Midline Himachal PradeshMidline Himachal PradeshMidline Himachal PradeshMidline Himachal PradeshMidline Himachal Pradesh Midline Himachal Pradesh Road User Satisfaction SurveyRoad User Satisfaction Survey

Midline Himachal Pradesh Midline Himachal Pradesh Road User Satisfaction SurveyRoad User Satisfaction Surveyyyyy

Presentation of research findings

By TNS India

Presentation of research findings

By TNS India

Flow of presentationFlow of presentation1. Background

– ObjectivesObjectives

– Research design

– Sample coverage

2 Research findings2. Research findings– Road conditions and perceived impact

– Comfort and convenience

– Safety aspectsy p

– Travel amenities and visual appeal

– Perception about HPPWD

– Gender aspects

– RUSI

3. Conclusions and recommendations

Background Background

3

Research objectives Research objectives Research objectives Research objectives To identify various parameters influencing road users satisfaction

To develop a Road Users Satisfaction Index (RUSI) comprising of variousp ( ) p gfactors that affect road user satisfaction, with due weightage to each ofthese factors

To present the road user satisfaction across different user categories andp groad categories on satisfaction indicators

Elicit views on public perceptions of current sector outcomes, PWDperformance and government policiesp g p

Document the views in a comprehensible format suitable for comparisonover time

To provide recommendations for future course of action based on theTo provide recommendations for future course of action based on thesurvey result

Present the findings of the survey to senior decision makers in GOHP andthe general publicthe general public

Research designResearch designResearch designResearch designgggg

Target groupsTarget groups1. Main users

– Trailer/truck/tanker drivers/owners/staffTrailer/truck/tanker drivers/owners/staff

– Bus/taxi/auto drivers/owners/staff

– Private car/SUV/MUV drivers/owners

– Bus/taxi/auto passengersBus/taxi/auto passengers

– Scooter/motorcycle riders

– Tractor, agricultural vehicle drivers/owners

– Tempo/matador/LCV drivers/owners/staffTempo/matador/LCV drivers/owners/staff

2. Vulnerable– Households/shopkeepers living adjacent to the NH, SH, MDR, Rural Roads B/T

– Pedestrians and porters travelling along the above roads as well as those onrural roads non B/T

– Cyclists/rickshaw pullers using the above roads

Geographical coverageGeographical coverageGeographical coverageGeographical coverage

The state of Himachal Pradesh has

g p gg p gg p gg p g

a total of 12 districts.

As per the sampling designadopted in the 2007 survey, thedistricts of Lahul & Spiti andKinnaur were not part of thesurvey universe.

The two districts had beenexcluded as their populationshare/density, length of road wereshare/density, length of road wereinsignificant. Also, they do nothave NH/SH.

Districts covered during surveyDistricts covered during survey

Sample coverageSample coverageSample coverageSample coverageDistrict

Sample distribution Total base sample

Booster sample

TotalsampleNH SH MDR RR BT R NBT

Kangra 200 320 320 310 130 1280 60 1340Kangra 200  320  320  310  130  1280  60 1340Mandi 180  260  260  260  100  1060  50 1110Shimla 180  260  260  260  110  1070  130 1200Sirmaur 100  160  160  160  70  650  40 690Solan 100  160  160  160  60  640  70 710Una 60  100  100  100  40  400  30 430Chamba 0  120  120  120  50  410  30 440Hamirpur 80 120 120 120 40 480 30 510Hamirpur 80  120  120  120  40  480  30 510Kullu 60  80  80  80  30  330  20 350Bilaspur 60  100  100  100  40  400  20 420

Total 1020  1680  1680  1670  670  6720 480 7200

The NHs caters more than 40% of the total road traffic, followed by SHs / MDRs which together cater another 40%. Hence, more weightage was given to the highways and major roads than rural roads.  This distribution was also in compliance to baseline survey.

InIn‐‐depth discussionsdepth discussionsSr. No. Target Group Sample Size

1 Truck and tanker operator unions/associations 62 Inter bus service operators 102 Inter‐bus service operators  103 Taxi and hired car operators  114 Agricultural commodity producers 105 Fright forwarding /shipping agent 66 Insurance industry representatives  47 Health service providers 78 Emergency service providers 59 Transport department 99 Transport department 910 4 and 2 wheeler manufactures, repair workshop representatives 911 Corporate Houses 212 Journalists and media representatives  213 Media agencies 214 Hoteliers associations  4

Total 87

The insights gathered from in‐depth discussions were used to enrich quantitative findings and drafting recommendations.

Research Findings

Road Conditions &Road Conditions &Road Conditions & Perceived Impact

Road Conditions & Perceived Impact

Change in road conditionChange in road conditionMain users

Road Category (in %)NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total

Improved substantially 38.1 33.3 31.6 35.8 30.6 34.0p yRemained same 59.0 64.7 64.5 61.0 64.2 62.8Become worse 2.6 1.6 3.7 3.0 5.0 3.0

Total (N) 612 1008 1007 1002 402 4031

V l blRoad Category (in %)

Vulnerableg y ( )

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT TotalImproved substantially 19.4 13.5 14.5 15.9 20.5 15.8Improved marginally 58.0 70.4 71.0 72.3 64.9 68.5Remained same 21.6 14.0 11.9 10.9 11.6 13.7Declined somewhat 1.0 2.1 2.4 0.4 2.6 1.7Substantially declined 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2

Total (N) 500 763 959 667 268 3157

A considerable proportion of respondents opined road conditions have improved substantially. This perception has changed significant from baseline (4%) to midline (16/34%).  The trend was relatively higher for national highways. A major change has been observed in rural link roads.The interviews with village level stakeholders reveal the contribution of PMGSY. 

Perceived impact on time & fuel Perceived impact on time & fuel economyeconomy

100%21 1 19 15.5 17.2 20

20%

40%

60%

80%

11 3 9 1 11 2 12 16 4 11 4

55.6 65.6 66.3 71.1 65.2 65.5

28.2 21.1 19 17.2 20

0%

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total

Road Category (in %)

11.3 9.1 11.2 12 16.4 11.4

80%

100%

30.220.6 17.9 13.7 14.9 19.1

Substantially reduced Reduced marginally Remained sameIncreased somewhat Increased substantially

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

10 8.3 10.4 10.9 12.2 10.1

52.5 65.4 67.5 73.8 71.4 66.6

0%

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total

Substantially reduced Reduced marginally Remained sameIncreased somewhat Increased substantially

Comfort & ConvenienceComfort & Convenience

Congestion on roadsCongestion on roads

100%13.9 11 14 13.5 11.7 12.9

40%

60%

80%

56.5 59 54.9 48.4 50.2 54.1

13.9 15.417 21.5 19.7 17.5

0%

20%

NH  SH  MDR  RR B/T  RR NBT  Total 

14.5 14.4 13.3 15.5 16.9 14.7

h f f d ( f ff fl ) d

/

Quite satisfied  Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied  Somewhat dissatisfied Quite dissatisfied 

• On the issue of congestion of road (ease of traffic flow), around 15 percent road users were quite satisfied and 54 percent were somewhat satisfied.

Adequacy of road widthAdequacy of road widthMain users

Road Category (in %)NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total

Quite satisfied 24.2 16.1 17.8 17.9 20.6 18.6Somewhat satisfied 41.8 44.9 42.8 41.2 37.3 42.2Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 11.4 9.9 12.1 11.7 11.9 11.3Somewhat dissatisfied 20.6 28.9 24.3 25.7 27.6 25.6Quite dissatisfied 2 0.2 3.1 3.5 2.5 2.2

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 1002 402 4032

Vulnerable Road Category (in %)

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT TotalVery Good 20.3 18 13 15.1 18.7 16.3Good 38.8 44.7 41.1 43.7 44 42.4Neither Good Nor Bad 36.1 33.1 38.6 30.4 25 34Bad 4 3.8 6.2 9.4 11.2 6.4Very Bad 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0 0.3

Total (N) 502 768 962 668 268 3168

• Around 19 percent main uses and 16 percent vulnerable users were satisfied with adequacy of road. 

Connectivity & accessibilityConnectivity & accessibilityConnectivity

Road Category (in %)NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT Total

Improved 62.8 67.1 71.2 79.8 81.9 71.9Improved 62.8 67.1 71.2 79.8 81.9 71.9Remained Same 35.6 31.6 26.2 19.5 16.4 26.5Declined 1.6 1.3 2.5 0.7 1.6 1.6

Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188

AccessibilityRoad Category (in %)

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT TotalYes 85.6 89.1 93.4 90.7 91.8 90.4N 14 4 10 9 6 6 9 3 8 2 9 6No 14.4 10.9 6.6 9.3 8.2 9.6

Total (N) 1112 1771 1966 1669 670 7188

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

• 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. 

Irritants Irritants –– negative attributesnegative attributesIrritants 

Road Category (in %)NH SH MDR RR BT RR NBT Total

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

• 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 categoriesroad categories. 

Extent of delays & reasonsExtent of delays & reasonsExtent of delay

Road Category (in %)NH SH MDR RR BT RR NBT Total

No delay 25.9 25.1 34.8 47.3 49.6 35.3y1‐30 min 49.5 54.8 50.6 46.3 43.6 49.831‐60 min 16.5 12.4 10.6 3.8 2.8 9.71‐2 hrs. 7.8 7.7 4.0 2.5 4.0 5.1More than 2 hrs. 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1

Total (N) 1114 1776 1970 1670 670 7200

66.8

60

80

Reasons for delay

22.416.8 16.2 15.3 12.2 9.3 8.9

0

20

40

0

Volume of Traffic Accidents Insufficient road capacity/ narrow 

stretches

Road works/ maintenance

Uncompromising Drivers

Police /RTO‐checking

Bad weather/fog Wrong Parking

l h lf f h d f d ffi d l f d h lf h hil f i h i j h• 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 DesignSafety Design

Is community on Himachal roads Is community on Himachal roads safe enough?safe enough?

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

Main Users Vulnerable Users NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBTFeeling safe  11.6 11.3 14.6 12.4 12.2 7.7 10.6 11.5Feeling 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

• Clearly, majority of road users do not feel safe on Himachal roads. 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.  

Provision of safety features * Provision of safety features * Road Category (in %)

TotalNH SH MDR Total RR B/T RR NBT Total

Quite Satisfied 19 19 5 22 9 20 5 22 1 23 6 22 9 21 3Quite 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 42.3Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 12.4 12 16 13.5 22.2 17.2 19.7 16.1

Somewhat Dissatisfied 20 1 22 4 13 7 18 7 14 9 21 4 18 2 17 9Somewhat 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

• Around 63 percent road users were satisfied with safety features such as railings, bends, parapets / guardrails. 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.

** Safety features include: railings, bend, parapets/guardrails

Quality of road markings * Quality of road markings * Road Category (in %)

TotalNH SH MDR Total RR BT RR NBT Total

Quite Satisfied 20 3 20 5 19 5 20 1 25 26 6 25 8 21 9Quite Satisfied  20.3 20.5 19.5 20.1 25 26.6 25.8 21.9Somewhat Satisfied 52.8 53.4 48.4 51.5 39.8 36.3 38.1 47Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 12.1 13.2 17.9 14.4 21.3 17.7 19.5 16.6

Somewhat Dissatisfied 12 6 12 1 13 12 6 13 9 19 2 16 6 13 5Somewhat Dissatisfied 12.6 12.1 13 12.6 13.9 19.2 16.6 13.5Quite 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

• A similar trend has been observed in case of quality of road markings. As expected ,satisfaction with the quality of road markings was higher for urban roads (65%) as compared to rural roads (61%). This phenomenon was common among vulnerable users.

** Safety features include: painted lines, reflection signs, pedestrian crossing marketing, etc.

Adequacy of road warnings/road Adequacy of road warnings/road signsign

Road Category (in %)Road Category (in %)Total

NH SH MDR Total RR BT 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 44.2Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 11.4 12.3 17.9 13.9 21.1 21.1 16.4

Somewhat Dissatisfied 21.1 24 19.9 21.7 13 13 19.3

Quite Dissatisfied 1.8 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.6

Total (N) 612 1008 1008 2628 1002 1002 4032

• Nearly 64 percent of main road users were satisfied with the warning & roads signs placed on the roads helping drivers for safe & comfortable driving. A similar trend was observed for vulnerable p p g f f f g fuser.

Travel & AmenitiesTravel & Amenities

Availability & satisfactionAvailability & satisfactionAmenities

Available / Satisfied

Road Category (in% )Total

NH SH MDR RR B/T RR NBT

Public toilets / bathroomsAvailable 52.7 58.2 63.4 48.7 54.0 56.2S ti fi d 42 1 44 3 44 2 44 6 49 0 44 4

/Satisfied 42.1 44.3 44.2 44.6 49.0 44.4

Eating food drinks at restaurants shops

Available 48.0 59.6 46.6 51.3 50.8 51.5Satisfied 72.4 72.4 76.3 65.8 66.8 71.5

Drinking waterAvailable 52.9 61.3 46.2 51.8 50.5 52.7S ti fi d 63 7 68 5 71 3 62 7 63 0 66 7

gSatisfied 63.7 68.5 71.3 62.7 63.0 66.7

Medical facilitiesAvailable 59.9 58.9 62.1 51.8 50.1 57.4Satisfied 33.7 26.4 30.6 28.0 30.6 29.5

Rain shelter‐cum‐ bus stopAvailable 56.3 50.9 56.7 50.1 45.7 52.6S i fi d 44 7 45 2 46 7 33 6 33 5 41 8

pSatisfied 44.7 45.2 46.7 33.6 33.5 41.8

Mechanics / Tow car services 

Available 32.8 36.1 28.3 29.1 31.5 31.4Satisfied 22.5 25.2 23.6 22.4 21.7 23.4

Parking facilitiesAvailable 28.8 32.5 27.5 31.9 32.3 30.4S i fi d 23 8 24 0 22 8 29 2 30 1 25 4

gSatisfied 23.8 24.0 22.8 29.2 30.1 25.4

• Though a more than half of the respondents have confirmed the availability of amenities but the most lacked amenities were parking facilities, medical facilities and tow services. 

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

Perception about HPPWDPerception about HPPWD

Majority were positively poisedMajority were positively poisedMajority were positively poisedMajority were positively poisedAlmost all respondents interviewed mentioned the name of HPPWD when they were asked tomention the government department responsible for developing and maintaining the roads,indicating high awareness about HPPWD.indicating high awareness about HPPWD.

TV/radio/internet emerged as the main source of awareness (50%), followed by Printmedia (45.7%). Among the outdoor media, most important source was signboard near theconstruction work sites (29.9%). This trend is similar to baseline survey.

Overall, majority of the respondents held positive image about HPPWD’sperformance (83.4%). 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 hasbeen successful in carrying out the road works speedily & efficiently. However, thebeen successful in carrying out the road works speedily & efficiently. However, theproportion 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 verymeagre 2.2 percent responded in affirmation which is an improvement over the baseline

fwhere one out of eight had, reportedly, made any such complain.

This is further confirmed by looking at the response on satisfaction with the complaintredressal system as three‐fourth of those who made any complain, were found to besatisfied with the complain redressal system.p y

Gender AspectsGender Aspects

Travel characteristics of womenTravel characteristics of womenTravel characteristics of womenTravel characteristics of womenWomen often come out of their homes as 44 percent of them were frequent traveler onroad, though, a considerable proportion of them (38%) travel few times a week.

But a sizable proportion of women (58%) do not feel safe on Himachal roads This feelingBut a sizable proportion of women (58%) do not feel safe on Himachal roads. This feelingwas relatively higher on MDR, RR B/T and RR Non B/T roads. The qualitative findings revealthat the major reason why women do not feel safe is high traffic volume particularly incities/towns and lack of pedestrian foot paths.

The two major purpose for which majority of women use road network is: going to the localThe two major purpose for which majority of women use road network is: going to the localmarket (92%) and visiting relations friends (73%).

For most of the purposes, vehicle was used relatively more than walk/cycle as exclusivemode of transportation. Though considerable proportion of women used both (walks and

hi l ) hil f i h i iuse vehicle) while performing their trips.

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. And a highproportion of them (75% to 100%) attributed it to improved connectivity in their areaswhich was relatively higher in rural areas.

R d U S ti f tiR d U S ti f tiRoad User Satisfaction Index

Road User Satisfaction Index

Indicators used to construct RUSIIndicators used to construct RUSIIndicators used to construct RUSIIndicators used to construct RUSIMain 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, 

li llipolice patrollingRoad quality and durability:  Overall condition of the road in terms of quality of road surface Adequacy of road width as per traffic volumeC i / ffi j i i 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

N d & b fiNeeds & 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

Si d ki ’ il biliSignage 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

f f h ili b d / d il & h f f Safety features such as railings, bends, parapets/ guardrails & other safety features Availability of streetlights.

District wise Satisfaction Scores

Sl. # District Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI1 Sirmaur 3.88 2.11 (9)

2 Solan 3.86 2.55 (6)3 Chamba 3 75 2 91 (2)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)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 58Overall 3.57 2.58Std. deviation 0.45Coefficient 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)

Satisfaction Scores – Type of Roads

Sl. # Road categories Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI1 State Highway 3.62 2.362 National Highway 3.57 2.943 Major District Road 3.56 2.504 Rural‐BT 3.56 2.775 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)

Demographic analysis of Satisfaction Scores

Midline RUSI1

TypologyUrban 3.58Rural 3.55

GenderMale 3.58

GenderFemale 3.49

Educational

Illiterate/ no formal schooling 3.65Upto 4th 3.735th‐7th 3.69

Educational attainments

8th‐9th 3.46Completed 10th 3.56Higher secondary/ intermediate 3.54Above higher sec/ inter 3.55

Occupational 

Farmer/ Cultivator 3.64Unskilled Labour 3.77Salaried/ SEPs 3.42Skilled worker 3.64

engagements Own account worker 3.55Business 3.75Driver/ helper/ conductor 3.44Student/ unemployed/ others 3.56(Note: Overall sample for midline is 7200 road users; Figures represent average scores on a scale of 1 to 5)

Satisfaction Scores – Vehicle wise

Sl. # Type of vehicle Midline RUSI11 Vulnerable users 3.802 Local taxi/auto/car/SUV/MUV 3.433 Public bus 3.413 Public bus 3.414 Private bus 3.405 Trailer/ truck/ tanker 3.396 LCVs 3.387 Two‐wheeler 3.387 Two wheeler 3.388 Out of state taxi/auto/car/SUV/MUV 3.289 Others 3.32

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

Satisfaction Scores – Respondent Category

Midline RUSI1 Baseline RUSI

Main usersDriver 3.43 2.46

Passenger 3.39 2.76Owner‐cum‐driver 3 32 2 32Owner cum driver 3.32 2.32

Vulnerable users

Household 3.76 2.75Pedestrian 3.79 2.73Porter 3.86 2.69Cyclist 3 74 2 75Vulnerable users Cyclist 3.74 2.75

Shopkeeper 3.79 2.61Rickshaw puller/ Thelawala /Bullock 

Cart Driver3.85 2.91

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

Conclusions & Conclusions & Conclusions & Recommendations

Conclusions & Recommendations

Drivers for satisfactionDrivers for satisfactionDrivers for satisfactionDrivers for satisfactionRoadside markings, roadside amenities and the basic quality of construction arethe three key elements that control satisfaction levels among main users. Drivingsafety is a key consideration among main users and the perception that a road isy y g p psafe to drive on drives their satisfaction experience. Markings, amenities andquality of construction are all central to this perception and hence, must remain acentral feature of HPPWDs agenda.In general, vulnerable users were happy with their road usage experience. The keyd t i t f ti f ti d i ( l t l i t tdeterminants of satisfaction were road signs (always an extremely importantfeature for a pedestrian), roadside amenities and road construction quality(similar to that of the main users). Because these features are similar to thosedetermining satisfaction scores among main users as well, the job of HPPWD isrelatively simpler and focusedrelatively simpler and focused.Those travelling by a public bus also had a relatively lower satisfaction levelswhich is probably affected by the condition of bus as basic features of the state’sroads are common for all respondents and there has been an overall significantimprovement as is obvious by the scores.p yDistricts of Hamirpur, Kangra and Bilaspur still lag behind (relatively) in terms ofsatisfaction levels and reasons for the same (as mentioned in the report) will needto be recognised and addressed.

Road condition and traffic delaysRoad condition and traffic delaysRoad condition and traffic delaysRoad condition and traffic delaysHPPWD shall also understand the aspirations of educated users and users who arein formal sector employment so as to work out a detailed plan which couldaddress their problems. These people are mainly based in urban areas and thei i ffi i i i h i b b d iintra‐city traffic situation in the state continues to be bad owing to extremecongestion.The stakeholders opined that HPPWD makes good roads but they forget to repairwhen they are dug for some pipeline work or when the roads are broken duringrainy seasons The maintenance upkeep and care are missingrainy seasons. The maintenance, upkeep and care are missing.

Provision of amenities on PPP basisProvision of amenities on PPP basisProvision of amenities on PPP basisProvision of amenities on PPP basisThe perception about roadside amenities shows a declining trend. Thoughproviding amenities is not a core mandate of PWD but the department can joinhands with other concerned departments to develop amenities on Public PrivatePartnership (PPP) model which will not only facilitate road users / tourists but alsoPartnership (PPP) model which will not only facilitate road users / tourists but alsohelp these departments to earn additional revenues.There is an urgent need to not only increase the availability of medical facilitiesacross the road categories but also to improve the quality of services provided bythem It is a crucial amenity as the road accidents are increasing in the state andthem. It is a crucial amenity as the road accidents are increasing in the state andtimely 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 categoriesin conjunction with available health infrastructure on these roads. Usually theCHCs and PHCs are not geared up to treat accident victims therefore a state level

f h l h f f h d h ld bassessment of existing health care infrastructure of the roads should beundertaken on various trauma levels (I to IV) which can be established on a Huband Spoke model approach.Provision of Ambulance services on all major roads and at important intersectionsand accident prone areas If the roads are managed by private player thenand accident prone areas. If the roads are managed by private player thenambulance 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.

Negative attributes or irritantsNegative attributes or irritantsNegative attributes or irritantsNegative attributes or irritantsHPPWD need to have a dedicated communication campaign through mid‐mediaand outdoor media to educate local drivers / tourists (who come on their ownvehicle) about safe driving as behaviour of drivers emerged as one of the majorirritants that causing road accidents The secondary literate corroborates this factirritants that causing road accidents. The secondary literate corroborates this factout of total road accidents cases, 89 percent are due to drivers’ fault.Create awareness among the rural folks, nomadic herders on road safetymeasures. Sensitizing them especially livestock owners that not to allow theirlivestock to roam freely on roads and take proper measures that they shouldn’tlivestock to roam freely on roads and take proper measures that they shouldn tdisrupt the traffic. Concerned department should earmarked the points/sectionson the road for animal crossings and aware them about the usage of such pointsthrough signage’s etc.

Road safetyRoad safetyRoad safetyRoad safetyAround 88 percent people of Himachal Pradesh do not feel safe while they are onroads. The reason is indiscipline driving and overtaking. The self‐drive tourismconcept is getting popular and tourists flow is also increasing leading to furtherincrease in vehicular traffic in the state There are large number of accidentsincrease in vehicular traffic in the state. There are large number of accidentsparticularly on highways and city roads where deaths happen because safetydevices 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 mainreasons which cause road accidents.There are certain stretches on the roads on different categories of roads whereaccidents happen because of faulty road engineering. The data base of suchstretches has to be developed by the department and probe the causes ofaccidents. The rectification of the causes has to be taken up on priority basis in

l h h d d hconsultation with other concerned departments such as Transport Department,Traffic Police, local police, etc. In the interim period media campaigns, speedreducing measures, signage’s displaying accident prone area, distribution ofpamphlets and advertisement in newspaper about these stretches, etc. has to bemade to sensitize the road users to avert any further accidentsmade to sensitize the road users to avert any further accidents.

Revision of fine structureRevision of fine structureRevision of fine structureRevision of fine structureThe fine structures in the state have to be revised as it can be deterrent for trafficrule violators. “In the National Capital of Delhi during the Commonwealth Gameswhen 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 onPeople were very careful in following lane discipline and it had overall impact onimproving the traffic management scene and accidents came down drastically”(Report of the Working group on Road Safety pertaining to Enforcement).

Repair and maintenance Repair and maintenance Repair and maintenance Repair and maintenance ppppInventory of stretches prone to repair work: The PWD in their respective districtsidentify and prepare a list of road sections/ stretches which need repair work yearon year or season after season or locational factors such as mud slide, tree felling,

l d lid S h i / h h b i d l l dtorrents, land slide. Such sections/ stretches have to be monitored regularly andrepair and maintenance activity has to be planned in advance.

Road as catalyst for rural Road as catalyst for rural Road as catalyst for rural Road as catalyst for rural developmentdevelopmentdevelopmentdevelopment

Overall 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among settlementsOverall, 72 percent of the road users felt that the connectivity among settlementsin the state has improved which was more in case of rural areas. The stakeholdersand local citizen opined that the connectivity of villages with main road hasopened up their areas. They can transport rural produce to the market directlyand now not much dependent upon a middleman which has helped them inp p pgetting correct prices for their produce and enhanced income. It has a positiveimpact on their overall socio‐economic condition. The credit may be given toPMGSY programme. This intervention has provided connectivity and brought ruralareas in the main stream of development. Hence, it is recommended to scale upthe current PMGSY programme to saturate the coveragethe current PMGSY programme to saturate the coverage.

Thank youThank you