
Slippery roads in rainy
3.5 3.5 4.8 4.0 6.2 7.3 6.5 4.8
seasons
Animal Crossing 6.1 3.0 1.8 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.9 3.1
Joining/leaving service lanes 4.8 3.2 2.4 3.2 1.8 3.7 2.3 2.9
Poor condition of breast walls 3.9 2.4 1.9 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.3 2.8
Absent/ loose parapets 2.0 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.7
Robbery/ theft 2.4 0.6 0.4 .9 1.0 .8 .9 0.9
Total (N) 163 221 241 4860 1670 670 2340 7200
38
5.3 Safety Designs
Two questions pertaining related to safety designs of the road were asked – (a) satisfaction
on safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/guardrails & other safety features, (b)
satisfaction with the quality of road markings. On the first aspect around 63 percent were
satisfied while on the second aspect 69 percent of the road users mentioned their
satisfaction. The satisfaction pertaining to safety features such as railing, bends parapets,
etc. was naturally on a higher side for urban roads in comparison to rural roads. The
combined proportion of satisfied was 66 percent for urban roads while it was 58 percent for
rural roads. There did not appear to be significant difference between the types of road
both in urban and rural areas on this aspect.
Table 5.3: Satisfaction with the Safety Features such as railings, bends,
parapets/ guardrails – main users

Total
Quite Satisfied 19 19.5 22.9 20.5 22.1 23.6 22.9 21.3
Somewhat Satisfied 47.1 45.2 44.8 45.7 37.2 34.1 35.7 42.3
Neither Satisfied Nor
12.4 12 16 13.5 22.2 17.2 19.7 16.1
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied 20.1 22.4 13.7 18.7 14.9 21.4 18.2 17.9
Quite Dissatisfied 1.5 0.8 2.6 1.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.4
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032
To supplement this argument a truck association member told us that national highways are
better constructed with all beautifications and several safety features… there are railings all
over, roads are constructed to bend properly at turns, proper road markings and
signs…probably because there is exclusive department i.e. national highway authority to
take care about all these in a methodical manner regularly.
Road markings such as painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc., are
primarily made on the road to help the road users especially those with vehicles to drive and
move in a safe manner. Again, as expected satisfaction with the quality of such road
markings was higher with urban roads (65%) as compared to rural roads (61%) among main
users.
39
Table 5.4: Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted
lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – main users

Total
Quite Satisfied 20.3 20.5 19.5 20.1 25 26.6 25.8 21.9
Somewhat Satisfied 52.8 53.4 48.4 51.5 39.8 36.3 38.1 47

12.1 13.2 17.9 14.4 21.3 17.7 19.5 16.6
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied 12.6 12.1 13 12.6 13.9 19.2 16.6 13.5
Quite Dissatisfied 2.3 0.8 1.2 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032
Regarding vulnerable users, satisfaction with the quality of road markings was relatively
lesser, in comparison to, main users (Table 5.5). However, the level of satisfaction was
higher with urban roads (62%) as compared to rural roads (57%).
Table 5.5: Satisfaction with the Quality of Road Markings (such as painted
lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc) – vulnerable users

Total
Very Good 18.7 13.8 18.4 16.9 21.1 18.7 20.4 17.9
Good 44.8 53.0 40.9 45.9 36.4 38.4 37.0 43.3
Neither Good nor Bad 29.9 30.1 26.3 28.4 27.4 31.7 28.6 28.5
Bad 3.6 2.1 8.7 5.3 5.2 4.1 4.9 5.2

Very bad 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4
Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168
5.4 Warning & Road signs
Satisfaction with the warning & road sings was comparatively lesser than satisfaction with
other safety features and road marking discussed above. Around 64 percent of main road
users and 63 percent of vulnerable road users were satisfied with the warning & roads signs
placed on the roads helping drivers for safe & comfortable driving (Table 5.6 & Table 5.7).
40
Table 5.6: Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and night –
main users

Total
NH SH MDR Total RR B/T Total
Quite Satisfied 19.8 17.6 17.3 18.2 21.5 21.5 19.4
Somewhat Satisfied 45.9 45.4 44.4 45.2 44.2 44.2 44.2
11.4 12.3 17.9 13.9 21.1 21.1 16.4
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied 21.1 24 19.9 21.7 13 13 19.3
Quite Dissatisfied 1.8 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.6
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 1002 4032
* Rural non-bituminous (NBT) roads were not considered for this aspect as no signage is provided there
Table 5.7: Adequacy and Visibility of Warning / Road Signs during day and
night – vulnerable users

Total
NH SH MDR Total RR B/T Total
Very Good 19.7 25.5 25.5 24.2 26.5 28.1 18.2
Good 48.0 54.4 49.0 50.6 44.2 44.3 44.7
Neither Good nor Bad 25.7 18.2 18.9 20.2 19.3 18.2 27.1
Bad 4.0 0.8 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.5 4.8
Very bad 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.7
Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 936 3168
* Rural non-bituminous (NBT) roads were not considered for this aspect as no signage is provided there
5.5 Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling vehicles
Survey reveals that road users are very satisfied on this aspect. Around 91 percent main
road users and equal percent of vulnerable road users expressed their satisfaction with the
availability and accessibility of police posts or police patrolling vehicles on Himachal roads
(Table 5.8 & Table 5.9). Satisfaction was almost same for both rural and urban roads in both
the cases of main and vulnerable users. There was significant improvement on this aspect
from the baseline.
41
Table 5.8: Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling

Vehicles – main users

Total
Quite Satisfied 72.4 69.8 62.5 68.2 63.5 58.5 61.0 65.7
Somewhat Satisfied 19.1 22.1 27.9 23.0 28.4 30.8 29.6 25.5
3.9 4.5 5.6 4.7 6.5 7 6.8 5.4
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied 4.1 3.5 3.8 3.8 1.6 3.7 2.7 3.2
Quite Dissatisfied 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.0 0.2
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032
Table 5.9: Availability & Accessibility of Police Posts/ Police Patrolling

Vehicles – vulnerable users

Total
Very Good 57.4 66.1 56.7 60.1 59.1 56.7 58.4 59.6
Good 32.7 28.6 34.4 32.0 33.5 36.6 34.4 32.7
Bad 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5
Very bad 0.6 0.1 0.1
Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168
Similar trend as noticed above was observed regarding satisfaction with the adequacy of
emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as police posts,
police patrolling. The proportion of main road users indicating their satisfaction on this
aspect was 90 percent while it was 92 percent in case of vulnerable road users (Table 5.10 &
Table 5.11). Again, satisfaction was almost same for both rural and urban roads in both the
cases of main and vulnerable users on this aspect also.
42
Table 5.10: Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services

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

Total
Quite Satisfied 70.3 73.6 63.2 69.0 59.4 58.2 58.8 65.4
Somewhat Satisfied 18.1 20 26.6 21.6 29.2 29.6 29.4 24.6
6.2 4.1 6.5 5.6 10.2 9.2 9.7 7
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied 5.2 2.2 3.6 3.7 1.1 3 2.1 2.8
Quite Dissatisfied 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 402 1404 4032
Table 5.11: Satisfaction with the adequacy of emergency telephone services

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

Total
Very Good 54.8 63.3 61.5 60.6 56.0 53.4 55.2 59.0
Good 33.3 31.5 28.6 30.6 37.1 39.2 37.7 32.7
Bad 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.8
Very bad 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168
5.6 Accident Management
Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean up on roads of Himachal
Pradesh show that almost two-third find it good or very good. However, one-fourth were
neutral on this aspect while 7 percent said that it was not (Table 5.12). The responses
regarding accident management was almost same for both urban and rural roads.
43
Table 5.12: Opinion about the management and time taken in accident clean
up – vulnerable users

Total
Very Good 4.4 5.3 5.8 5.3 5.7 4.9 5.4 5.4
Good 54.4 64.6 64.2 62.1 61.5 61.2 61.4 61.9
Bad 12.7 9.4 5.7 8.6 3.7 4.9 4.1 7.2

Very bad 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168
5.7 Opinion on Theft / Robbery on Himachal roads
In line with the baseline findings, almost all (95%) feel that Himachal roads are safe as far as
theft or robbery is concerned. Again this was, reportedly, same for both urban and rural
roads (Table 5.13).
Table 5.13: Proportion ever experienced theft robbery on the roads of

Himachal Pradesh – vulnerable users

Total
Yes 12.0 2.6 4.4 5.5 5.5 2.2 4.6 5.2
No 88.0 97.4 95.6 94.5 94.5 97.8 95.4 94.8
Total (N) 502 768 962 2232 668 268 936 3168
44
6. Travel Amenities & Visual Appeal

Travel Amenities like public toilets / bathrooms, restaurants / shops, drinking water, medical
facilities, rain shelter-cum-bus stop, mechanics / tow car service, petrol pumps and road
side plantations are important aspects for commuters while traveling on roads. These
amenities are of significant importance for Himachal Pradesh as it is most preferred tourist
destination in the country where road is the main transportation means.
The better roadside amenities do not only give road users with refreshment, recreation and
rest that help in making their journeys comfortable but also provide a livelihood opportunity
for the local people. Though road side amenities is not a core deliverable of PWD
department but often developed by the local entrepreneurs.
6.1 Availability of Amenities
A more than half of the respondents have confirmed that the amenities such as public
toilets / bathrooms, restaurants, drinking water, medical facilities, rain shelter-cum-bus
stop, etc. The most lacked amenities were parking facilities and tow services. Parking is a
major problem on national / state highways which pass through cities / towns. Tow service
is essential especially in case of accidents or break down of vehicle particularly during rainy /
winter season which cause traffic jams.
Table 6.1: Availability and Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities – all users
Available / Road Category (in% )

Amenities Total
Satisfied NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT
Public toilets / Available 52.7 58.2 63.4 48.7 54.0 56.2
bathrooms Satisfied 42.1 44.3 44.2 44.6 49.0 44.4
Eating food drinks at Available 48.0 59.6 46.6 51.3 50.8 51.5
restaurants shops Satisfied 72.4 72.4 76.3 65.8 66.8 71.5
Available 52.9 61.3 46.2 51.8 50.5 52.7
Drinking water
Satisfied 63.7 68.5 71.3 62.7 63.0 66.7
Available 59.9 58.9 62.1 51.8 50.1 57.4
Medical facilities
Satisfied 33.7 26.4 30.6 28.0 30.6 29.5
Rain shelter-cum- bus Available 56.3 50.9 56.7 50.1 45.7 52.6
stop Satisfied 44.7 45.2 46.7 33.6 33.5 41.8
Mechanics / Tow car Available 32.8 36.1 28.3 29.1 31.5 31.4
services Satisfied 22.5 25.2 23.6 22.4 21.7 23.4
Available 28.8 32.5 27.5 31.9 32.3 30.4
Parking facilities
Satisfied 23.8 24.0 22.8 29.2 30.1 25.4
45
6.2 Satisfaction (if availed) with Amenities
Public toilets/bathrooms: 56 percent of them reported that the public toilets / bathrooms
are available on the roads and 44 percent of them reported that they were satisfied with
this facility (Table 6.1). Though people perception about this facility has increased from
baseline but there is a need to further improve the quality of this facility across the road
categories and provide road users with clean and hygienic toilets and bathrooms.
Restaurants/Shops: 52 percent of the road users reported that the restaurants / shops are
available on the roads and 72 percent of them reported that they were satisfied with this
facility (Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility has decreased from which
needs to be improved across road categories. The PWD can open up these facilities on the
strategic locations (tourists potential etc) on PPP basis.
Drinking Water: 53 percent of them responded that the drinking water facility is available
on the roads and 67 percent of them responded that they are satisfied with this facility
(Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility has decreased from which needs to be
improved across road categories.
Medical Facilities: 57 percent of the road users reported that the medical facilities are
available on the roads but 70 percent of them were not satisfied with these facilities (Table
6.1). There is an urgent need to not only increase the availability of medical facilities across
the road categories but also to improve the quality of services provided by them. It is a
crucial amenity as the road accidents are increasing in the state and timely and quality
medical aid to the accident victim is of utmost importance. Trauma care facilities can be
explored on PPP basis on the various road categories in conjunction with available health
infrastructure on these roads. Usually the CHCs and PHCs are not geared up to treat
accident victims therefore a state level assessment of existing health care infrastructure of
the roads should be undertaken on various trauma levels (I to IV) which can be established
on a Hub and Spoke model approach.
Rain Shelter cum Bus Stop: 53 percent of the road users reported that the road shelters
cum bus stop are available on the roads but 58 percent of them were not satisfied with the
available road shelter cum bus stops (Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility
has decreased from which needs to be improved across road categories (except for rural
non bituminous road).
Mechanics / Tow Car services: 31 percent of the road users reported that mechanics / tow
car services are available on the roads but 77 percent of them were not satisfied with the
availability of such services (Table 6.1). The people perception about this facility has
decreased from which needs to be improved across road categories (except for rural non
bituminous road).
46
Parking Facilities: 28 percent of the road users reported that the parking facilities were
available on the roadsides but 76 percent of them were not satisfied with the available
parking facilities (Table 6.1). There has been slight increase in the perception of road users
with respect to the availability and their satisfaction about the parking facilities from the
baseline to midline. Parking facilities for motor vehicles is essential amenities which do not
only provide safe parking for vehicles / passengers but also helps in smooth movement of
traffic on the roads.
Petrol Pumps: 45 percent opined that they are quite satisfied with the availability of petrol
pumps, followed by somewhat satisfied (39%). It shows an increasing trend from baseline to
midline.
Table 6.2: Availability of Petrol Pumps – main users
Road Category (in% )
Quite satisfied 48.9 46.8 47.6 41.8 40.3 45.4
Somewhat satisfied 34.2 36.2 37.2 46.3 45 39.5
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 8.5 9.2 8.1 9 8 8.7
Somewhat dissatisfied 8 7.7 6.6 2.9 6.7 6.2
Quite dissatisfied 0.5 0 0.4 0 0 0.2
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032
Roadside Plantation: The roadside plantations are essential as the construction of roads
lead to the destruction of natural flora. Around 54 percent main users 45 percent vulnerable
users reported that they are quite satisfied with the road side plantation which is
significantly high from the baseline survey. One of the reasons for this increase could be the
natural greenery in Himachal Pradesh which respondents might have in their mind.
Table 6.3: Satisfaction with Road side plantations – all users

Main Users
Quite satisfied 58.8 55.4 55.1 49.3 54.2 54.2
Somewhat satisfied 26.1 32.5 31.9 39.4 33.8 33.3
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 9.6 10.4 9.5 10 9.2 9.8
Quite dissatisfied 0.7 0 0.4 0 0.2 0.2
Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032
Vulnerable Users
Very Good 47.2 48.7 42.4 41.5 48.5 45
Good 32.3 34 34.6 34.7 32.5 33.9
Neither Good Nor Bad 16.9 15.9 20.4 23.1 16.8 19
Bad 2.4 1.2 0.9 0.1 0 1
Very Bad 0.4 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1
Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168
47
7. Perception about HPPWD

While HPPWD’s role is to develop and maintain roads, it is imperative to understand the
perception of road users about the work done by department in the state.
7.1 Awareness about HPPWD
HPPWD has been doing lot of construction work in Himachal Pradesh. Hence to check road-
users awareness with HPPWD and other related aspects certain questions were asked. As
presented in Table 7.1, almost all respondents interviewed mentioned the name of HPPWD
when they were asked to mention the government department responsible for developing
and maintaining the roads, indicating high awareness about HPPWD. Awareness levels were
relatively higher among the users of rural roads in comparison to those using urban roads.
Table 7.1: Awareness of HPPWD – all users

Yes 94.4 97.6 96.8 98.3 98.4 97.1
No 5.6 2.4 3.2 1.7 1.6 2.9
Total (N) 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200
7.2 Sources of Awareness
The small proportion of 2.9 percent respondents who did not mention HPPWD as the
government department responsible for developing and maintaining the Himachal roads
were told the correct answer and the next question pertaining to the source of awareness
was asked to all of them. Electronic media emerged out to be the most effective sources of
creating awareness about HPPWD. Mentioned by around half of the interviewed
respondents, TV/radio/internet emerged as the main source of awareness, followed by Print
media (45.7%).
Among the outdoor media, most important source was signboard near the construction
work sites (29.9%) which are observed by the respondents moving the road or whenever
they got stuck in traffic-jams due to any road construction work being undertaken by
HPPWD. Road signs and hoardings were other outdoor media that were mentioned by 26.3
percent and 12.3 percent of the interviewed respondents, respectively as sources of
awareness on HPPWD (Table 7.2). Then trend observed above is, more or less, similar to the
one observed in the baseline survey.
48
Table 7.2: Source of Awareness regarding HPPWD – all users

Total
NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT
Road signs 25.3 29.7 26.8 24.1 23.4 26.3
Hoardings 10.9 11.0 14.1 13.2 10.4 12.3
Print media 49.2 49.0 39.9 46.5 45.8 45.7
TV/radio/internet 47.6 50.7 50.3 56.7 57.3 52.1
Patrolling vehicles 4.9 4.2 5.1 9.5 12.7 6.6
Signboards near work-
33.8 31.3 30.8 25.8 27.3 29.9
in-progress sites
Don’t know about this
0.8 0.3 2.4 6.2 4.8 2.7
department
Others 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
Total (N) 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200
7.3 Perception about HPPWD
Perception about HPPWD was quantitatively measured using two indicators – (a) opinion on
how successful has HPPWD been in providing quality roads and (b) opinion on how
successful has HPPWD been in carrying out road works speedily and efficiently. Two
separate questions were administered to capture the degree of the perceptions on 5-point
scale.
Regarding the first aspect, majority of the respondents held positive image about HPPWD’s
performance (83.4%). Of this, 11.1 percent said that HPPWD has been very successful in
providing quality roads (Table 7.3). The proportion saying so was higher among the rural
road-users vis-à-vis urban road users.
Table 7.3: Opinion on how successful has HPPWD been in providing Quality Roads in HP –
all users
Highly successful 10.2 8.1 12.4 12.0 14.4 11.1
Moderately successful 64.7 72.4 72.2 77.0 73.4 72.3
Neither successful nor
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
Table 7.4: Opinion on HPPWD success in carrying out Road Works Speedily & Efficiently –
all Users
Road Category ( in%)

Total
Highly successful 12.6 12.4 14.5 14.2 19.1 14.0
Moderately successful 60.6 67.7 70.3 74.8 69.9 69.1
Neither successful nor
18.9 15.4 12.3 9.8 10.2 13.4
unsuccessful
Moderately unsuccessful 5.0 4.0 2.7 1.1 0.6 2.8
Highly unsuccessful 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4
Total (N) 1105 1770 1923 1567 638 7003
The stakeholders opined that HPPWD makes good roads but they forget to repair when they
are dug for some pipeline work or when the roads are broken during rainy seasons. The
maintenance, upkeep and care are missing. They construct and then vanish completely.
7.4 Complaint Redressal System & Maintenance Response Time
Two questions were included pertaining to satisfaction with the complaint redressal
mechanism and maintenance response time. When asked whether they have ever
complained HPPWD regarding any problem, a very meager 2.2 percent responded in
affirmation which is an improvement over the baseline where one out of eight had,
reportedly, made any such complain (Table 7.5). There could be two possible reasons for
this – (a) as seen above majority are satisfied with the quality and maintenance of the roads,
(b) people might be avoiding the hassle of complaining.
Table 7.5: Proportion Ever Complained HPPWD regarding any Problem – all users

Total
Yes 3.7 2.5 2.5 1.0 0.9 2.2
No 96.3 97.5 97.5 99.0 99.1 97.8
Total (N) 1105 1770 1923 1567 638 7003
This is further confirmed by looking at the response on satisfaction with the complaint
redressal system as three-fourth of those who made any complain, were found to be
satisfied with the complain redressal system (Table 7.6).
50
Table 7.6: Satisfaction with the Complaint Redressal System – all users

Total
Highly satisfied 7.3 4.5 2.0 12.5 16.7 5.8
Moderately satisfied 75.6 61.4 75.5 81.3 50.0 71.2
Neither satisfied nor
9.8 20.5 14.3 12.8
dissatisfied
Moderately dissatisfied 4.9 13.6 6.1 7.1
Highly dissatisfied 2.4 0.0 2.0 6.3 33.3 3.2
Total (N) 41 44 49 16 6 156
Although little lower than the above two aspects, yet majority (73.1%) were satisfied with
the maintenance response time probably because of the reasons cited above (Table 7.7).
However, there were 14.1 percent road users who were neutral on this aspect and around
12.9 percent who expressed dissatisfaction indicating scope for further improvements.
Table 7.7: Satisfaction with the Maintenance Response Time – all users

Total
Highly satisfied 9.8 4.5 8.2 12.5 7.7
Moderately satisfied 63.4 65.9 65.3 68.8 66.7 65.4
Neither satisfied nor
12.2 18.2 16.3 6.3 14.1
dissatisfied
Moderately dissatisfied 9.8 9.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 7.1
Highly dissatisfied 4.9 2.3 4.1 12.5 33.3 5.8
Total (N) 41 44 49 16 6 156
51
8 Gender Aspects
The study covered altogether 729 women which constitute 10 percent of the total sample
(N= 7200). Among women, 498 were main users and 231 belonged to vulnerable users. The
analysis of data does not suggest much gender-wise variation for all indicators, hence, not
presented in this chapter. But among vulnerable users, certain questions were specifically
asked from women to understand how safe they feel on roads and what are their travel
characteristics, etc.
8.1 Whether Feel Safe on Roads?
Table 8.1 depicts that a sizable proportion of women (58%) do not feel safe on Himachal
roads. This feeling was relatively higher on MDR, RR B/T and RR Non B/T roads. The
qualitative findings reveal that the major reason why women do not feel safe is high traffic
volume particularly in cities/towns and lack of pedestrian foot paths.
Table 8.1 Has it become safer to travel on Himachal Road?

Yes 54.1 53.6 59.7 59.3 63.6 57.6
No 45.9 46.4 40.3 40.7 36.4 42.4
Total (N) 37 56 62 54 22 231
8.2 Frequency of Travel on Roads
The analyzed data presented in Table 8.2 show that 44 percent of women were frequent
traveler on road, though, a considerable proportion of them (38%) travel few times a week.
Thus, women usually come of their homes to make trips for various purposes.
Table 8.2 How often do you leave the house and travel on roads?

Every day 51.3 42.8 41.9 46.3 36.3 44.2
Few times a week 29.7 37.5 43.5 38.9 40.9 38.5
At least once a week 8.1 8.9 11.3 7.4 9.1 9.1
Once or twice a month 2.7 5.4 3.2 5.6 0 3.9
Less frequently 8.1 5.4 0 1.9 13.6 4.3
Total (N) 37 56 62 54 22 231
52
8.3 Usage of Road Network
The two major purpose for which majority of women use road network is: going to the local
market (92%) and visiting relations friends (73%). The data does not show much disparity
among road categories.
Table 8.3 Do you undertake the following activities using the road network?

Total
Going to school/college 16.2 28.6 16.1 22.2 18.2 20.8
Going to work 27 39.3 30.6 16.7 18.2 27.7
Going to the local market 89.2 94.6 91.9 96.3 81.8 92.2
Taking kids to school 37.8 39.3 27.4 29.6 13.6 31.2
Going to the district HQ 13.5 33.9 16.1 44.4 45.5 29.4
Visiting relations friends 73 75 80.6 72.2 50 73.2
Total (N) 37 56 62 54 22 231
For most of the purposes, vehicle was used relatively more than walk/cycle as exclusive
mode of transportation. Though considerable proportion of women used both (walks and
use vehicle) while performing their trips.
Table 8.4 Do you usually walk or use a vehicle or both?

Going to Walk/Cycle 66.7 12.5 30 50 75 37.5
school/college Vehicle 33.3 18.8 50 41.7 25 33.3
Both 0 68.8 20 8.3 0 29.2
Total 6 16 10 12 4 48
Going to work Walk/Cycle 30 40.9 31.6 22.2 0 31.3
Vehicle 70 45.5 57.9 55.6 75 56.3
Both 0 13.6 10.5 22.2 25 12.5
Total 10 22 19 9 4 64
Going to the local Walk/Cycle 45.5 39.6 45.6 21.2 16.7 35.7
market Vehicle 45.5 47.2 36.8 59.6 61.1 48.4
Both 9.1 13.2 17.5 19.2 22.2 16
Total 33 53 57 52 18 213
Taking kids to Walk/Cycle 50 27.3 23.5 18.8 0 27.8
school Vehicle 35.7 50 52.9 68.8 66.7 52.8
Both 14.3 22.7 23.5 12.5 33.3 19.4
Total 14 22 17 16 3 72
Going to the Walk/Cycle 20 5.3 0 8.3 0 5.9
53

district HQ Vehicle 60 57.9 70 83.3 90 73.5
Both 20 36.8 30 8.3 10 20.6
Total 5 19 10 24 10 68
Visiting relations Walk/Cycle 22.2 14.3 20 12.8 9.1 16.6
friends Vehicle 48.1 57.1 50 56.4 36.4 52.1
Both 29.6 28.6 30 30.8 54.5 31.4
Total 27 42 50 39 11 169
The women were also probed whether the frequency of such trips has increased in last two
/ three years, from 40 percent to 60 percent women affirmed this phenomenon.
Table 8.5 Has frequency of this activity increased over last 2 / 3 years?

Going to Increased 66.7 37.5 90 58.3 50 58.3
school/college Remain Same 33.3 56.3 10 33.3 50 37.5
Decreased 0 6.3 0 8.3 0 4.2
Total 6 16 10 12 4 48
Going to work Increased 30 45.5 57.9 22.2 0 40.6
Remain Same 70 50 42.1 55.6 25 50
Decreased 0 4.5 0 22.2 75 9.4
Total 10 22 19 9 4 64
Going to the local Increased 69.7 52.8 64.9 53.8 61.1 59.6
market Remain Same 30.3 43.4 33.3 46.2 33.3 38.5
Decreased 0 3.8 1.8 0 5.6 1.9
Total 33 53 57 52 18 213
Taking kids to Increased 57.1 54.5 64.7 62.5 66.7 59.7
school Remain Same 42.9 40.9 35.3 31.3 33.3 37.5
Decreased 0 4.5 0 6.3 0 2.8
Total 14 22 17 16 3 72
Going to the Increased 40 52.6 60 41.7 60 50
district HQ Remain Same 40 47.4 40 50 30 44.1
Decreased 20 0 0 8.3 10 5.9
Total 5 19 10 24 10 68
Visiting relations Increased 66.7 57.1 64 53.8 81.8 61.5
friends Remain Same 33.3 42.9 36 46.2 18.2 38.5
Decreased 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 27 42 50 39 11 169
54
And a high proportion of them (75% to 100%) attributed it to improved connectivity in their
areas which was relatively higher in rural areas.
Table 8.6 If increased, is it due to greater connectivity?

Going to Yes 100 100 100 100 100 100
school/college No 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 4 6 9 7 2 28
Going to work Yes 66.7 70 90.9 50 0 76.9
No 33.3 30 9.1 50 0 23.1
Total 3 10 11 2 0 26
Going to the local Yes 82.6 96.4 89.2 78.6 81.8 86.6
market No 17.4 3.6 10.8 21.4 18.2 13.4
Total 23 28 37 28 11 127
Taking kids to Yes 100 83.3 90.9 40 100 79.1
school No 0 16.7 9.1 60 0 20.9
Total 8 12 11 10 2 43
Going to the Yes 100 90 100 80 83.3 88.2
district HQ No 0 10 0 20 16.7 11.8
Total 2 10 6 10 6 34
Visiting relations Yes 100 100 88.5 100 100 95.2
friends No 0 0 11.5 0 0 4.8
Total 10 12 26 12 2 62
55
9 Road User Satisfaction Index

9.1 Development of RUSI
For construction of the Road Users’ Satisfaction Index (RUSI), three different types of
analyses were attempted. The first two analyses were targeted to obtain an index while the
last analysis was attempted to derive the key drivers of satisfaction. This is a key element
done only during the midline because it was deemed to be a crucial input for providing
recommendations to the client on the way forward. It may be recalled that that two
different questionnaires were designed and administered for main and vulnerable groups.
Hence, any analysis attempted was done differently for the two groups, post which the
scores were combined to get the overall scores. The three types of analyses are:
1. Index generation using the same construct used in the baseline survey report
2. Index generation using the stated importance and perceived satisfaction method
derived from the responses to the midline survey
3. Logistic regression to derive the key drivers of overall satisfaction
9.2 Index Generation using the Baseline Approach
We used the same approach that has been employed during baseline to generate the index
for road user satisfaction. The following steps were employed during the analysis:
1. All perceptions on satisfaction with respect to individual components (5-point scale)

of a travel on the current road were used along with the perceived satisfaction levels
with the available amenities (which were collected as a simple binary response).
2. All the perception-related statements were analyzed under principal component
analysis which has helped us derive 4 key factors for main and vulnerable users viz.,
main safety features availability, road quality and durability, needs and benefits and
other essentials availability.
3. A composite score of satisfaction on amenities was derived using simple addition
which was also used for further analysis.
4. The factors obtained from step 2 and combined ‘amenities’ variable derived in step 3
were used to regress the perceived overall satisfaction level which equips us with the
weights for each of these independents in the score.
5. Using these weights and average satisfaction scores, index (RUSI1) was calculated. It
is worth noting that the weightage of a variable remains same for all the individuals
in the group.
56
For Main Users
Model
Overall satisfaction = (0.356*Main safety features’ availability score) +
(0.342*Road quality and durability score) +
(0.246*Needs & benefits’ score) +
For Vulnerable Users
Model
Overall satisfaction = (0.368*Main safety features’ availability score) +
(0.303*Other essentials’ availability score) +
(0.314*Road quality and durability score)
57
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:
Overall satisfaction of ith respondent

Where SI indicates stated importance and SC indicated Satisfaction score;
k is the number of variables created;
9.4 Logistic Regression to derive the Key Drivers of Satisfaction
Logistic regression is mainly used to derive drivers of the study behaviour (in our case
satisfaction in road usage). However, binary logistic only uses dummy variables as
dependent we were restricted to reconstruct the 5-point satisfaction scale to a dummy
variable. The steps followed are detailed below:
1. Same set of independent variables as used in above two analyses were used in this
analysis.
2. The 5-point satisfaction variable was converted to a dummy variable in order to
facilitate the binary logistic procedure by categorizing the highly satisfied and
somewhat satisfied individuals as satisfied group and the others as not-satisfied
group.
3. Logistic regression procedure was run which clearly provides us the significant
drivers along with their quantified effects on the dependent variable.
4. The logistic regression was fitted and the resultant model was not significant. Hence,
further analysis was not presented in the report. However, we have attempted
CHAID analysis which suggested that the key drivers for the satisfaction levels are
58
other essentials’ availability, Road quality & durability and availability of main safety
features. Hence, it is safe to say that the index calculated using the baseline
approach has yielded good results.
9.5 Overall Road Users Satisfaction using Same Construct as in Baseline
RUSI Score – District-wise
Among the districts covered under the survey, Sirmaur has achieved the highest satisfaction
score (3.9) while Hamirpur scored the least (2.9). No significant variations in satisfaction
scores was observed across the districts which is also evident from a ‘0.13’ coefficient of
variation (or 11%). Sirmaur is followed by the districts of Solan, Chamba, Una, Kullu and
Shimla. Apart from Kangra and Hamirpur, the other districts had average satisfaction scores
of at least 3.5 on a scale of 5. This suggests that the users of Himachal roads are much more
satisfied today as compared to the time of the baseline. Highest increase in satisfaction
scores was observed among Kullu district road users followed by the users from Sirmaur.
This triggers a hint of raise for Tourism industry which is a welcome change. The following
table gives the comparative picture of district wise average (mean) satisfaction scores.
Table 9.1: District wise Satisfaction Scores

Sl. # District Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI
1 Sirmaur 3.88 2.11 (9)
2 Solan 3.86 2.55 (6)
3 Chamba 3.75 2.91 (2)
4 Una 3.70 2.81 (3)
5 Kullu 3.64 2.59 (4)
6 Shimla 3.64 2.59 (4)
7 Mandi 3.59 1.88 (10)
8 Bilaspur 3.55 2.33 (7)
9 Kangra 3.28 3.12 (1)
10 Hamirpur 2.88 2.32 (8)
Overall 3.57 2.58
Std. deviation 0.45
Coefficient of variation 0.13 (13%)
(Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; Figures represent average scores on a scale of 1 to 5;
Figures in brackets represent rank among the districts)
59
RUSI Score – Based on type of road
Not much of a difference was found among the satisfaction scores on different road types
which came as a surprise. However, it is encouraging to know that the state highway users
have expressed highest satisfaction level with the roads followed by rural roads (both
varieties) mostly constructed under PMGSY. In fact the vast improvement in rural
connectivity has been instrumental in the significant improvements in RUSI scores in
districts with predominantly hilly terrains. The table below explains.
Table 9.2: Satisfaction Scores – Type of Roads

Sl. # District Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI
1 State Highway 3.62 2.36
2 National Highway 3.57 2.94
3 Major District Road 3.56 2.50
4 Rural-BT 3.56 2.77
5 Rural-Non-BT 3.54 2.34
(Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; Figures represent average scores on a scale of 1 to 5)
RUSI Score – Demographic Analysis
Even though urban respondents have slightly higher satisfaction levels, the difference was
very minimal suggesting no disparity in urban and rural roads. When RUSI scores were
compared over gender, males have higher satisfaction than females (3.58 for males
compared to 3.49 for females). When the RUSI scores were compared with respect to
respondents’ educational attainments, it was observed that the satisfaction levels have
gradually come down with increase in educational attainment. This is understandable as
those with higher education aspire for more from roads in terms of its quality and other
related factors. The table clearly shows a difference in RUSI scores between those with an
education of up to 7th and those with above 7th. The following is the consolidated table with
average RUSI scores with respect to typology, gender, education and occupation of
respondents.
Table 9.3: Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores

Midline RUSI1
Urban 3.58
Typology
Rural 3.55
Male 3.58
Gender
Female 3.49
Illiterate/ no formal schooling 3.65
Upto 4th 3.73
Educational attainments
5th-7th 3.69
8th-9th 3.46
60
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
In line with the findings with respect to education, RUSI scores of those in formal
occupations were relatively lower than that of those in informal work force. For eg: Salaried
and self employed professionals had the least satisfaction score (3.4) among all types of
respondents. Unskilled labourers are the ones with high satisfaction scores nearly up to 3.8.
During the baseline, the RUSI score for male and female respondents (main and vulnerable
users combined) were 2.56 and 2.88 respectively. In both cases the score have improved
over time and slightly at a higher rate among men. Once again we see a very high
satisfaction rating among farmers/cultivators indicating that rural connectivity between
lower-order settlements to larger settlements/market nodes have improved substantially in
the state.
RUSI Score – Vehicle wise Analysis
Differences were found across different respondents driving different types of vehicles.
Compared to any vehicle driver, the vulnerable users of the roads had highest RUSI score.
The drivers of local vehicles (other than bus) had highest satisfaction levels followed by the
public bus drivers. Out of state vehicle drivers expressed least satisfaction levels which is
supported by the fact that these people might not have much of an experience in driving on
these types of roads. The following table explains.
Table 9.4: Satisfaction Scores – Vehicle wise

Sl. # Type of vehicle RUSI1
1 Vulnerable users 3.80
2 Local taxi/auto/car/SUV/MUV 3.43
3 Public bus 3.41
4 Private bus 3.40
5 Trailer/ truck/ tanker 3.39
6 LCVs 3.38
61
Sl. # Type of vehicle RUSI1

7 Two-wheeler 3.38
8 Out of state taxi/auto/car/SUV/MUV 3.28
9 Others 3.32
During the baseline survey, the satisfaction scores among bus drivers 2.61. This has
improved by over one point for both private and public sector bus drivers. This is crucial as
for a state which also has a large tourism based revenue, this endorsement is important.
During baseline, LCV drivers had given a rating of 2.45, which has increased to 3.38.
Himachal’s development profile has undergone a tremendous transformation and local
business enterprises have become the driver of a bubbling economy. LCVs are now the
lifeline of local trade and commerce and having a road network which meets their whole
hearted approval is a significant achievement.
During baseline, taxies, autos, cars, SUVs and MUVs had given a rating ranging between 2.27
and 2.41. This has also significantly increased to 3.43. The vulnerable users as a whole have
a satisfaction score of 3.80, which is a significant improvement over the baseline scores of
any of the vulnerable user categories.
RUSI Score –Road users’ category wise Analysis
There are minimal differences between different categories of respondents. Among the
main users, the owners who drive their vehicle have expressed lowest satisfaction levels.
Regular drivers have expressed high satisfaction levels. This is an interesting space to work
upon as one should clearly look out for the reasons resulting in low satisfaction levels of
vehicle owners.
Among vulnerable users, it was found that porters have had highest satisfaction levels in
excess of 4. It can also be seen that all but one group of vulnerable users have satisfaction
scores in excess of sub groups among main users. Cyclists have expressed low satisfaction
levels, which suggest a potential area to act upon.
The following table highlights the clear improvements in satisfaction scores over the
baseline, especially among road users representing regular households and pedestrians.
Public opinion is a very important measure of success or failure and this endorsement from
the local residents of Himachal is testimony to the good work done by the project and the
executing department.
62
Table 9.5: Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores

Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI
Driver 3.43 2.46
Main users Passenger 3.39 2.76
Owner-cum-driver 3.32 2.32
Household 3.76 2.75
Pedestrian 3.79 2.73
Porter 3.86 2.69
Vulnerable users Cyclist 3.74 2.75
Shopkeeper 3.79 2.61
Rickshaw puller/ Thelawala 3.85 2.91
/Bullock Cart Driver
(Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; 4032 main and 3168 vulnerable users; Figures represent
average scores on a scale of 1 to 5)
Indicators used to construct RUSI

Main safety features:
Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling vehicles (PCR Vans)
Adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of emergency numbers such as
police posts, police patrolling
Road quality and durability:
Overall condition of the road in terms of quality of road surface
Adequacy of road width as per traffic volume
Congestion/traffic jam on intersections
Durability/ quality of road in terms of the metalling / layering done on them
Roadside drainage
Maintenance of bridges on this roads
Needs & benefits:
Availability of filling stations and other essential amenities
Availability of parking facilities
The amount of money you have to pay for various kinds of road taxes and other related
taxes
Signage and markings’ availability:
Quality of road markings (painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing marks etc.,)
Adequacy and visibility of warning / road signs during day and night.
Adequacy and visibility of milestones / distance signs along the route
Safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/ guardrails & other safety features
Availability of streetlights.
63
10. Conclusion & Recommendations

Drivers for satisfaction
 Roadside markings, roadside amenities and the basic quality of construction

are the three key elements that control satisfaction levels among main
users. Driving safety is a key consideration among main users and the
perception that a road is safe to drive on drives their satisfaction
experience. Markings, amenities and quality of construction are all central
to this perception and hence, must remain a central feature of HPPWDs
agenda.
 In general, vulnerable users were happy with their road usage experience.
The key determinants of satisfaction were road signs (always an extremely
important feature for a pedestrian), roadside amenities and road
construction quality (similar to that of the main users). Because these
features are similar to those determining satisfaction scores among main
users as well, the job of HPPWD is relatively simpler and focussed.
 Those travelling by a public bus also had a relatively lower satisfaction
levels which is probably affected by the condition of bus as basic features of
the state’s roads are common for all respondents and there has been an
overall significant improvement as is obvious by the scores.
 Districts of Hamirpur, Kangra and Bilaspur still lag behind (relatively) in
terms of satisfaction levels and reasons for the same (as mentioned in the
report) will need to be recognised and addressed.
Road condition and Traffic delays
 HPPWD shall also understand the aspirations of educated users and users
who are in formal sector employment so as to work out a detailed plan
which could address their problems. These people are mainly based in
urban areas and the intra-city traffic situation in the state continues to be
bad owing to extreme congestion.
 The stakeholders opined that HPPWD makes good roads but they forget to
repair when they are dug for some pipeline work or when the roads are
broken during rainy seasons. The maintenance, upkeep and care are
missing.
64
Provision of amenities on PPP basis
 The perception about roadside amenities shows a declining trend. Though

providing amenities is not a core mandate of PWD but the department can
join hands with other concerned departments to develop amenities on
Public Private Partnership (PPP) model which will not only facilitate road
users / tourists but also help these departments to earn additional
revenues.
 There is an urgent need to not only increase the availability of medical
facilities across the road categories but also to improve the quality of
services provided by them. It is a crucial amenity as the road accidents are
increasing in the state and timely and quality medical aid to the accident
victim is of utmost importance. Trauma care facilities can be explored on
PPP basis on the various road categories in conjunction with available
health infrastructure on these roads. Usually the CHCs and PHCs are not
geared up to treat accident victims therefore a state level assessment of
existing health care infrastructure of the roads should be undertaken on
various trauma levels (I to IV) which can be established on a Hub and Spoke
model approach.
 Provision of Ambulance services on all major roads and at important
intersections and accident prone areas. If the roads are managed by private
player then ambulance service provision should be made part of the
contract agreement.
 Parking is a major problem on national / state highways which pass
through cities / towns which can also be developed on a similar approach.
 The road side plantations have to be improved further as road construction
and widening causes destruction of natural forests. The proper
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) will help the concerned
departments about the need and extent of the road side plantations to be
done on the roads where development works are in progress.
Repair and Maintenance
 Inventory of stretches prone to repair work: The PWD in their respective

districts identify and prepare a list of road sections/ stretches which need
repair work year on year or season after season or locational factors such
as mud slide, tree felling, torrents, land slide. Such sections/ stretches have
to be monitored regularly and repair and maintenance activity has to be
planned in advance.
65
Negative attributes or irritants
 HPPWD need to have a dedicated communication campaign through mid-

media and outdoor media to educate local drivers / tourists (who come on
their own vehicle) about safe driving as behaviour of drivers emerged as
one of the major irritants that causing road accidents. The secondary
literate corroborates this fact out of total road accidents cases, 89 percent
are due to drivers’ fault.
 Create awareness among the rural folks, nomadic herders on road safety
measures. Sensitizing them especially livestock owners that not to allow
their livestock to roam freely on roads and take proper measures that they
shouldn’t disrupt the traffic. Concerned department should earmarked the
points/sections on the road for animal crossings and aware them about the
usage of such points through signage’s etc.
Road safety
 Around 88 percent people of Himachal Pradesh do not feel safe while they
are on roads. The reason is indiscipline driving and overtaking. The self-
drive tourism concept is getting popular and tourists flow is also increasing
leading to further increase in vehicular traffic in the state. There are large
number of accidents particularly on highways and city roads where deaths
happen because safety devices like seat belt or helmet are not used by the
road users. Not safety norm / standards but enforcement of traffic rules
and lack of diligence vigilance are main reasons which cause road
accidents.
 There are certain stretches on the roads on different categories of roads
where accidents happen because of faulty road engineering. The data base
of such stretches has to be developed by the department and probe the
causes of accidents. The rectification of the causes has to be taken up on
priority basis in consultation with other concerned departments such as
Transport Department, Traffic Police, local police, etc. In the interim period
media campaigns, speed reducing measures, signage’s displaying accident
prone area, distribution of pamphlets and advertisement in newspaper
about these stretches, etc. has to be made to sensitize the road users to
avert any further accidents.
66
Revision of fine structures
 The fine structures in the state have to be revised as it can be deterrent for
traffic rule violators. “In the National Capital of Delhi during the
Commonwealth Games when there was Rs. 2,000 fine for lane violation, the
traffic ran very smoothly. People were very careful in following lane
discipline and it had overall impact on improving the traffic management
scene and accidents came down drastically” (Report of the Working group
on Road Safety pertaining to Enforcement).
Road as catalyst for rural development
 Overall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among
settlements in the state has improved which was more in case of rural
areas. The stakeholders and local citizen opined that the connectivity of
villages with main road has opened up their areas. They can transport rural
produce to the market directly and now not much dependent upon a
middleman which has helped them in getting correct prices for their
produce and enhanced income. It has a positive impact on their overall
socio-economic condition. The credit may be given to PMGSY programme.
This intervention has provided connectivity and brought rural areas in the
main stream of development. Hence, it is recommended to scale up the
current PMGSY programme to saturate the coverage.
67
Annexure
68
Annex 1
(Respondent Profile)
69
Profile of Road Users
Residential status of the main users – all users
Stay within this same Stay somewhere else From out of

District district in this state state N
N N N
Bilaspur 196 81.7 43 17.9 1 0.4 240 100
Chamba 226 91.9 20 8.1 246 100
Hamirpur 266 92.4 21 7.3 1 0.3 288 100
Kangra 714 93.0 53 6.9 1 0.1 768 100
Kullu 136 68.7 62 31.3 198 100
Mandi 544 85.5 90 14.2 2 0.3 636 100
Shimla 510 79.4 117 18.2 15 2.3 642 100
Sirmaur 381 97.7 7 1.8 2 0.5 390 100
Solan 310 80.7 74 19.3 384 100
Una 175 72.9 60 25.0 5 2.1 240 100
Total 3458 85.8 547 13.6 27 0.7 4032 100
Frequency of travel – all users
Quite often/very Few

Several times First time N
regularly times/rarely
District N N N N
Bilaspur 138 76.2 39 21.5 3 1.7 1 0.6 181 100
Chamba 32 16.5 141 72.7 16 8.2 5 2.6 194 100
Hamirpur 91 40.8 118 52.9 14 6.3 223 100
Kangra 394 68.8 154 26.9 25 4.4 573 100
Kullu 51 33.6 92 60.5 7 4.6 2 1.3 152 100
Mandi 197 41.4 260 54.6 18 3.8 1 0.2 476 100
Shimla 259 45.2 289 50.4 24 4.2 1 0.2 573 100
Sirmaur 154 51.0 144 47.7 3 1.0 1 0.3 302 100
Solan 23 7.1 279 85.6 24 7.4 326 100
Una 57 29.2 119 61.0 18 9.2 1 0.5 195 100
Total 1396 43.7 1635 51.2 152 4.8 12 0.4 3195 100
70
Purpose of Travel – all users

%
Work 60.8
Work and Shopping 10.0
Visiting friends / relation and Shopping 6.2
Work and Visiting friend / relation 5.6
Visiting friends / relation 4.4
Work and Visiting friend / relation and Shopping 3.9
Work and Tourism 3.3
Work and Shopping and Tourism 2.7
Work and Visiting friend / relation and Tourism 0.9
Other trips 2.2
Category of Vehicle – all users
N %
Trailer/ Truck/ Tanker 699 17.3
Inter-state private bus 218 5.4
Local private bus 816 20.2
Inter-state public bus 57 1.4
Local public bus 186 4.6
Local taxi/auto 551 13.6
Out of state tourist taxi 43 1.0
Local private car/SUV/MUV 275 6.8
Out of state private car/SUV/MUV 40 0.9
Government vehicle 5 0.12
Scooter/motorbike 493 12.2
Police/ Fire/ Ambulance/ Emergency vehicles 5 0.12
LCV (Matador, Tractor, small lorries, pickup etc) 644 15.9
Total 4032 100
71
Age of Respondents – all users
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
Educational Attainment – all users

N %
Illiterate 130 1.8
Literate but without formal schooling 108 1.5
Up to 4th standard 911 12.7
Completed 5th - 7th standard 559 7.8
Completed 8th to 9th standard 1265 17.6
Completed 10th standard 1829 25.4
Higher secondary/ intermediate 1689 23.5
Technical education diploma / certificate / Vocational 109 1.5
Graduate 500 6.9
Post-Graduate and Professional degree and higher research degrees 100 1.4
Total 7200 100
72
Primary Occupation– all users
N %
Cultivator / Farmer / Livestock rearing 430 6.0
Wage labor (Agriculture / Construction related) 213 3.0
Salaried (Government / Private) other than driver/helper/co 536 7.4
Skilled worker 309 4.3
Unskilled worker 829 11.5
Own Account Worker 1292 17.9
Self employed professional (Lawyer, Doctor, C.A., etc) 26 0.4
Trade /Retail Business / Other business 893 12.4
Unpaid family worker 44 0.6
Student 226 3.1
Social worker 19 0.3
Driver/helper/conductor 2220 30.8
Unemployed seeking employment 82 1.1
Housewife 81 1.1
Total 7200 100
73
Monthly Household Income – all users
Monthly Household Income Total

Less than Rs. Rs. 3001 to Rs. Rs 5001 to Rs. Rs 10,001 to Rs Rs 20,001 to More than Rs.
No Income
3,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 Rs 30,000 30,000 N
District N N N N N N N
Bilaspur 11 2.6 24 5.7 87 20.7 148 35.2 144 34.3 6 1.4 420 100
Chamba 13 3.0 9 2.0 13 3.0 294 66.8 103 23.4 8 1.8 440 100
Hamirpur 35 6.9 31 6.1 142 27.8 172 33.7 106 20.8 14 2.7 10 2.0 510 100
Kangra 82 6.1 65 4.9 292 21.8 579 43.2 287 21.4 28 2.1 7 0.5 1340 100
Kullu 21 6.0 9 2.6 44 12.6 119 34.0 148 42.3 9 2.6 350 100
Mandi 55 5.0 70 6.3 148 13.3 529 47.7 281 25.3 24 2.2 3 0.3 1110 100
Shimla 67 5.6 30 2.5 104 8.7 507 42.3 467 38.9 24 2.0 1 0.1 1200 100
Sirmaur 30 4.3 19 2.8 201 29.1 296 42.9 135 19.6 7 1.0 2 0.3 690 100
Solan 25 3.5 5 0.7 77 10.8 354 49.9 239 33.7 10 1.4 710 100
Una 18 4.2 19 4.4 67 15.6 225 52.3 98 22.8 3 0.7 430 100
Total 357 5.0 281 3.9 1175 16.3 3223 44.8 2008 27.9 133 1.8 23 0.3 7200 100
74
Annex 2
(Sample Coverage)
75
Sample Coverage – by district
District Main Users Vulnerable Users Booster Total

Bilaspur 240 160 20 420
Chamba 246 164 30 440
Hamirpur 288 192 30 510
Kangra 768 512 60 1340
Kullu 198 132 20 350
Mandi 636 424 50 1110
Shimla 642 428 130 1200
Sirmaur 390 260 40 690
Solan 384 256 70 710
Una 240 160 30 430
Total 4032 2688 480 7200
Sample Coverage – by Road Category
District NH SH MDR RR B/T RR Non B/T Total

Bilaspur 80 100 100 100 40 420
Chamba 4 146 120 120 50 440
Hamirpur 110 120 120 120 40 510
Kangra 200 320 380 310 130 1340
Kullu 60 80 100 80 30 350
Mandi 190 260 300 260 100 1110
Shimla 180 260 390 260 110 1200
Sirmaur 100 160 200 160 70 690
Solan 100 230 160 160 60 710
Una 90 100 100 100 40 430
Total 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200
76
Annex 3
(Research Instruments)
77
Questionnaire for Main Users
Schedule No.
PREAMBLE
Good ……………: I am from TNS India Private Limited, one of the largest market research agencies in the world.
On behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, we are currently conducting a survey among road users of
Himachal Pradesh. We would be grateful if you could give us 15 minutes of your precious time. Please answer
the following questions keeping in mind your experience in travelling on this road where we are interacting
now. In the following questions roads will imply either this particular road or this category of roads (category
name…………………………) of Himachal Pradesh.
SECTION A: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS

(The Identification section has to be filled using CODING SHEET provided to you)
A1. Name of District___________________________ A2. Type of Area URBAN (1) RURAL (2)________
A4. Nearest town/village_________________________

A3. Name of Town/Village_________________
A5. Predominant Landmark ______________________________________________________________
A6. If RURAL (Crosscheck with A2), Village road – BT (1) Village road – NBT (2)
A7. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), National Highway (1) State Highway (2) Major District Road (3)
A8. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), Halt Point / Stretch No.
SECTION B: INTERVIEW DETAILS

Name of the interviewer: ______________
Date
Back checked by (Name): ______________
Date
Name of Supervisor:_____________ Sign______________ Name of Editor:____________ Sign______________
Date of scrutiny Date of scrutiny
78
SECTION C: RESPONDENT PROFILE (A person below 18 years cannot be interviewed)

No. Questions and Filters Coding Categories Code Skip
C1. Name of respondent
_________________________________
C2. Age of the respondents
In completed years
C3. Sex of the respondent Male 1

Female 2
C4. Your telephone / mobile Number
C5. Category of Vehicle Trailer/ Truck/ Tanker 01
Inter-state private bus 02
Local private bus 03
Inter-state public bus 04
Local public bus 05
Local taxi/auto 06
Out of state tourist taxi 07
Local private car/SUV/MUV 08
Out of state private car/SUV/MUV 09
Government vehicle 10
Scooter/motorbike 11
Police/ Fire/ Ambulance/ Emergency vehicles 12
LCV (Matador, Tractor, small lorries, pickup 13
etc)
Others, specify _________________ 14
C6. Category of respondent Driver 01
Staff on Vehicle 02
Passenger 03
Owner-cum-driver 04
C7. Education of respondent Illiterate 01
Literate but without formal schooling 02
Up to 4th standard 03
Completed 5th - 7th standard 04
Completed 8th to 9th standard 05
Completed 10th standard 06
Higher secondary/ intermediate 07
Technical education diploma / certificate / 08
Vocational
Graduate 09
Post-Graduate 10
Professional degree and higher research 11
degrees
C8. Occupation of respondent Cultivator / Farmer / Livestock rearing 01
Wage labor (Agriculture / Construction related) 02
Salaried (Government / Private) other than 03
driver/helper/conductor
Skilled worker 04
Unskilled worker 05
Own Account Worker 06
Self employed professional (Lawyer, Doctor, 07
C.A., etc)
Trade /Retail Business / Other business 08
Unpaid family worker 09
Student 10
Social worker 11
Driver/helper/conductor 12
Unemployed seeking employment 13
79

Other specify_____________ 99
C9. Where are you from? Stay within this same district 1 Go to C11
Stay somewhere else in this state 2 Go to C11
From out of state 3
C10. How many times have you travelled Quite often/very regularly 1
on this particular road over the PAST SIX Several times 2
MONTHS? Few times/rarely 3
First time 4
C11. Please give me some idea about your Less than Rs. 3,000 1
total monthly household income. Please Rs. 3001 to Rs. 5,000 2
include all sources including salary, bonus, Rs 5001 to Rs. 10,000 3
pension, interest, dividend, rental income, Rs 10,001 to Rs 20,000 4
etc. Rs 20,001 to Rs 30,000 5
More than Rs. 30,000 6
SECTION D: MAIN INTERVIEW

D1. For what purpose are you making Work related 1
this particular trip using this road? Visiting friends/relations 2
Shopping 3
[MULTIPLE CODE POSSIBLE] Sight-seeing/tourism 4
Other (specify)__________________ 9
D2. What would you say has been Quite satisfying 1
your overall experience in using Somewhat satisfying 2
this particular road today? Neither satisfying nor dissatisfying 3
Somewhat dissatisfying 4
Quite dissatisfying 5
D3. During this trip, did you find any Yes 1
police posts/ police patrolling No 2
vehicles (PCR Vans) along the
way?
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
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)

During these last 2-3 years, what Substantially reduced 1
would you say the travel time Reduced marginally 2
D5. between two places on roads such 3
Remained same
as this _______ has reduced or
Increased somewhat 4
increased?
Increased substantially 5
Looking at the current condition Substantially reduced 1
of roads such as this ______, has Reduced marginally 2
your fuel consumption and 3
D6. Remained same
maintenance costs of your vehicle
reduced or increased in the last 2-
3 years? Increased substantially 5
How often have you seen All the time 1
construction materials from any Most of the time 2
kind of roadwork activities (road Some times 3
construction, maintenance, laying
Rarely/never 4 Go to D9
D7. of telephone lines, sewer lines,
water pipes, etc.) lining the
roadside while travelling on road
such as this _______during the
last 2-3 years?
As you saw this last time, do you Yes 1
remember any sign explaining No 2
D8.
that there was a work-in- Don’t remember 3
progress?
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
Overall condition of the road in terms of quality of road

1 1 2 3 4
surface
2 Availability of filling stations and other essential amenities 1 2 3 4
3 Adequacy of road width as per traffic volume 1 2 3 4
Quality of road markings (such as painted lines, reflection
4 1 2 3 4
signs, pedestrian crossing markings, etc)
5 Adequacy and visibility of warning / road signs 1 2 3 4
Adequacy and visibility of milestones / distance signs along
6 1 2 3 4
the route
Safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/ guardrails
7 1 2 3 4
& others
8 Availability of streetlights 1 2 3 4
Availability and accessibility of police posts/ police patrolling
9 1 2 3 4
vehicles (PCR Vans)
10 Availability of parking facilities 1 2 3 4
Adequacy of emergency telephone services with display of
11 emergency numbers such as police posts, police patrolling 1 2 3 4
vehicles (PCR vans), hospitals, etc
12 Road side plantations 1 2 3 4
13 Maintenance of bridges on this road 1 2 3 4
D11. Has the situation improved

over the past 2-3 years?
Do you get irritated on roads such as this ______with followings________? (Do not ask from first time
D10.
visitor; cross check with C10 –
code 4)
Read out one by one Yes No Yes No Can’t Say
1 Congestion on the roads/ High volume of traffic 1 2 1 2 3
Behavior of other drivers (Rash driving/ poor overtaking/ not
2 1 2 1 2 3
indicating properly)
3 Air/ Noise pollution of vehicles 1 2 1 2 3
4 Beaming headlights of other vehicles 1 2 1 2 3
5 Animals crossing the road (cows, dogs, monkeys etc) 1 2 1 2 3
6 Pedestrians crossing road where not allowed 1 2 1 2 3
7 Bad roads (potholes, rutting, rough road etc) 1 2 1 2 3
8 Traffic jams on intersections 1 2 1 2 3
9 Wrong/ illegal parking 1 2 1 2 3
10 RTO/ Police checking/ Barricades 1 2 1 2 3
11 Non/ partial construction of roads in many areas/ villages 1 2 1 2 3
12 Close proximity of shops near roads 1 2 1 2 3
D12. In your experience of having driven on Himachal roads, could you give us your opinion on requirement and
availability of the following services on roads such as this____________?
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
Rain shelter-cum-Bus stop
Mechanics/ tow car services
82
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
Availability of filling stations 04

Availability of other essential amenities like repair shops, halting points
05
with food/water, etc.
Good drainage system 06
Protection against land-slides 07
Adequate Road/Bridge width 08
Good street lights 09
Less pedestrian traffic 10

Overall cleanliness on road and along sides, including clearance of
11
construction materials
Availability of proper road signage 12
Visibility and adequacy of distance markers 13
Proper safety features such as railings, bends, parapets, etc. 14
Roadside parking facilities 15
Presence of police posts and patrolling vans 16
Proper maintenance of culverts and bridges 17
Expenses on road taxes 18
Less Air/Noise pollution 19
Good roadside plantations 20
Availability of Public Toilet 21
Availability of emergency medical facility 22
Others, specify___________________ 99

D14. In general, do you feel safe while Yes 1 Go to D16
commuting on roads such as this No 2
_____________?
D15. Could you tell me the possible High speed of traffic 01
reasons as to why you feel High volume of traffic/congestion 02
unsafe? Heavy vehicles 03
Poor/ aggressive driving with bad overtaking 04
83

Joining/leaving service lanes 05
[MULTIPLE RESPONSES Bad roads/ narrow roads 06
POSSIBLE] Poor condition of breast walls 07
Absent/ loose parapets 08
[DO NOT PROMPT] Unsafe retaining walls 09
Land/Rock sliding 10
Foggy weather 11
Slippery roads in rainy seasons 12
Absence of streetlights 13
Traffic converging into fewer lanes 14
Sharp turns 15
Bad signage 16
Robbery/ theft 17
Wrong Parking 18
Animal Crossing 19
Others________________________ 99
PLEASE ASK D16 TO ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3 YEARS.
DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C10 – code 4)
D16. What would you say the 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
has HPPWD been in carrying out Moderately successful 2
road works speedily and Neither successful nor unsuccessful 3
efficiently?
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

maintenance response time (time Moderately satisfied 2
taken in repairing/ maintaining Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3
roads) by HPPWD authorities in
resolving maintenance/ repairing
related problems? Highly dissatisfied 5

D24. On an average, how much delay No delay 1 Go to D26
do you experience due 1-30 min 2
to………………….. 31-60 min 3
(READ OUT REASONS) 1-2 hrs. 4
More than 2 hrs. 5
D25. Reasons and time of delay?
Volume of Traffic 01
Time of delay
(USE CODES FROM D28) Road works/ maintenance 02
Time of delay
Bad design of intersections 03
Time of delay
Uncompromising Drivers 04
Time of delay
05 Time of delay
stretches
Police /RTO-checking 06
Time of delay
Accidents 07
Time of delay
Pedestrian/animals 08
Time of delay
Wrong Parking 09
Time of delay
Bad weather/fog 10
Time of delay
Natural calamity/land sliding/snowfall 11
Time of delay
Others________ 99
Time of delay
D26 How the accidents on the roads
can be minimized?
(TO BE POST CODED) ______________________________________
D27 Please could you rank the Value for Money ( Road related taxes
following in order of importance and charges, saving in fuel consumption,
that you consider while vehicle maintenance cost, tyres etc.
commuting on these roads in Value for Time( Total time taken in
Himachal Pradesh? journey, availing facilities etc.)
Comfort & Convenience( condition of
Please rank them from 1 to 6, road, smooth ride, congestion level etc.
where 1 being the most Safety on the road (Safety from land
important reason and 2 being the sliding, signage, police posts, medical
next important reason and so on. aid availability, emergency telephone
availability etc.)
Travel amenities (Food, water, toilets,
bathrooms, rest rooms, mechanics
availability etc.)
85

Visual appeal( Beautification on the
roads, landscaping, planting trees,
greenery etc.)
D27 Please can you rank what road Wider Roads
authorities should do for better
Widening of curves/ improving curves
road management?
Please rank them from 1 to 4, More wayside facilities
where 1 being the most
important reason and 2 being the Tougher road traffic enforcement
next important reason and so on.
Information/Warning Signs
D28 Finally, can you give any

suggestions for further
improvements in road- ______________________________________
infrastructure in Himachal
Pradesh?
(TO BE POST CODED)
Schedule No.
Say “Thank you & Have a Wonderful Journey” and terminate the interview.
86
Questionnaire for Vulnerable Users
Schedule No.
DEFINITION OF VULNERABLE USERS: Vulnerable are found adjacent to roads like shopkeeper, household,
pedestrian, and the person operating non-motor vehicle like Cycle, Rickshaw wala, Bullock cart, etc .
PREAMBLE
Good ……………: I am from TNS India Private Limited, one of the largest market research agencies in the world.
On behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, we are currently conducting a survey among road users of
Himachal Pradesh. We would be grateful if you could give us 15 minutes of your precious time. Please answer
the following questions keeping in mind your experience in travelling on this road where we are interacting
now. In the following questions roads will imply either this particular road or this category of roads (category
name…………………………) of Himachal Pradesh.
SECTION A: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS

(The Identification section has to be filled using CODING SHEET provided to you)
A1. Name of District___________________________ A2. Type of Area URBAN (1) RURAL (2)________
A4. Nearest town/village_________________________

A3. Name of Town/Village_________________
A5. Predominant Landmark ______________________________________________________________
A6. If RURAL (Crosscheck with A2), Village road – BT (1) Village road – NBT (2)
A7. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), National Highway (1) State Highway (2) Major District Road (3)
A8. If URBAN (Crosscheck with A2), Halt Point / Stretch No.
SECTION B: INTERVIEW DETAILS

Name of the interviewer: ______________
Date
Back checked by (Name): ______________
Date
Name of Supervisor:_____________ Sign______________ Name of Editor:______________ Sign__________
Date of scrutiny Date of scrutiny
87
SECTION C: RESPONDENT PROFILE (A person below 18 years cannot be interviewed)

C1. Name of respondent
_________________________________
C2. Age of the respondents
In completed years
C3. Sex of the respondent Male 1

Female 2
C4. Your telephone / mobile Number
C5. Category of respondent Household 1
Pedestrian 2
Porter 3
Cyclist 4
Shopkeeper 5
Rickshaw puller/ Thelewala /Bullock Cart Driver 6
Others 9
C6. Education of respondent Illiterate 01
Literate but without formal schooling 02
Up to 4th standard 03
Completed 5th - 7th standard 04
Completed 8th to 9th standard 05
Completed 10th standard 06
Higher secondary/ intermediate 07
Technical education diploma / certificate / 08
Vocational
Graduate 09
Post-Graduate 10
Professional degree and higher research 11
degrees
C7. Occupation of respondent Cultivator / Farmer / Livestock rearing 01
Wage labor (Agriculture / Construction related) 02
Salaried (Government / Private) other than 03
driver/helper/conductor
Skilled worker 04
Unskilled worker 05
Own Account Worker 06
Self employed professional (Lawyer, Doctor, 07
C.A., etc)
Businessman / Shop owner with employees 08
Unpaid family worker 09
Student 10
Social worker 11
Driver/helper/conductor 12
Unemployed seeking employment 13
Petty trader 14
Housewife 15
Other specify_____________ 99
C8. How many times have you travelled on Quite often/very regularly 1
this particular road over the PAST SIX Several times 2
MONTHS? Few times/rarely 3
First time 4
C9. Please give me some idea about your Less than Rs. 3,000 1
total monthly household income. Please Rs. 3001 to Rs. 5,000 2
include all sources including salary, bonus, Rs 5001 to Rs. 10,000 3
pension, interest, dividend, rental income, Rs 10,001 to Rs 20,000 4
etc. Rs 20,001 to Rs 30,000 5
88

More than Rs. 30,000 6
SECTION D: MAIN INTERVIEW

D1. Mostly, What is your purpose of Business / Work related 1
using this road? Visiting friends/relations 2
Shopping 3
[MULTIPLE CODE POSSIBLE] Sight-seeing/tourism 4
OTHER (specify)__________________ 9
D2. Looking at this particular road, in Absolutely free from congestion 1
your view usually how congested Somewhat free 2
is this road? (Congestion means Neither free nor congested 3
reduced traffic-speed due to
Somewhat congested 4
overcrowding of vehicles)
Highly congested 5
Based on your experience of travelling on this road, please tell me what do you think about the following?
D3. Neither Don’t

Very
Read out one by one Good Good Nor Bad Very Bad know
Good
Bad Can’t say
Overall condition of the road in
1 terms of quality of road surface, 1 2 3 4 5 6
smoothness and appearance
Adequacy of road width as per
2 1 2 3 4 5 6
traffic volume
Quality of road markings (such as
3 painted lines, reflection signs, 1 2 3 4 5 6
pedestrian crossing markings, etc)
Adequacy and Visibility of warning
4 1 2 3 4 5 6
/ road signs during day and night.
Adequacy and visibility of
5 milestones / distance signs along 1 2 3 4 5 6
the route
Availability and accessibility of
6 police posts/ police patrolling 1 2 3 4 5 6
vehicles (PCR Vans)
Adequacy of emergency telephone
services with display of emergency
7 numbers such as police posts, 1 2 3 4 5 6
police patrolling vehicles (PCR
vans), hospitals, etc
8 Adequacy of Road side plantations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Maintenance of bridges on this
9 1 2 3 4 5 6
roads
PLEASE ASK D4 – D7 TO ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3
YEARS. DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C8 – code 4)

D4. During the last 2-3 years, time Substantially reduced 1
between particular places on the Reduced marginally 2
roads you use frequently such as 3
Remained same
this ______ has reduced or
increased?
Increased substantially 5
D5. In your opinion has the condition Improved substantially 1
of roads such as this____ Improved marginally 2
89

improved in the last 2-3 years? Remained same 3
Declined somewhat 4
Substantially declined 5
D6. How often have you seen All the time 1
construction materials from any Most of the time 2
kind of roadwork activities (road Some times 3
construction, maintenance, laying
Rarely/never 4 Go to D8
of telephone lines, sewer lines,
water pipes, etc.) lining the
roadside while travelling on road
such as this _______during the
last 2-3 years?
D7. As you saw this last time, do you Yes 1
remember any sign explaining No 2
that there was a work-in- Don’t remember 3
progress?
D9. Has the situation improved

over the past 2-3 years?
Do you get irritated on roads such as this ______with followings________? (Do not ask from first time
D8.
visitor; cross check with C10 –
code 4)
Read out one by one Yes No Yes No Can’t Say
1 Congestion on the roads/ High volume of traffic 1 2 1 2 3
2 Air Pollution from Vehicles 1 2 1 2 3
3 Noise Pollution from Vehicles 1 2 1 2 3
4 Insufficient pedestrian crossings 1 2 1 2 3
5 No separate lane for pedestrians/ cyclists/ rickshaw pullers 1 2 1 2 3
6 Bad roads (potholes, rutting, rough road etc) 1 2 1 2 3
7 Traffic jams on intersections 1 2 1 2 3
8 Non/ partial construction of roads in many areas/ villages 1 2 1 2 3
9 Close proximity of shops near roads 1 2 1 2 3
D10. In your experience of using roads such as this _______, could you give us your opinion on requirement and
availability of the following services on roads such as this____________?
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
5 Rain shelter-cum-Bus stop
D11. When you are travelling on a road such as this ________, which of the following elements play an important part
in determining your level of satisfaction with the journey?
INSTRUCTION: please circle the appropriate codes for all spontaneous responses. For the balance responses, you
have to prompt the elements one by one and put the following codes:
Important (1) Somewhat important (2) Prompted
Spontaneous
Somewhat unimportant (3) Not important (4) (use code)
Basic connectivity and time taken to travel between settlements 01
Road surface condition 02
90
Congestion level on road 03
Noise and air pollution 04
Quality of traffic (vehicle size, discipline of drivers) 05
Width of road allowing for pedestrian movement 06

Road safety features like pedestrian crossings, warning signs,
07
emergency numbers displayed on signposts, etc.
Availability of parapets and railings 08
Availability of essential travel amenities like toilets, bathrooms,
09
drinking water, etc.)
Visual appeal (beautification on the roads, landscaping, planting trees,
10
greenery, etc)
Other Specify_____________________________ 99

D12. In general, do you feel safe while Yes 1 Go to D14
commuting on roads such as No 2
this___________?
D13. Could you tell me the possible High speed of traffic 01
reasons as to why you feel High volume of traffic/congestion 02
unsafe? Heavy vehicles 03
Poor/ aggressive driving with bad overtaking 04
[MULTIPLE RESPONSE POSSIBLE] Joining/leaving service lanes 05
Bad roads/ narrow roads 06
[DO NOT PROMPT] Poor condition of breast walls 07
Absent/ loose parapets 08
Unsafe retaining walls 09
Land/Rock sliding 10
Foggy weather 11
Slippery roads in rainy seasons 12
Absence of streetlights 13
Traffic converging into fewer lanes 14
Sharp turns 15
Bad signage 16
Robbery/ theft 17
Others________________________ 99
PLEASE ASK D14 TO ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3 YEARS.
DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C8 – code 4)
D14. What would you say the Improved 1
connectivity between different Remained Same 2
settlements in the state has Declined 3
improved or declined
D15. What do you think about the Very Good 1
management and time taken in Good 2
accident clean up on this type of Neither Good nor Bad 3
roads of Himachal Pradesh?
Bad 4
Very Bad 5
D16. Have you ever experienced theft/ Yes 1
robbery on the roads of Himachal No 2
Pradesh?
PLEASE ASK D17 & D18 FOR RURAL ROADS ONLY AND TO THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN USING
THIS ROAD SINCE LAST 2/ 3 YEARS. DO NOT INCLUDE THE FIRST TIME USER (cross check with C8 – code 4)
D17. Has connectivity between villages Improved substantially 1
91

improved over the past 2-3 years? Improved somewhat 2
Remained the same 3
D18. Has it become easier to reach Yes 1
important facilities in the major No 2
towns/district HQ today as
compared to 2-3 years ago?
D19. 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
D20. 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 Go to D26
Others____________________ 9
has HPPWD been in providing Moderately successful 2
quality roads in Himachal Neither successful nor unsuccessful 3
Pradesh?
Can’t say 6
has HPPWD been in carrying out Moderately successful 2
road works speedily and Neither successful nor unsuccessful 3
efficiently?
Can’t say 6
D23. Have you ever complaint to Yes 1
HPPWD regarding any problem? No 2 Go to D26
complaint redressal system of Moderately satisfied 2
HPPWD? Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3
Highly dissatisfied 5
maintenance response time (time Moderately satisfied 2
taken in repairing/ maintaining Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3
roads) by HPPWD authorities in
resolving maintenance/ repairing
related problems? Highly dissatisfied 5
PLEASE ASK QUESTION D26 TO D31 ONLY TO WOMEN RESPONDENTS
D26. For a woman, do you feel it has Yes 1
become safer to travel on No 2
Himachal roads as compared to
few years before?
D27. How often do you leave the Every day 1
house and travel on roads? Almost every day 2
(exclude travel on rural non BT Few times a week 3
road)
At least once a week 4
Once or twice a month 5
Less frequently 6
92
D28. Do you D29. Do you D30. Has D31. If

undertake this usually walk or frequency of this increased, is it
activity using use a vehicle or activity increased due to greater
the road both (mixed over last 2/3 connectivity?
network? mode)? years?
Increased(1),
Remain Same(2),
Walk/Cycle(1), Decreased(3)
Yes (1), No (2) Ride(2), Both(3) Yes (1), No (2)
Going to school/college
Going to work
Going to the local market
Taking kids to school
Going to the district HQ
Going to Shimla
Visiting relations/friends

D28. On an average, how much delay No delay 1 Go to D30
do you experience due 1-30 min 2
to………………….. 31-60 min 3
(READ OUT REASONS) 1-2 hrs. 4
More than 2 hrs. 5
D29. Reasons and time of delay?
Volume of Traffic 01
Time of delay
(USE CODES FROM D28) Road works/ maintenance 02
Time of delay
Bad design of intersections 03
Time of delay
Uncompromising Drivers 04
Time of delay
05 Time of delay
stretches
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

D31 Please could you rank the Value for Time( Total time taken in
following in order of importance journey, availing facilities etc.)
that you consider while Comfort & Convenience( condition of
commuting on these roads in road, smooth ride, congestion level etc.
Himachal Pradesh? Safety on the road (Safety from land
sliding, signage, police posts, medical
Please rank them from 1 to 5, aid availability, emergency telephone
where 1 being the most availability etc.)
important reason and 2 being the Travel amenities (Food, water, toilets,
next important reason and so on. bathrooms, rest rooms, mechanics
availability etc.)
Visual appeal( Beautification on the
roads, landscaping, planting trees,
greenery etc.)
D32 What kinds of problems do you Air Pollution 1
feel due to these roads? Noise Pollution 2
Fear of Accidents 3
Traffic Jams. 4
Road Works 5
Non availability of pedestrian crossings
6
near schools, builtup areas
Other (specify) 9
D33 Please can you rank what road Wider Roads
authorities should do for better
Widening of curves/ improving curves
road management?
Please rank them from 1 to 4, More wayside facilities
where 1 being the most
important reason and 2 being the Tougher road traffic enforcement
next important reason and so on.
Information/Warning Signs
D34 Finally, can you give any

suggestions for further
improvements in road- ______________________________________
infrastructure in Himachal
Pradesh?
(TO BE POST CODED)
Schedule No.
Say “Thank you & Have a Wonderful Journey” and terminate the interview.
94
In-depth Interview Guidelines
to be administered with
Stakeholders
(Bus /Truck / Taxi Operators, Public Representatives, Media Agencies, Hoteliers Associations,
Emergency Service Provides, etc.)
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
a) District Name________________________ b) Stakeholder Name ______________________
c) Department Name____________________ d) Designation____________________________
e) Contact No.__________________________
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this interview is to understand the aspects related to development of roads in the
state of Himachal Pradesh.
1. Are you originally from Himachal Pradesh? If no, from which part of India you belong to?
2. How long ago you came and settled here? For what reasons you have settled here?
3. Have you travelled all parts of Himachal Pradesh? Have you travelled all parts of
this________ district?
4. How is the road connectivity among districts in Himachal Pradesh?
5. How easy is to move from one place to another place?
6. What are the facilities available?
7. What is the frequency of bus/taxi services? Are they adequate?
8. How long it takes to go from one place to another place.
9. How convenient it is to go from one place to another place.
10. How safe and secure is to go from one place to another place.
11. Does the physical condition and development status of roads vary from one district to
another district in Himachal Pradesh? If yes, which are those districts? What are the reasons for
this variation?
12. How is the road connectivity among towns / villages in this__________ district?
13. Whether majority of rural roads are metalled or non-metalled?
14. What is the physical condition of majority of highways or rural roads (smooth or uneven or
pot holes)?
15. Does this problem aggravate during rainy / winter seasons?
16. What is the status of road infrastructure in this ______district?
o Like bridges, culverts, retaining wall, tunnels, signage and markings, electrical systems
(street lighting/traffic lights), edge treatments (curves, side-walks, landscaping),
drainage, road maintenance depots and rest areas, etc.
17. What is the status of amenities/ services available?
o Like railway station, bus terminus, bus stand, taxi/auto stands, petrol pumps, sign
boards, warning boards, emergency numbers board, speed limit boards, street lights
and pedestrian way for facilitating easier and safe traveling, phone booth, drinking
95
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
Annex 4
(Awareness Raising Material)
97
98
99

Midline Survey Report - RUSS (TNS)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Midline Survey Report - RUSS (TNS)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FINAL SURVEY REPORT

Road User Satisfaction Survey – 2012

Chapter No. Titles Page No.

3 Road Condition & Perceived Impact 28 – 29

4 Comfort & Convenience 30 – 35

6 Travel Amenities & Visual Appeal 45 – 47

7 Perception about HPPWD 48 – 51

Chapter No. Titles Page No.

9 Road User Satisfaction Index 56 – 63

10 Conclusion & Recommendations 64 – 67

Table No. Titles Page No.

3.1 Overall condition of road – all users 28

Table No. Titles Page No.

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

1.2 Road Network in Himachal Pradesh

Figure 1.1: Roads Network

The specific objectives of the survey would be to:

2.1 Quantitative Survey

Overall sampling framework

The sampling was based on two key elements, viz.

Total road Number of Number of

Allocation of samples is a function of the following parameters, viz.

1. Extent of disaggregation of data required while reporting for the state

Determination of base sample per reporting level:

n = required sample size

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

Determination of reporting levels

10 districts x 672 respondents = 6720

5 road typologies x 672 respondents = 3360

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

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

Primary source of Other sources of

Primary source of Other sources of

Along halting points like

Along halting points like

Distribution of sample among districts

District Total road length % distribution Sample distribution

Distribution of sample among road categories within a district

Road length in Kms. % share within district

% distribution Sample Distribution Total Base

Distribution of booster Adjusted booster sample

Final sample distribution

District Base sample Booster sample Total sample

Selection of road segments for NH, SH and MDR

Selection of villages for covering rural roads

City specific distribution of booster sample

Adjusted booster sample

2.2 Qualitative Survey

Sr. No. Target Group Definition

Sr. No. Target Group Definition

3. Road Conditions & Perceived

3.1 Road Condition and Travel Time

Table 3.1: Overall condition of road – all users

Road Category (in %)

3.2 Perceived Impact on Time and Fuel Economy

Table 3.2: Travel Time – all users

Road Category (in %)

Table 3.3: Fuel Consumption – main users

Road Category (in %)

4. Comfort & Convenience

4.1 Congestion on Roads

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

Road Category (in %)