citizen monitoring and audit of pmgsy roads: pilot … · 4 citizen monitoring and audit of pmgsy...

1

Citizen Monitoring and Audit of PMGSY Roads

CITIZEN MONITORING ANDAUDIT OF PMGSY ROADS:

PILOT PHASE II

2


3


CITIZEN MONITORING ANDAUDIT OF PMGSY ROADS:

PILOT PHASE II

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PUBLIC AFFAIRS CENTREBANGALORE, INDIA

4


Public Affairs Centre (PAC) is a not for profit organization, established in 1994 that isdedicated to improving the quality of governance in India. The focus of PAC isprimarily in areas where citizens and civil society organizations can play a proactive rolein improving governance. In this regard, PAC undertakes and supports research,disseminates research findings, facilitates collective citizen action through awarenessraising and capacity building activities, and provides advisory services to state and non-state agencies.

Public Affairs CentreNo. 15, KIADB Industrial AreaBommasandra – Jigani Link RoadBangalore 562106 IndiaPhone: +91 80 2783 4918/19/20Email: [email protected]: pacindia.org

© 2011 Public Affairs Centre

Some rights reserved. Content in this publication can be freely shared, distributed, oradapted. However, any work, adapted or otherwise, derived from this publication mustbe attributed to Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore. This work may not be used forcommercial purposes.


Study done by the Public Affairs Centre in collaboration with SVYM inKarnataka and The Humanity and PREM in Orissa

ISBN: 978-81-88816-10-1

Cover Design: Rajesh M.V.Printed in Bangalore at National Printing Press

5


Preface 9

PMGSY – An Introduction 11

Pilot Phase II Study: An Overview 16

Summary of Key Findings 38

Implications for Scaling-up 41

Annexures 44

Contents

6


List of Tables

Table 1: List of completed and ongoing works coveredin pilot phase II 17

Table 2: Ongoing works: WBM grade II and other generalspecifications and scoring scheme 22

Table 3: Level of adherence to quality specifications -ongoing roads 23

Table 4: Consolidated quality/adherence score forcompleted roads 25

Table 5: District-wise profile of respondents for ongoingand completed roads 27

Table 6: Consolidated profile of respondents (for all roads) 28

Table 7: Awareness of respondents about PMGSY (all roads) 29

Table 8: Public consultation and discussion on PMGSY inthe study areas (all roads) 29

Table 9: Perceived average distance of the road in kilometresfrom the place of residence (all roads) 30

Table 10:Problem incidence during construction andperceived safety (ongoing roads) 31

Table 11:Problem incidence during and after constructionand safety perceptions (completed roads) 32

Table 12:Expected potential benefits (ongoing roads) 34

Table 13:Felt benefits to households and the village(completed roads) 35

Table 14:Level of satisfaction as a function of the age of theroad (completed roads) 36

7


List of Annexures

Annexure 1: Monitoring Inventory for Ongoing RoadWorks under PMGSY 44

Annexure 2: Community Audit Inventory for CompletedRoads under PMGSY 50

Annexure 3: Beneficiary feedback questionnaire forongoing roads 56

Annexure 4: Beneficiary feedback questionnaire forcompleted roads 62

Annexure 5: Photo documentation of training andfield implementation 70

Annexure 6: Level of adherence to WBM II and otherspecifications 74

Annexure 7: Level of adherence to WBM III and otherspecifications 76

Annexure 8: Shoulder specifications: Shoulder componentsand scoring scheme 77

Annexure 9: Road surface specifications and quality ofroad surface - components and scoring scheme 78

Annexure 10: Specifications for road furniture - componentsand scoring scheme 79

Annexure 11: Level of adherence to shoulder specifications 80

Annexure 12: Adherence to road specifications 82

Annexure 13:Quality of road surface 84

Annexure 14: Level of adherence to road furniture specifications 86

8


9


Preface

The ambitious Pradhana Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) waslaunched by the Union Government of India in December 2000 withthe aim of providing better road linkages to all the villages of the country.

It was found that owing to improper road connectivity in the villages,people, particularly farmers, faced difficulty in transporting their farmproduce to the cities or to the nearby market yards. Many perishableitems were wasted as they could not be reached to yards on time becauseof the poor roads. To put an end to this problem, the scheme waslaunched by the then Prime Minister.

In Karnataka and Orissa, the two states chosen for this study, toothe works began soon after the launch of the programme.

In 2005, the National Rural Roads Development Authority(NRRDA) approached Public Affairs Centre (PAC) to formulate a pilotproject proposal to test the feasibility of citizen monitoring of the qualityof PMGSY roads. NRRDA’s objective behind this request was toempower rural citizens by creating a sense of ownership among themwhile enabling them to participate in the supervision of post-construction maintenance of PMGSY roads. Pilot Phase I becameoperational in July 2006 and ended by March 2008. This study phasecould not fully realize its objectives for various reasons. Nevertheless,one of the major achievements during this phase was the developmentof citizen-friendly tools for quality monitoring with the assistance ofthe Bangalore-based RASTA Centre for Road Technology. The toolswere successfully field-tested through various stakeholder groups.

Pilot Phase II study was conceived in the backdrop of experiencesgained during Pilot Phase I, and was launched in November 2008 withthe financial support of NRRDA. The main objective of this phase was

10


to field-test a set of instruments in Orissa and Karnataka for monitoringthe quality of some of the ongoing PMGSY work, auditing theperformance of completed roads under this scheme and gatheringfeedback from beneficiaries with regard to their awareness, problemsfaced, potential and actual benefits, level of satisfaction, etc.

Ten completed roads and eight ongoing road projects spread acrossvarious blocks in Bolangir and Gajapathi districts of Orissa state and inMysore and Bijapur districts of Karnataka were selected for study inthis Phase.

In implementing this Phase II Study PAC had the support of SwamiVivekananda Youth Movement (SVYM) in Karnataka, and HUMANITYand People’s Rural Education Movement (PREM) in Orissa as partner-NGOs. RASTA provided technical support while state-level nodalauthorities for PMGSY provided information and coordination support.

Public Affairs Centre, known for its path-breaking introduction ofcitizen report cards, opted to undertake this study because it believesthat success is measured by the manner in which research and analysisof citizen experience and opinion is transformed into real change. Realsuccess arises from the full expression of the term ‘constructiveengagement’. This implies an interest in, and support for, the design ofan evaluation system that objectively analyses a public service in totalityfrom the point of view of the primary users of the system, in this casethe users of PMGSY roads. It also implies a responsibility towards fullparticipation in the continuous monitoring of the quality of roads sothat greater good of the rural citizens can be achieved.

This publication summarises PAC’s experiences in Phases I and II,and is aimed at all who believe that citizen knowledge can be a valuableresource in the development and maintenance of public assets. Wewelcome fresh insights into how these ideas and the toolkit can beimproved for application in a wider variety of infrastructure developmentprojects.

CASG Team, [email protected]

11


PMGSY – An Introduction

Rural road connectivity is a key component of rural development bypromoting access to economic and social services, thereby generatingincreased agricultural incomes and productive employmentopportunities in India. It is also a key ingredient in ensuring sustainablepoverty reduction. Rural roads help in access to basic services such ashealth, education and markets for the rural people.

In spite of the efforts made over the years through different programmes,about 40 per cent of the habitations in the country are still not con-nected by all-weather roads. It is well known that even where connectivityhas been provided, the roads constructed are of such quality (due to poorconstruction or maintenance) that they cannot always be categorised asall-weather roads.

About PMGSY

With a view to redressing the situation, the Government of Indialaunched the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) on 25December 2000 to provide all-weather access to unconnected habitations.This is a fully sponsored scheme of the Government of India.

About 160,000 habitations are expected to be covered under thisprogramme, with an anticipated investment of Rs. 60,000 crore (600billion) for an estimated road length of 368,000 kilometres. TheNational Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA) has beenestablished by the Ministry of Rural Development and acts as the nodalauthority for overseeing the implementation of this mega scheme. Thepreparation of the District Rural Roads Plan as well as the Core Network

12


helps in the identification of the roads required to connect theunconnected habitations as well as the network of roads to assure basicaccess (single all-weather road connectivity) to all the habitations. Theseplans are to be placed before the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) forapproval.

The roads under the PMGSY are designed and executed according tothe standards laid down by the Indian Roads Congress. A three-tier QualityControl System has been designed to ensure the quality of the road.While the concerned Executive Engineer and the Project ManagementUnit constitute the first tier, all the states have been requested to enlistthe services of a State level independent Agency to verify the quality ofthe roads through State Quality Monitors and on its part, the NRRDAengages senior technical personnel as National Quality Monitors to inspectthe road works. The roads constructed under the PMGSY are to bemaintained by the concerned contractor for a period of five years fromthe date of completion after which they would be transferred to thePanchayati Raj Institutions for further maintenance.

Citizen Monitoring of PMGSY Roads – Pilot Phase I

NRRDA approached Public Affairs Centre in 2005 to formulate a pilotproject proposal for testing the feasibility of citizen monitoring of thequality of PMGSY roads. NRRDA’s vision backing this request was toempower rural citizens by creating a sense of ownership amongst themwhilst also enabling them to participate in the supervision of postconstruction maintenance of PMGSY roads. Pilot Phase I becameoperational in July 2006 and concluded by March 2008. The pilotphase I could not fully realise its objectives for various reasons such asnon cooperation of local PMGSY implementation agencies as forinstance in Tamil Nadu, reluctance of NGOs to participate due to thenon remunerative nature of the work etc. Nevertheless, one of the majorachievements during this phase was development of citizen friendly toolsfor quality monitoring with the assistance of RASTA Centre for RoadTechnology. The tools were successfully field tested through variousstakeholder groups like students, staff of NGOs etc. Pilot Phase II wasconceived in the backdrop of experiences gained during Pilot Phase I.

13


Pilot Phase II

Pilot Phase II was launched in November 2008 with the financial supportof National Rural Road Development Agency (NRRDA). The mainobjective of this phase was to field-test a set of instruments in Orissa andKarnataka for monitoring the quality of some of the ongoing PMGSYwork, auditing the performance of completed roads under this schemeand gathering feedback from beneficiaries with regard to their awareness,problems faced, potential and actual benefits, level of satisfaction, etc.

Partnering with and capacity-building of intermediary civil societyorganisations was the main operational strategy for implementing PilotPhase II in Bolangir and Gajapathi districts of Orissa state and in Mysoreand Bijapur districts of Karnataka. Ten completed roads and eightongoing road projects spread across various blocks in these four districtswere selected for study. Swamy Vivekananda Youth Movement (SVYM)in Karnataka, and HUMANITY and People’s Rural EducationMovement (PREM) in Orissa participated in the study as implementingpartner-NGOs. The Bangalore-based RASTA Centre for RoadTechnology provided technical support whereas the state-level nodalauthorities for PMGSY provided information and coordination support.A total of 19 Citizen Monitoring and Audit Teams (CMATs) comprisingthree members each took part. Most of the CMAT members were men,in the age group of 18 to 35 years and had passed plus two or schooling.

The CMATs were provided rigorous training both on and off site toimpart knowledge and skills for monitoring and auditing of roads andfor conducting interviews with beneficiaries. The methodology involvedfield observation inventories for monitoring and auditing of roadsinterspersed with quality adherence tests using simple tools pertainingto components such as shoulder, quality of road surface, thickness ofthe road surface, camber, road furniture, size and gradation of aggregates,etc. The beneficiary feedback survey was conducted using a structuredquestionnaire.

An Overall Assessment

The performance of ongoing roads on the whole, just about managesto cross the ‘high’ score bar with a mean score of 4.56. It possiblyindicates increasingly stricter enforcement of quality control measures

14


witnessed in recent times. Karnataka that accounts for 75 per cent ofhigh scoring roads (3 out of 4 ongoing works) with a mean score of 5.12has a slight edge over Orissa whose mean score is 4.0

On the whole, the performance of completed roads is average. Butthe overall mean score for quality of road surface is high for both thestates, which is perhaps a crucial indicator of the performance. It possiblyindicates that contractors are tending more promptly to visible signs ofdeterioration than other aspects. High-scoring roads score consistentlyhigh on all the four components, namely, shoulder, road specifications,road surface and road furniture. It appears that older the roads, thelower their adherence/quality score would be. A road completed in2008 got the highest adherence score of 13/15 while the lowest scoreof 7.5/15 was for the road completed in 2004. Though this could bedue to natural deterioration and ageing, it also possibly reflects laxityon the part of the contractor in post-construction maintenance. Thatthe 2004 road also reported 100 per cent satisfaction suggests that whenproper road connectivity is provided to hitherto unconnected/poorly-connected habitations where expectations may be lower, satisfactionratings may not reflect the physical quality of the road. Completedroads in Karnataka score higher (mean 11.35) than in Orissa (mean9.45) accounting for 75 per cent (3 out of 4) of the high scoring roads.

The survey covered 574 beneficiaries as respondents of which 81 percent were male. About 60 per cent of the respondents were aware ofPMGSY despite only 19 per cent attending meetings or discussions atthe Grama Sabha. Surprisingly, Orissa reported greater awareness with66 per cent than Karnataka with 53 per cent. The percentage ofrespondents reporting both perceived and felt benefits was also veryhigh (94 per cent in both categories). Since most of the respondentswere cultivators, the benefit related to ease of transporting agriculturalproduce emerges as the most reported benefit. High incidence of dailyusage of the PMGSY road (84 per cent) and higher levels of satisfactionwith the completed roads signify that PMGSY roads are indeed beginningto have a positive impact on rural communities. A large number ofrespondents (65 per cent) were aware that the contractor was responsiblefor post-construction maintenance. It is also promising to note that asmany as 64 per cent of the respondents were willing to be citizen road

15


monitors and were willing to undergo the necessary training for this.However, experience shows that without the presence of intermediaryNGOs at the district level, it may be difficult to translate this potentialinto reality.

Pilot Phase II has amply demonstrated the feasibility of citizenmonitoring of the quality of roads constructed under the PMGSY.Quality testing equipment that was introduced for the first time hasbeen proved user-friendly and effective. The presence of state/districtlevel intermediary civil society organisations to mobilise rural citizens’participation in the monitoring and audit of PMGSY roads emerges asone of the most critical success factors and so is rigorous on- and off-sitetraining of citizen monitors. Pilot Phase II has also thrown up somepertinent issues that need to be addressed for scaling up of citizenmonitoring and audit of PMGSY roads. Prominent among them are:doing away with beneficiary feedback surveys since satisfaction ratingsare bound to be higher in hitherto unconnected habitations and alsofor cost saving; the need to evolve a set of critical minimum qualityparameters so as to reduce the burden on citizen monitors; developinga training manual with audio-visual materials; establishing institutionalmechanisms of feedback to local implementing authorities for correctiveaction based on the monitoring and audit data; and the role of acentralised agency for planning, supervision and coordination of statelevel scaling up initiatives.

16


Pilot Phase II Study: An Overview

Objectives

The broad objective of the pilot phase II was to develop and field test amethodology for citizen monitoring and audit of PMGSY roads inKarnataka and Orissa through capacity-building of intermediary civilsociety organizations. The specific objectives were:

To develop and field test a set of instruments for citizenmonitoring of adherence to quality specifications pertaining toselected ongoing work under PMGSY in the two states of Orissaand Karnataka.

To develop and field test a set of instruments for citizen audit ofthe performance and adherence to post-construction maintenancespecifications pertaining to the selected list of completed PMGSYroads in the two states of Orissa and Karnataka.

To develop and field test a set of instruments for assessingbeneficiary awareness of PMGSY and their perceived impact ofPMGSY on their livelihoods of communities living in habitationsin and around both the ongoing and completed roads covered inpilot phase II.

To articulate implications for wider replication and scaling-up ofthe citizen audit and monitoring of PMGSY roads based on thelearnings from pilot phase II.

Scope

Ten completed and nine ongoing road works were selected from fourdistricts of Karnataka and Orissa based on information provided by thestate level nodal agencies for implementation of PMGSY. However for

17


the monitoring component of pilot phase II, data from only eight workswere considered as data for one of the ongoing works in Bijapur wasincomplete. The eighteen works were evenly distributed across thevarious blocks in each district. Out of the eight ongoing works, sevenwere at the stage of Water Bound Macadam II and one was at WaterBound Macadam III Of the ten completed works, one was completedin 2004, one in 2006, two in 2007, 5 in 2008 and one in 2009. Forthe beneficiary feedback survey, all the 19 works were covered. Thedetails of the selected ongoing and completed roads are provided inTable 1.

Table 1: List of completed and ongoingroad works covered in pilot phase II

Name of the Road Length District State Work (km) Status

Bijjargi-Gonasagi-Alaginal 7.2 Bijapur Karnataka Completed(Jun 2007)

Tadavalaga-Agasanal NH-13 12 Bijapur Karnataka Completed(Feb 2008)

Guddadakoppalu 3.4 Mysore Karnataka Completed(Feb 2008)

Ayarabeedu to M.B.Road 9 Mysore Karnataka Completed(May 2008)

Angathahally 5.4 Mysore Karnataka Completed(2009)

PWD road to Deodarh Road 3.18 Bolangir Orissa Completed(Nov 2007)

PWD road to Kutmunda 2.225 Bolangir Orissa Completed(Oct 2008)

RD road to Padhigaun 4 Gajapati Orissa Completed(Mar 2006)

Krushnapur Chowk to 3.6 Gajapati Orissa CompletedBurujanga (Jul 2004)

Saralapadar to Angur 3.5 Gajapati Orissa Completed(Jan 2008)

18


Partnerships

In Karnataka, Swamy Vivekananda Youth Movement (SVYM) wasselected as the partner for implementation of pilot phase II study inboth Mysore and Bijapur districts while HUMANITY and People’sRural Education Movement (PREM) were the partners in Bolangir andGajapathi districts, respectively, in Orissa. These three civil societypartners are credible, well-networked and mass-based civil societyorganizations in their respective regions and are engaged with PublicAffairs Centre to enhance their own capacity in the domain of citizenaudit and monitoring of roads.

Nineteen Citizen Monitoring and Audit Teams (CMATs), eachcomprising three members at the rate of one per road were constituted

Kathral Bolchikkaalki 7.2 Bijapur Karnataka WBM IINandyal and

Pre-mixcarpet

Devaranavadagi Road Pre-mixto Somjal 12 Bijapur Karnataka carpet

Tumbagi, Gotakandki,Kyathanahal, Gudisomnal 3.43 Bijapur Karnataka WBM II

M.M. Road to Malali 9 Mysore Karnataka GranularSub base,WBM II

Singaripura 5.4 Mysore Karnataka GranularSub base,WBM II,WBM III

RD road to Raipur 2.905 Gajapati Orissa WBM II

RD road to Minjiri 6.09 Gajapati Orissa Embankment,GranularSub-base,WBM II

Barkani Chack to Khujenpal 13.42 Bolangir Orissa WBM II,WBM III

Titlagarh to Gulmi 10.2 Bolangir Orissa WBM II

19


in consultation with the implementing partner-NGOs. In all, there were57 citizen monitors in the 19 CMATs. A majority of them were maleand about 45 per cent of them were in the age group of 18 to 35 years.Roughly one-third of them had passed plus two of schooling whileabout 40 per cent were graduates and 20 per cent post-graduates. Aroundhalf of them were staff members of the implementing partners whilethe other half were community volunteers living in the vicinity of roadscovered in the pilot phase.

Technical support in the form of developing training modules andinstruments for monitoring and audit was provided by the Bangalore-based by RASTA Centre for Road Technology. Information andcoordination support was provided by KRRDA in Karnataka and theoffice of the State Quality Coordinator belonging to Orissa Rural WorksDepartment in Orissa. Youth for Social Development based inBrahmapur district provided logistics and field supervision support inOrissa whereas in Karnataka it was managed by Public Affairs Centre.

Methodology

The methodology for pilot phase II study consisted of three componentsas described below:

Component one – ongoing road works: monitoring of ongoingroad works was carried out by using a field monitoring inventoryconsisting of a set of observations interspersed with tests usingmonitoring equipment. The observations and tests pertained todifferent steps involved various stages of construction and involvedattributes such as formation and carriageway width, thickness of thelayer, camber (cross slope), quality of compaction, size and gradationof aggregates, shoulder width, shoulder camber, etc. The fieldmonitoring inventory which contains detailed instructions and stepsto be followed by citizen monitoring and audit teams is given asAnnexure 1.

Component two – audit of completed roads: audit of completedroads was carried out by using a field audit inventory consisting of aset of observations interspersed with tests using audit equipment.The observations and tests pertained to five main components, viz.,

20


drainage – longitudinal drains, culverts, pipe drains, bridges, etc. –shoulder, quality of road surface, road specifications such ascarriageway width, thickness, camber, etc., and road furniture suchas boundary stones, kilometre stone, PMGSY information board,etc. The field audit inventory which contains detailed instructionsand steps to be followed by citizen monitoring and audit teams isgiven as Annexure 2.

The quality testing kit common to components one and two consistedof: camber board and 1.85-metre-long aluminum straight edge tomeasure cross slope, five-metre and 15-metre measuring tapes tomeasure formation ad carriageway width, dip stick to measurethickness of WBM II and III and premix carpet, and 63 mm-53 mmsquare ring, 53 mm-45 mm square ring, and square rings of 22.4mm, 13.2 mm, 11.2 mm and 5.6 mm to measure the size andgradation of aggregates.

Component three – beneficiary feedback survey: the beneficiaryfeedback survey was intended to capture the awareness of beneficiariesabout PMGSY, the problems they faced during and afterconstruction, expected and experienced benefits and their willingnessto participate in citizen audit and monitoring efforts. Separatestructured questionnaires were administered to potential beneficiariesliving in the vicinity of ongoing road works and beneficiaries livingin the vicinity of completed roads. Questionnaire for ongoing roadworks is provided as Annexure 3 and that for completed roads asAnnexure 4.

Training of Citizen Monitoring & Audit Teams

Two training programmes spanning three days each were organized, oneeach for CMATs of Karnataka and Orissa. The Karnataka part of thetraining was held in two stages. The first stage of the training programmewas for two days and held at the SVYM facilities in Mysore during thelast week of March 2009. Of these two days one-and-a-half days wasdevoted to inputs and half a day for field demonstration on monitoringof ongoing road works. The second stage of the training for KarnatakaCMATs was a day’s session each exclusively focusing on field

21


demonstration. It was held separately for Bijapur and Mysore in thesecond and third weeks of April 2009, respectively.

For the Orissa CMATs, the training was held for a continuous periodof three days at PREM’s training facilities in Parlakhemundi of Gajapathidistrict during the second week of April, of which the first half was in-house and the second half was devoted for field demonstration of tasksinvolved in monitoring the ongoing road works, auditing of completedroads and the methodology for conducting beneficiary interviews. Thein-house training for both the states focused on providing inputs to CMATson the importance of citizen monitoring, introduction to PMGSY, variousstages of road construction and the quality specifications for each stage,post-construction maintenance arrangements, understanding the bill ofestimates that are part of contractual documents and the methodologyfor conducting beneficiary interviews.

For the Karnataka training, resource persons were drawn fromRASTA Centre for Road Technology, whereas for Orissa, the PMGSYState Quality Coordinator and a retired Superintending Engineerparticipated as resource persons. The field implementation of the pilotphase study in both Karnataka and Orissa was carried out in April 2009.Photographic documents of training and field implementation areprovided as Annexure 5.

Monitoring of ongoing PMGSY road works:Scoring scheme and key findings

Out of the eight ongoing road works chosen for monitoring, sevenwere in Water Bound Macadam stage II (WBM II) and one was inWBM III. The specifications and scoring scheme for WBM II isprovided in Table 2. For WBM II roads, evaluation of adherence tospecifications was carried out based on parameters such as carriagewaywidth, camber of the surface, thickness of WBM II layer, size andgradation of aggregates indicated by whether a stipulated percentageof a given size of aggregate pass through a given sized ring, and qualityof compaction indicated by the absence or presence of roller marks.The maximum attainable score for WBM II roads was 6. Evaluationof WBM III roads had all the parameters in common with WBM II

22


except for the size and gradation of aggregates which included fourgrades of aggregates. Therefore, the maximum score for WBM IIIwas 8.

Table 2: Ongoing works: WBM grade II andother general specifications and scoring scheme

Ongoing works Scoring scheme Points

WBM a. Carriageway width Adheres to specifications fully 1Grade II (approx. 3.75 meters) Adheres to specifications partly 0.5

Falls short drastically/does notmeet 0

b. Camber Adheres to specifications fully 1(3.5% to 4%) Adheres to specifications partly 0.5

Falls short drastically/does notmeet 0

c. Quality of All /most stretches free fromcompaction roller marks 1

Some stretches free fromroller marks 0.5None/very few stretches freefrom roller marks 0

d. Gradation of Adheres to specifications fully 1aggregates (90 to Adheres to specifications partly 0.5100% must pass Falls short drastically/does 0through 63 mm ring) not meet

e. Gradation of Adheres to specifications fully 1aggregates (25% to Adheres to specifications partly 0.575% must pas Falls short drastically/does 0through 53-mm ring) not meet

f. Thickness (75 mm) Adheres to specifications fully 1Adheres to specifications partly 0.5Falls short drastically/doesnot meet 0

Maximum possible score: 6

Level of adherenceHigh (75% & above): 4.5 to 6.0Medium (50 to 74%): 3.0 to 4.40

Low ( 0 to 49%): 0 to 2.90

23


The consolidated score obtained by ongoing road works in the orderof highest performing roads are given in Table 3 while the results of thedetailed analysis of adherence to specifications for WBM II and WBMIII road works are provided as Annexure 6 and Annexure 7. For eachongoing roadwork, the CMATs were instructed to make observationsand apply measuring instruments for a minimum of three stretches,each measuring a length of 100 metres and average score of readings fora given individual component such as camber or thickness was computedtaking into consideration the readings for each of the stretches of agiven road.

On the whole, the performance of ongoing road works manages tocross the ‘high’ score bar with a mean score of 4.6. Karnataka whichaccounts for 75 per cent of high scoring roads (3 out of 4) and a meanscore of 5.12 has a slight edge over Orissa whose mean score is 4.0.

Table 3: Level of adherence toquality specifications - ongoing roads

Name of the Road, State and District Length No. of Overall(km) Stretches Adherence

Score

Kathral – Bolchikkalki-Nandyal(WBM III)– Bijapur-Karnataka(max score 8) 7.2 5 6.0 high

Singaripura; Mysore- Karnataka 5.4 3 6.0 high

RD Road to Raipur; Gajapathi -Orissa 2.9 3 5.0 high

M.M. Road to Malali ; Mysore-Karnataka 9.0 4 4.5 high

Tumbagi, Gotkandki, Gudisomnal;Bijapur - Karnataka 3.43 5 4.0 medium

Barkani Chowk to Khujanpalli Rlycolony; Bolangir- Orissa 13.36 3 4.0 medium

Titlagarh to Gulmi; Bolangir-Orissa 10.20 2 4.0 medium

RD Road to Minjiri; Gajapathi-Orissa 6.09 3 3.5 medium

Average score 4.6

24


From Annexure 6, it is evident that the high scoring roads performconsistently across each individual component. The results are indicativeof the increasingly stricter enforcement of quality control measureswitnessed in recent times for the ongoing PMGSY road works throughits rigorous three-tier quality monitoring mechanism.

Audit of completed PMGSY roads:Scoring scheme and key findings

Ten completed roads, five each in Karnataka and Orissa were audited bythe CMATs. For completed roads, evaluation of adherence to specificationswas carried out based on four major parameters, viz., shoulder, roadspecifications, quality of road surface and road furniture. The specificationsand scoring scheme for these parameters are provided in Annexures 8, 9and 10, respectively. Adherence to shoulder was evaluated along fourcriteria with one point each for total shoulder width, camber, the extentto which it is free from obstructions and free from shrubs and grass.Adherence to road specifications was evaluated for three criteria with onepoint each for carriageway width, camber of the surface and thickness ofthe premix carpet. The quality of road surface was evaluated along sixcriteria with one point each if all stretches are free from potholes,depressions, bleeding spots, heavings, damaged edges and cracked areas.The road furniture was evaluated for two criteria with a point each forkilometre indication stone and boundary stone. The maximum attainableadherence score for a completed road was 15.

For each completed road, the CMATs were instructed to make andrecord observations and measurements for a stretch of 200 metres forevery kilometre. The average score of readings for a given individualcomponent such as camber or thickness was computed taking intoconsideration the readings for each of the stretches of a given road. Forinstance, camber measurement involved two readings for each stretch,one for each side of the road and if the road had five stretches (5kilometres in length), there would be 10 camber readings for the road,the average of which was considered as the consolidated camber scorefor that particular road.

The findings related to individual components of completed roadssuch as shoulder, road specifications, quality of road surface and road

25


furniture are given as Annexures 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively whereasthe consolidated scores for each road is provided in Table 4.Accordingly, the overall performance of completed roads is average witha mean score of 10.40 out of a maximum attainable score of 15.Nevertheless, the mean score for quality of road surface is high (4.5 outof 6.0) which is perhaps the most telling indicator of the performanceof the completed roads. It also means that contractors are likely to bepaying more attention to visible signs of deterioration of the quality ofroad surface than to aspects such as shoulder, road furniture, etc.

Karnataka roads score higher (mean 11.35) than Orissa (9.45), whileaccounting for 75 per cent or, in other words, three out of four high-scoring roads. As expected, the high-scoring roads score consistently

Table 4: Consolidated quality/adherencescore for completed roads

Name of the road, Adher- Adher- Quality Road OverallLength and ence to ence to of road furni- Adhe-no. of stretches Shoulder road surface ture rence

surface scorespecs

(Max 4) (Max 3) (Max 6) (Max 2) (Max15)

Tadavalaga –Agasanal 2.5 2.5 6.0 2.0 13– NH1312.0 km; High High High High High200812 stretchesBijapur, Karnataka

Angathahally 3.5 2.5 6.0 0.75 12.755.4 km; 2007; High High High High High5 stretchesMysore, Karnataka

PWD Road to 2.0 3.0 6.0 1.75 12.75Deogarh High High High High High3 km2007- 3stretchesBolangir, Orissa

Guddadakoppalu 3.0 3.0 5.0 0.5 11.503.4 km; 2008; 5 High High High High Highstretches; Mysore,Karnataka

26


high on individual components such as shoulder, road furniture, roadspecifications and quality of road surface. The results also suggest thatthe older the road, the lower the quality/adherence score, thus lendingcredence to the commonly held belief that ageing results in naturaldeterioration of the quality of roads. For example, a road completed in2004 in Gajapathi district of Orissa attains the lowest score of 7.5 outof 15.0 while a road in Bijapur district of Karnataka completed in 2008attains the highest score of 13.0.

Beneficiary feedback survey: Key findings

Since there were several common questions in the feedback survey forboth ongoing and completed road works, the findings are presented ina consolidated form for those questions and separately for additionalquestions.

Bijjargi-Gonsagi- 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.5 10.50Alaginal; 7.2 km 2007; Medium Medium High Low Medium7 stretches; Bijapur,Karnataka

PWD road to 1.5 2.5 5.0 0.75 9.75Kutumunda 2.2 km Low High High Low Medium2008; 3 stretches;Bolangir, Orissa

Ayarabeedu to M.B. 2.0 2.5 4.5 0.0 9.0Road 9 km 2008; 6 str; Medium High High Nil MediumMysore, Karnataka

Saralapadar to 2.5 2.5 3.0 1.0 9.0Anuguru; 3.5 km; Medium High Medium Medium Medium2008; 4 stretchesGajapathi, Orissa

RD road to Padhigam 2.5 3.0 2.5 0.25 8.254 km 2006; 4 stretches Medium High Low Low MediumGajapathi, Orissa

Krushnapur Chowk to 1.5 2.5 3.0 0.5 7.50Burujanga; 2.9 km; Low High Medium Low Medium2004; 3 stretchesGajapathi, Orissa

27


Profile of respondents

A total of 574 respondents living in habitations in and around the 19roads were interviewed as part of the beneficiary feedback survey at therate of 30 respondents per road. The respondents were chosen from 82villages distributed across four districts, two each in Orissa andKarnataka. The respondents were selected on a ‘first contact- firstinterview’ basis and the sample, therefore, does not reflect demographictrends of the general population. Eight-one per cent of the respondentswere male and 19 per cent were female with Orissa having a larger shareof females than Karnataka. In terms of occupational background, 56per cent were cultivators and 31 per cent were labourers, both agriculturaland non-agricultural. The remaining 13 per cent were self-employed,government personnel, etc. Table 5 provides a district-wise breakup ofrespondents’ profile while Table 6 provides the consolidated picture.

Demographic Percentage

attributes Bijapur Mysore Bolangir Gajapathi Total

Ongoing roads N=94 N=58 N=60 N=60 N=272

Male 86 95 72 82 84

Female 14 5 28 18 16

Cultivators 60 22 50 42 44

Labourers 35 57 25 40 40

Others 5 21 25 18 16

CompletedRoads N=60 N=92 N=60 N=90 N=302

Male 83 89 60 77 77

Female 17 11 40 23 23

Cultivators 55 90 55 68 67

Labourers 38 7 23 25 23

Others 7 3 22 7 10

Table 5: District-wise profile of respondentsfor ongoing and completed road works

28


Awareness of PMGSY among beneficiaries: On the whole, thoughonly 60 per cent of the respondents recalled hearing or knowing about‘PMGSY,’ all others, when prompted, did recall the [….PMGSY] roadpassing through or in the vicinity of their village. Contrary toexpectations, Orissa recorded higher percentage (66) of awareness thanKarnataka (53 per cent). This could be attributed to the fact that inOrissa, which is characterized by poor rural road connectivity thanKarnataka, the PMGSY roads might be more visible and obvious thanin Karnataka. On the other hand, only 40 per cent of those in Orissawho knew about PMGSY cited the PMGSY information board as theirsource, while in Karnataka this percentage is higher at 51. This canperhaps be explained by the finding that PMGSY boards for all theroads in Karnataka under study were in Kannada whereas only two ofthe nine roads in Orissa had their boards in Oriya. Table 7 provides thedistrict-wise break-up of the level of awareness of PMGSY.

Public consultation and discussion on PMGSY: Only 13 per centof the respondents reported that they were either consulted or informedabout the PMGSY road before initiating its construction, whereas only19 per cent of the respondents reported any discussion about the PMGSYin Grama Sabha meetings. Though the findings are indicative ofweaknesses in the information-education-communication efforts on thepart of PMGSY, they also suggest that PMGSY information boards

Table 6: Consolidated profile of respondents(for all roads)

Percentage

Demographic Karnataka Orissa Totalattributes (N 304) (N 270) (N 574)

52 villages 30 villages 82 villages

Male 88 73 81

Female 12 27 19

Cultivators 58 54 56

Labourers 34 28 31

Others 8 18 13

29


might have significantly contributed to higher level of awareness ofPMGSY amongst the beneficiaries. Table 8 provides district-wise break-up of findings on public consultation processes pertaining to PMGSY.

Table 8: Public consultation and discussionon PMGSY in the study areas (all roads)

Public Bijapur Mysore Karnataka Bolangir Gajapathi Orissa Overallconsultation (N154) (N150) (N304) (N120) (N150) (N270) (N 574)parameters

Exercise toconsult thehouseholds 13 14 13.5 17 9 13 13beforeinitiatingthe roadwork

Discussionin GramSabha/ 26 16 21 12 23 17.5 19villagemeetings

Table 7: Awareness of respondents aboutPMGSY (all roads)

Awareness Bijapur Mysore Karnataka Bolangir Gajapathi Orissa Overallattributes (N154) (N150) (N304) (N120) (N150) (N270) (N 574)

% ofRespondentswho have 39 67 53 80 54 66 60heard aboutPMGSYscheme

% ofrespondentscitinginformation 48 54 51 47 32 40 46board as thesource ofawareness

30


Perceived distance between the road and home: As shown in Table9, the perceived average distance between the PMGSY road and homeis 0.95 kilometre suggesting reasonable access. It means a givenbeneficiary has to walk on an average about 950 meters to reach thePMGSY road. However, the difference between Karnataka and Orissapoints out relatively easier access in the former (0.60 km) than in thelatter (1.30 km). This could also be attributed to difficult geographicalterrain in the study areas of Orissa compared to their counterparts inKarnataka.

Table 9: Perceived average distance of the roadin kilometres from the place of residence (all roads)

Bijapur Mysore Karnataka Bolangir Gajapathi Orissa Overall(N154) (N150) (N304) (N120) (N150) (N270) (N 574)

0.84 0.35 0.60 1.25 1.40 1.30 0.95

Problem incidence: Tables 10 and 11 provide the findings related toproblem incidence in ongoing and completed roads respectively. Thirty-seven per cent of the respondents in the ongoing road works categoryreported having faced problems of which a majority of them (55 percent of N 102) reported restriction of movement to the nearest road asthe main problem. Dust, smoke and noise were the other problemsreported by the respondents. In the competed roads category, about19.5 per cent of the respondents recalled having faced problems duringthe construction. Here again, restriction of movement to the nearestroad emerged as the main problem followed by dust, smoke and noise.

In the ongoing road works category, 90 per cent of the respondentsperceived that PMGSY roads would be safe to travel while about 10 percent reported accidents during construction. The question on safety inthe completed roads category was asked only to those who said thatthey had faced with one or the other problem (9 per cent) during thepost-construction regime, of which only about 15 per cent (N-30)reported accidents on the PMGSY road. On the whole, it appears thatthe problem incidence is relatively low while, by and large, PMGSYseem to be performing better with regard to safety of road users andthere is not much inter-state variation in this regard.

31


Problem BijapurMysore Karnataka Bolangir Gajapathi Orissa OverallIncidence (N94) (N50) (N152) (N60) (N60) (N120) (N272)

% respondentswho reported 6 7 6.5 17 12 14.5 10.5accidents at theconstruction site

% of respond-ents who perce- 90 91 90.5 93 85 89 90ived PMGSYroads as safeto travel

% of respond-ents who 39 14 26.5 50 45 47.5 37reportedproblemsduringconstruction

Type ofproblems (N37) (N=8) (N45) (N 30) (N 27) (N 57) (N 102)(multipleresponse)

Dust 95 38 66.5 57 44 50.5 58.5

Noise 89 0 44.5 30 22 26 35

Smoke 78 0 39 23 30 26.5 33

Restrictionof movement 84 50 67 83 4 43.5 55to the nearestmain road

% of thosewith problemsreported 30 25 27.5 23 30 36.5 32complainingabout theproblem

% of thosecomplained 0 50 25 57 100 78.5 52reported (N 11) (N 2) (13) (N 7) (N 8) (N 15) (28)problemresolution

Table 10: Problem incidence during constructionand perceived safety (ongoing roads)

32


Table 11: Problem incidence during and afterconstruction and safety perceptions (completed roads)

Problem Bijapur Mysore Karnataka Bolangir Gajapathi Orissa OverallIncidence (N60) (N92) (N152) (N60) (N90) (N150) (N302)

% ofrespondentswho reported 7 30 18.5 27 14 20.5 19.5problemsduringconstruction

Type ofproblems (N4) (N28) (N32) (N16) (N13) (N29) (N61)(multipleresponse)

Dust 25 58 41.5 37.5 69 53 47

Noise 0 37.5 19 25 23 24 21.5

Smoke 0 12.5 6 25 31 28 17

Restrictionof movement 50 75 62.5 75 54 64.5 63.5to the nearestmain road

% ofrespondentsreporting 5.0 22 13.5 2.0 7 4.5 9.0post-construct-ionproblems

% of thosewith problems 33 10.5 22 0 17 8.5 15reporting (N 3) (20) (N 23) (N 1) (N 6) (N 7) (N 30)accidents

% of thosewith problemswho perceived 67 89.5 78 100 83 91.5 85PMGSY roads (N3) (N20) (N 23) (N1) (N6) (N7) (N30)as safe totravel

33


Expected and actual benefits from PMGSY road: As shown in Tables12 and 13, it appears that PMGSY roads, on the whole, are proving tobe very useful to rural households in the study areas. Ninety-two percent of the respondents in the ongoing road works category (N 272)expect one or the other benefit to accrue to their households from thePMGSY road while 94 per cent of them expect the same to their village.In the completed roads category, 95.5 per cent of the respondents (N302) reported actual benefits to their household while 94.5 per centreported the same having accrued to their villages or communities. Inboth the categories, ease of transporting agricultural produce to themarkets emerges as the most expected (80 per cent) and reported benefit(91 per cent) given that a large number of respondents were cultivators.The next most expected and reported benefits are related to accessingschool and health care facilities. That the expected ease of access tothese services is higher than the experienced access is indicative of theactual presence or absence and the extent of usage of these facilities.Ease of access to banks is also reported by a large number of respondents(60 per cent) in the completed roads category.

Level of satisfaction with the quality of construction of ongoingroads: The level of satisfaction with the quality of construction ofongoing road works is lower in Karnataka with only 74 per cent (N152) reporting satisfaction compared to their counterparts in Orissawhere 97 per cent (N 120) reported being satisfied. Bijapur with only62 per cent satisfaction rating as against 86 per cent in Mysore hascontributed for the lower satisfaction rating in Karnataka. Accordingto the field supervisor’s report from Bijapur district in Karnataka, asection of the respondents in one block had been opposed to acquisitionof their land for construction of PMGSY road which, perhaps, explainslower level of satisfaction.

It is also interesting to note that the satisfaction rating of the qualityof construction does not appear to reflect the actual physical qualitymeasured by scientific methods. For instance, though only one of thefour ongoing road works in Orissa has attained a ‘high’ adherence scoreto quality specifications with the other three showing only a mediumlevel of adherence, as much as 97 per cent of the respondents in reportbeing satisfied with the quality of construction.

34


Benefits Bijapur Mysore Karnataka Bolangir Gajapathi Orissa Overall(N94) (N58) (N152) (N60) (N60) (N120) (N272

% ofrespondentswho perceiveone or theother benefitto the HH 85 98 92 100 82 91 92

% ofrespondentswho perceivebenefits tothe village 79 95 87 100 100 100 94

Type ofperceivedbenefits tothe village(multipleresponse) (N74) (N=55) (N129) (N60) (N60) (N120) (N249)

Transportof agriculturalproduce 96 58 77 88 78 83 80

Transport offertilizers,seeds etc. 85 36 61 58 53 56 59

Better accessto school 96 76 86 80 63 72 79

Better accessto health 88 71 80 83 78 81 81

Better access tobank facilities 80 36 58 73 18 46 52

Bettermaintenanceof servicessuch as watersupply,electricity etc 34 27 31 7 3 5 18

Table 12: Expected potential benefits (ongoing roads)

35


Benefits Bijapur Mysore Karnataka Bolangir Gajapathi Orissa Overall(N60) (N92) (N152) (N60) (N90) (N150) (N302)

% ofrespondentswho reportone or theother benefitto theirhouseholds 88 99 93.5 98 97 97.5 95.5

% ofrespondentswho perceivebenefits tothe village 90 93 91.5 98 97 97.5 94.5

Type ofperceivedbenefits tothe village(multipleresponse) (N 54) (N 85) (N 139) (N59) (N 86) (N 141)(N 180)

Transport ofagriculturalproduce 85 96 90.5 91.5 91 91 91

Transportof fertilizers,seeds, etc. 85 79 82 68 83 75.5 79

Better accessto school 68.5 89 79 71 81 76 77.5

Better accessto health 56 80 68 69.5 85 77 72.5

Better accessto bankfacilities 52 56 54 56 78 67 60.5

Betteremploymentopportunities 33 37.5 35 37 84 62 48.5

Table 13: Felt benefits to householdsand the village (completed roads)

36


Frequency of usage of the completed PMGSY roads and level ofsatisfaction: On the whole, 98 per cent of the respondents reportedhaving used the PMGSY roads one time or the other while 84 per centof them reported daily usage of the road. As much as 88 per cent of therespondents express complete satisfaction with the completed roadswhile eight per cent show dissatisfaction. Surprisingly, the level ofsatisfaction does not vary as a function of the deterioration in the qualityof the road particularly in lieu of the audit findings for completed roadswhich shows that out of the 10 completed roads, as many as six roadshave been rated ‘medium’ in terms of their performance. A case inpoint is the road from Krushnapur Chowk to Burujanga in Gajapathidistrict of Orissa, completed in 2004 and rated the poorest performingroad has still managed to elicit 100 per cent satisfaction from therespondents. Table 14 shows satisfaction ratings for completed roadsby the year of their completion. The results suggest that when properroad connectivity is provided to hitherto unconnected/poorlyconnected habitations where expectations may be lower, satisfactionratings may not reflect the physical quality of the road.

Awareness of post-construction maintenance arrangements: Overall,the awareness of the contractor’s role in post-construction maintenance

Table 14: Level of satisfaction as a functionof the age of the road (completed roads)

N= 302

Age of the road Satisfied Partly Dissatisfied Totalsatisfied

2 to 5 years old(year of completion: 2004,2006 & 2007– totalno. of roads: 4) 90 5.5 4.5 100

1 year to few months old(year of completion:2008 & 2009 – totalno. of roads -6) 91.0 0 9.0 100

Total 90.5 2.75 7 100

37


appears to be high since as many as 65 per cent (N 574) of respondentsreported that the contractor is responsible for maintenance of completedroads. Even more promising is the finding that about 57 per cent ofrespondents were aware that it is mandatory for the contractor tomaintain the road for five years from the date of its completion.

Community role and participation in construction and monitoring:On the whole, 21 per cent of the respondents (N 574) reported that thecommunity did play or is playing a role in monitoring the constructionactivities where as 76 per cent of them opined that community mustplay some role in monitoring the maintenance during the post-construction phase. It is heartening to note that a whopping 64 percent of the respondents expressed willingness to be citizen monitors.However, as experience shows, without the presence of intermediaryNGOs either at the state or district level, it may be difficult to mobilizethe community to participate in such efforts. About 93 per cent ofthose willing to be monitors (N= 367), were also willing to be trainedin PMGSY citizen monitoring and audit endeavours.

38


Summary of Key Findings

On the whole, the performance of ongoing roads just about managesto cross the ‘high’ score bar with a mean score of 4.56. It possiblyindicates increasingly stricter enforcement of quality control measureswitnessed in the recent times through the three-tier qualitymonitoring mechanism.

Karnataka that accounts for 75 per cent of high scoring roads (3 outof 4 ongoing roadworks) with a mean score of 5.12 has a slight edgeover Orissa whose mean score is 4.0.

On the whole, the performance of completed roads is average with ascore 10.40. Nevertheless, the overall mean score for quality of roadsurface is high with a mean score of 4.5 out of 6.0 which is also truefor individual states. Since the quality of road surface as reflected inthe absence or presence of potholes, cracked areas, bleeding spots,depressions, etc., is perhaps a more crucial indicator of theperformance of a road, the overall high score on this component iscommendable. It also possibly indicates that contractors are tendingmore promptly to visible signs of deterioration than other aspects.

High-scoring completed roads score consistently high on all the fourcomponents, viz. shoulder, road specifications, road surface and roadfurniture whereas the medium scoring roads are less consistent intheir performance on individual components.

It appears that older the roads, the lower the quality/adherence scorewill be lending credence to the commonly-held belief that ageingresults in natural deterioration of the quality of roads. For example,a road completed in 2004 in Gajapathi district of Orissa attains thelowest score of 7.5 out of 15.0 while a road in Bijapur district of

39


Karnataka completed in 2008 attains the highest score of 13.0.Though this could be due to natural deterioration and ageing, italso possibly reflects laxity on the part of contractor in post-construction maintenance.

That the road constructed in 2004 has also reported 100 per centsatisfaction suggests that when proper road connectivity is providedto hitherto unconnected/ poorly connected habitations whereexpectations may be lower, satisfaction ratings may not reflect thephysical quality of the road.

Again, completed roads in Karnataka score higher (mean 11.35) thanthe ones in Orissa (mean 9.45) accounting for 75 per cent (3 out of4) of the high-scoring roads.

The overall awareness of PMGSY amongst the beneficiaries (60 percent) is reasonably high despite only 19 per cent reporting meeting/discussion at Grama Sabha meetings. Surprisingly, Orissa (66 percent) reports greater awareness than Karnataka (53 per cent) whichcould be attributed to the fact that in Orissa which is characterizedby poorer rural road connectivity than in Karnataka, the PMGSYroads might be more visible and obvious than in Karnataka.

Percentage of respondents reporting both expected and felt benefitsis also very high with about 94 per cent in both categories expectingand experiencing various benefits such as better access to schools,health care facilities and banks.

Since most of the respondents were cultivators the benefit relatedto ease of transporting agricultural produce emerges as the mostexpected and reported benefit.

High incidence of daily use of the PMGSY road (84 per cent) higherlevels of satisfaction with the completed roads (88 per cent) and alarge number of respondents reporting various benefits signify thatPMGSY roads are indeed beginning to have a positive developmentalimpact on rural communities.

A large number of respondents (65 per cent) are aware that thecontractor is responsible for post construction maintenance.

It is also promising to note that as many as 64 per cent of therespondents are willing to be citizen road monitors and are alsowilling to undergo the necessary training. However, as prior

40


experience shows, without the presence of intermediary NGOs atstate level if not district level, it may be difficult to transform thishuge potential into an operational reality.

41


Implications for Scaling-up

Amidst apprehensions about the outcomes of the current phase in theback drop of experiences during the first phase, Pilot Phase II has amplydemonstrated the feasibility of citizen monitoring and audit of the qualityof PMGSY roads in all its dimensions such as efficacy of the methodology,training etc. The quality testing equipment kit that was piloted has beenproved user friendly and effective. In view of the non technical backgroundand total lack of prior experience amongst the citizen monitors, rigorouson and off site training imparted to them emerges as one of the mostcritical success factor in pilot phase II. Ensuring buy-in from the statelevel counterparts of NRRDA and the presence of state and district levelintermediary civil society organizations such as the ones who partneredfor the pilot phase II is also equally critical for scaling up and to mobilizerural citizens’ participation in the monitoring and audit of PMGSY roads.

Some specific issues that need to be addressed should NRRDA decideto scale up the citizen monitoring and audit are listed here.

Institutional arrangements for feedback and corrective action atthe state/district level

On account of its exclusive focus on field testing of citizen monitoringand audit methodology, what the pilot phase II sorely missed out wasthe mechanisms for feedback to local implementing authorities andcorrective action or in other words, the advocacy strategies in the lightof findings from audit and monitoring exercise to persuade theauthorities to initiate corrective action. This would be even more criticalin case of ongoing works which calls for quick response on the part ofstate agencies. Without addressing this crucial element of community

42


empowerment, scaling-up initiatives may not evince interest fromdistrict/state level civil society organizations.

Methodological issues

Beneficiary feedback survey can be dispensed with in future scaling upinitiatives since satisfaction ratings are bound to be high regardless ofthe physical quality of the road on account of lower expectationsamongst beneficiaries in habitations hitherto poorly connected orunconnected. It would also help in cost savings.

The audit and monitoring exercise was a tedious and intensive processwith a fairly exhaustive list of items for measurement and observation.When physical equipment were used as testing instruments like for e.g.the camber board, the citizen monitors have exhibited diligence ontheir part. However, when merely observing and recording was the task,they have shown laxity and inconsistency for many parameters likedrainage, bridges, culverts etc. Therefore, the question that arises iswhether all items in the technical observation inventories are equallyimportant and whether some items can be done away with in futureendeavors. As a corollary, this also highlights the need to develop a setof critical minimum quality parameters.

Training

Unlike completed roads where a uniform standardized methodologycan be followed, the training for monitoring the ongoing works mayprove problematic since various elaborate complex stages are involved.Therefore, it may be prudent to limit the scope of monitoring of ongoingworks mainly to three stages viz. WBM II, WBM III and premix carpet.In any case, training for monitoring of ongoing works would remain adifficult proposition.

Development of a training manual in simple language with lots ofvisual depictions and preparation of audio visual material are crucialfor effectiveness of training. For e.g. the video documentaries on PMGSYproduced by KRRDA added immense value to training imparted toCMATs as part of the pilot phase II

Preparing a roster of trainers and resource persons such as retired

43


civil engineers, lecturers of engineering colleges, etc., for each state isalso an important preparatory step for scaling up initiatives

In addition to imparting technical knowledge and skills on roadmonitoring and audit, the training must also provide inputs on advocacystrategies to be used with local implementing authorities for persuadingthem to initiate corrective action based on the feedback on the quality ofroads.

Financial implications

Excluding the survey, one CMAT consisting of two monitors can beexpected to conduct full audit of one completed road or one stage ofconstruction in one day. After factoring the honorarium for trainersand monitors, logistics of training, travel costs, procurement ofmonitoring tool kits, preparation and reproduction of training manualand audio visual materials, overhead costs of implementing NGOs, andcosts for centralized coordination and data analysis the unit cost foraudit/monitoring one road is estimated to be in the range of Rs. 25,000to Rs. 30,000. The scaling up can focus on states with a record of poorperformance and within those states further focus on poorly performingdistricts by covering two to three roads per district.

Institutional arrangements

Intermediary NGOs and voluntary organizations do exist in every stateif not in every district either networked or federated one way or theother. In each state, one or two mass based well networked NGOs areadequate for organizing and coordinating the citizen monitoring andaudit of PMGSY roads at the state level.

The scaling-up would also require a centralized agency in order tobring the state/district level NGOs into the fray, for planning,supervision and coordination of state level initiatives, collation andanalyses of the data emanating from different parts of the country andpreparation of state-wise audit/monitoring reports.

44


Annexure 1

MONITORING INVENTORY FOR ON-GOINGROADWORKS UNDER PMGSY

Date

Time

Name of Investigators 1.2.3.

Taluk

District

Name of the Road

Total Road Length in KMs

Total road length finished

General Instructions:

Dos:

You will be given authorized letters from Karnataka Rural RoadsDevelopment Authority (KRRDA) or the relevant authority, please carrythose letters during the field survey.

During the survey introduce yourself as a volunteer of Public AffairsCentre, Bangalore.

Please wear the PAC Caps provided to you.

Always carry along with you the copies of estimation given to you.

Any discrepancies that you may observe about the PMGSY roads as partof your work as a citizen auditor should be reported only to the concernedAssistant Executive Engineer.

Don’ts

Please do not argue with the contractor or any other staff at the work site.

Please avoid getting into conflict with the contractor or staff.

Step-I: Basic Observations

Select the stretch where construction work is ongoing and ensure that 100meters on both sides of the work are covered for observations and testing

Carefully observe the stage of construction of the road and go to relevantsection in this inventory and carry out the tests and observations for thatparticular stage.

45


Please note that it is required to install one PMGSY information board eachat both ends of the road and one PMGSY info board in the middle of theroad. If the road is more than 5 kms, more such boards must be installed.

Width of the Road fromland to land on As per the contractboth sides (Right of WayWidth) Actual

Width of the road from As per the contractshoulder to shoulder(Formation Width) Actual

Measure and record the As per the contractwidth of the metal road(Carriage Width) Actual

Is there a PMGSY Sign Board? Yes / No

Are the following Details given in PMGSY Board?

Total length of the PMGSYroads Yes / No

Name of the Contractor given Yes / No

Expenditure details Yes / No

Starting and completion datesof the contract given Yes / No

In which language is theinformation on PMGSYsign board provided?

Step-II

Select the stretch as mentioned earlier with 100 meters on both sides of thecurrent work.

Give the locationof the Stretch

State the current stage 1. Formation stage 2. Embankment 3. Granularof the on-going work Sub base 4. WBM II 5. WBM III

6. Premix Carpet

Check the Sand Soil Gel Tarmaterials used Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/Noin the constructionand tick whether they Cement Big Stones Medium size Small sizeare used or not? stone stones

Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

46


Step-III: Instructions for Embankment and Sub-grade Stage

No roller marks should be there oncompletion of rolling.

Check for compaction of watercontent. Mix the soil with water andtake it in hand and press it, whenpressed, it should form as a ball inthe hand and no water should stickto the han

Are there any roller marks Yes / No

At how many locations thereare roller marks?

Is soil adequately compacted? Yes / No

Measure the cross-slope (camber)using camber board and record the reading.

Step-IV: Instructions for Granular Sub Base stage

If the work is in Granularsub-base stage, then observeand record the following.Otherwise, proceed to thenext step.

Are there any bottom undulations? Yes/ No

Are there any Depressions? Yes/ No

Thickness of Layer As per the Estimate

(Use steel scale to measure) Actual

Measure the camber (cross-slope)using camber board (%)

Are there any rolling marks? Yes / No

At how many locationsthere are roller marks?

Tools to be USED

For measuring camber boardplace the camber board onthe 1.85 meter straight edge.

Tools to be USED

Use scale to measureundulations on the surface.

Use steel scale provided in thetool kit to measure thickness ofthe layer

Use the camber board placedon a 1.85 meter straight edgeto measure cross-slope(camber)

47


Step-V: Instructions for Water Bound Macadam (WBM)- GRADE II Stage

Approximately (naked eye observation) 90% to 100% should pass through63 mm square ring. Coarse aggregates are the bigger stones.

Tools to be USED

Use 63 mm square ring and 53mm square ring to measure thecoarse aggregates.

Use 75 mm dipstick to measurethe thickness of the layer.

Use camber board placed on a1.85 meter straight edge tomeasure camber

25-75% should pass through 53mm square ring by approximateobservation. Square ring issupplied along with the tool kit.

The thickness of the WBM IIlayer should be 75mm

Step-VI: Instructions for Water Bound Macadam (WBM) – GRADE IIIStage

If the work is at WBM-GradeIII stage then observe thefollowing.

The thickness of the WBM IIlayer should be 75mm.

Screening aggregates aresmaller stones than the coarseaggregates.

Coarse AggregatesAt how many

locationsthere are

roller marks?

Thickness ofLayer(use dipstick

to measure thethickness and

record the reading)

Does 25% to75% pass

through 53mm square ring?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Does 90% to100% pass

through 63 mmsquare ring?

Tools to be USED

Use 63 mm and 45 mm squarerings to measure coarse aggregates.

Use 11.2 mm and 5.6 mm squarerings to measure screeningaggregates.

Use 75 mm dipstick to measurethickness of the layer.

Use camber board placed on a 1.85meter straight edge to measurecamber

48


Step-VII: Instructions for Prime Coat / Tack Coat / Pre-mix Carpet Stage

Mechanical sprayer helps tobuild the pressure in allowingthe emulsion to penetratethrough any gaps in theexisting layer.

Aggregates are small stonesthanthe screening aggregates.

Are there any undulations/Potholes on WBM layer? Yes / No

How many potholes / undulations are there?

Are they using mechanical sprayer for sprayingbitumen emulsion? Yes / No

Is the surface clean and free from dust? Yes / No

At how many locations there are roller marksare there on pre-mix carpet?

Measure the camber (cross-slope) usingCamber board and record the reading

Measure the thickness of the pre-mix carpet using20 mm dipstick and record the same

Do all the bigger size (0.18 cum) of aggregatespass through 22.4 mm and retain in 11.2 mm? Yes / No

Do all the (0.09 cum) of aggregates pass through13.2 mm and retain in 5.6 mm? Yes / No

Tools to be USED

Use 22.4 mm and 11.2 mm squarerings to measure 67% of aggregates.

To measure remaining 33% ofaggregates use 13.2 mm and 5.6 mmsquare rings.

Use camber board placed on a 1.85meter straight edge to measurecamber

Does 90%to 100%

passthrough

63mm

squarering?

Does65%

to 90%pass

through45mm

squarering?

Does100%

materialpass

through11.2 mmsquarering?

Does100%

materialpass

through5.6 mmsquarering?

At howmany

locationsthere are

rollermarks?

Thicknessof layer

(usedipstick)

Cross-Slope

(Camber)Use

camberboard

Coarse Aggregates Screening Aggregate

Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

49


Step-VIII: Shoulders

Mix the soil with water and take it in hand and press it, when pressed itshould form as a ball in the hand and no water should stick to the hand.

Slope should be 4% for shoulders.

Is soil adequately compacted? Yes / No

Are there any roller marks? Yes / No

At how many locations there are roller marks?

Measure the slope of the shoulder using camberboard placed on 3 meter straight edge

Step-IX: Drainage Works (Longitudinal)

Are side drains there for Are side drains connected tofree flow of water? receiving drains?

Step-X: Sign Boards

Are there any Traffic or KM & BoundaryCautionary Warning Sign Boards? Stones Erected?

Yes/No Yes/No

Under general observations, investigators are requested to write any other aspectthat has come to their notice.

Any other General Observations

Signatures of the Team Members:

1.

2.

3

50


Annexure 2

COMMUNITY AUDIT INVENTORY FORCOMPLETED ROADS UNDER PMGSY

Date

Time

Name of Investigators 1.

2.

3.

Taluk

District

Name of the Road

Total Road Length in KMs

General Instructions:

Dos:

You will be given authorized letters from Karnataka Rural RoadsDevelopment Authority (KRRDA) or any other relevant authority, pleasecarry those letters during the field survey.

During the survey introduce yourself as a volunteer of Public AffairsCentre, Bangalore.

Please wear the PAC Caps provided to you.

Always carry along with you the copies of estimation given to you.

Any discrepancies that you may observe about the PMGSY roads as partof your work as a citizen auditor should be reported only to the concernedAssistant Executive Engineer.

Don’ts

Please do not argue with the contractor or any other staff at the work site.

Please avoid getting into conflict with the contractor or staff.

STAGE- I: BASIC OBSERVATIONS

Instructions for Basic Observations

Make a complete physical observation of the road on a two-wheeler or in a waycomfortable to the investigating team. You start from either end of the road andkeep moving to the other side of the road.

The following need to be observed:

1. As you move along a completed PMGSY road, you will observe stonesplaced at intervals of every 200 metres. For every one kilometer length of the

51


road, you must identify one stretch of 200 meters. For example, if the roadis 6 kms six stretches of 200 meters (distance between any two stones) eachneed to be identified. Similarly if the road is 7 kms seven stretches of 200meters each need to be identified.

2. Record the number and other details as given below for KM stones, PMGSYSign Boards, Boundary stones, Traffic Sign Boards, road humps.

3. Please note that it is required to install one PMGSY information board eachat both ends of the road and one PMGSY info board in the middle of theroad. If the road is more than 5 kms more such boards must be installed.

Basic Observations

1. No. of KM Stones

2. Are there PMGSY informationBoards? Yes / No

Are the following Details given in PMGSY Boards?

2.1 Total length of the PMGSYroads

2.2 Name of the Contractor given Yes / No

2.3 Expenditure details Yes / No

2.4 Starting and completiondates of the contract given Yes / No

2.5 In which language is theinformation on PMGSYinformation board provided?

3. Are there Boundary Stones?(If No, proceed to No. 4) Yes / No

3.1 Give the number of As per the EstimateBoundary Stones Actual

3.2 Give location / land mark ofboundary stones

4. Are there traffic sign boards?(If No, proceed to No. 5) Yes / No

4.1 How many As per the Estimateare there? Actual

52


4.2 Give location / land markof traffic sign boards.

4.3 How many are damagedor disfigured?

5. Are there any road humps?(If No, proceed to No. 6) Yes / No

5.1 How many are there?

5.2 Give location / land markof road humps?

6. Drainage System

6.1 No. of Bridges As per the Estimate

Actual

6.2. No. of Slab Culverts As per the Estimate

Actual

6.3. No. of Pipe Culverts As per the Estimate

Actual

6.4. No. of Cause ways As per the Estimate

Actual

6.5. No. of side drains As per the Estimate

Actual

STAGE – II: SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

Note: Please Use Separate Form For Every Stretch

The specific observations must be carried out for every stretch of 200 metersidentified during Stage-I. The Stage-II of the community audit involves three steps.

Give the Stretch Number and the location

1. STEP- I: ROAD DIMENSIONS / GEOMETRY AND FURNITURE

A. Width of the road in meters As per the EstimateActual

i. Is there anything obstructingthe view of the road? Yes / No

ii. Are the branches of the treesobstructing the view? Yes / No

53


iii. Measure the camber (cross-slope)of the road using camber boardand record the reading.

B. KM stonesi. Length & breadth of the KM As per the Estimate cms stone (in cms) Actual cms

ii. Are the KM stones colour-washed? Yes/ No

iii. Is the KM stone properly visible? Yes/No

iv. Are the details clearly visible onthe KM stone? Yes / No

C. Boundaryi. Measure the boundary width As per the Requirement metres

(in meters) Actual metres

ii. Are there Guard stones? Yes/No

iii. How many guard stones arethere?

iv. Do the boundaries appearwhitewashed? Yes/No

v. Have the stones been erectedas boundaries?

D. Shoulderi. Measure the width in meters As per the Estimate

Actual

ii. Measure the camber (cross-slope) of the shoulder using the camber board

iii. Is there a pitching to protect the shoulders? Yes / No

iv. Is the shoulder free from encroachments? Yes / No

v. Is the shoulder free from shrubs? Yes / No

vi. Is the shoulder free from grass? Yes / No

vii. Is the shoulder free from all obstructions? Yes / No

54


2. STEP-II: ROAD SIDE DRAINAGE (LONGITUDINAL DRAINS)

Check the drainage and record the following observations

A. Are the drains clear of debris / waste other materials etc.? Yes / No

B. Do you think that water will flow freely in the drains? Yes / No

C. If No, give reasons?

3. STEP-III: ROAD SURFACE AND PAVEMENTS

Observe, count and recordnumber of potholes, crackedareas, depressions, heavings,water logging areas within the stretch.

For measuring thickness ofthe road, use dipstick to piercethe road and measure.

A Potholes

i. How many potholes are there?

ii. How many water loggedareas are there?

iii. How many patched areas canyou observe?

B How many shallowdepressions are there?

C How many cracked areasare there?

i. How many cracked areasare sealed?

TOOLS TO USE:

Use camber board placed on a1.85 meters straight edge tomeasure the slope and record thereading.

Use dipstick with 75 mm scale tomeasure the thickness of WBMsurface layer.

se dipstick with 20 mm scale tomeasure the thickness of thepremix carpet- bituminoussurface.

55


D How many heavings are there?

E How many water logged areasare there?

F Are the edges of the roaddamaged? Yes/ No

i. If so, in how many locations arethe edges damaged?

G Is there any surface bleeding? Yes / No

H Thickness of the surface Measure the thickness of theroad using dipstick

i. Measure the thickness of WBMsurface using 75 mm dipstick mm

ii. Measure the thickness ofBituminous premix carpetusing 20 mm dipstick mm

I Cross Slope (camber) Measure the slope of the surfaceof the surface using Camber board and record the

reading

Any other General Observations

Signatures of the Team Members:

1.

2.

3

56


Annexure 3

CITIZEN MONITORING AND AUDIT OFPRADHAN MANTRI GRAM SADAK YOJANA (PMGSY) ROADS

BENEFICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE– ONGOING WORKS

Introduction: Namaskar, I am ………………………….., a Citizen Volunteer from………………………… We would like to take your feedback on the Pradhan MantriGram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) that is being constructed in/near your village. Yourviews and experience will help us to understand better, the quality of road servicesthat are expected by the community. Could I please talk to any adult member of thefamily, for a few minutes in this regard?

Instruction: Speak to any Adult (21 years or older) in the household.

I. DETAILS REGARDING THE INTERVIEW

1. Name of the state Karnataka 1 Orissa 2

2. Name of the district

3. Name of the taluka

4. Name of the GramPanchayat

5. Name of the village

6. Date of the Interview ________ / ________ / _______ (DD / MM / YR)

7. Name of the Interviewer

8. Starting time ofthe interview ___________ am / pm

II. GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONDENT / HH

2.1 Name of the respondent

2.2 Name of the head of thehousehold

2.3 Address of the household

57


2.4 Occupational background Cultivators 1of the household Agricultural labourers 2

Cultivator-cum-agriculturallabourers 3Labourers (non-agriculture) 4Petty Business/Shop 5Self employed (professional) 6Service (Govt./Panchayat) 7Service (Private) 8Other

III. AWARENESS AND USAGE

S.No Questions Coding categories

3.1 Have you heard of the Yes 1Pradhan Mantri Gram No 2Sadak Yojana (PMGSY)?

3.2 Are you aware of the PMGSYroad that is being constructed Yes 1near your village/GP? No 2(INSTRUCTION – If No, askabout road construction activitiescurrently being carried out inthe village/GP and terminate)

3.3 How did you initially come to Display board near the road 1know about the PMGSY construction site (Go to 3.5) 2road? Gram Panchayat Office 3(Multiple response possible) Gram Panchayat members 4

Through Gram Sabhas 5NGOs/CBOs 6IEC from the implementingdepartment 7Friends 8Neighbours 9Relatives 10Others (specify)

3.4 Are you aware of anyinformation display Yes 1board placed at the PMGSY No 2road construction site? (Go to 3.6)

3.5 What information have you Name of the starting placeobserved on the information Name of the place wheredisplay board? road ends 2

58


Length of the road 3Cost 4Name and address ofcontractor 5Name and address of office-in-charge 6Other (specify)

3.6 When was the PMGSY roadconstruction initiated? ______ / ______ (MM / YY)

Don’t know / Can’t say 9

3.7 When is the likely date of ______ / ______ (MM / YY)completion of the PMGSYroad? Don’t know / Can’t say 9

3.8 Before initiating thePMGSY road Yes 1construction in your No 2GP/village was any exercisecarried out to (Go to 3.10)assess the needs of the people?

3.9 What kind of informationwas collected from yourhousehold?

3.10 Was the PMGSY road projectdiscussed in any publicplatforms such as theGram Sabha?

3.11 How far is the PMGSYroad from your residence? ___________ kms.

3.12 Do you think theconstruction Yes 1of the PMGSY roadwould benefit No 2your household in any way? (Go to 3.14)

3.13 In what way would yourhousehold benefit from thePMGSY road?

3.14 Why do you say so?

59


IV. QUALITY


4.1 Have you observed the Yes 1construction of thePMGSY road? No 2

4.2 What would be the lengthof the PMGSY road from _______ kms. Don’t knowyour village / GP? /can’t say 9

4.3 What would be the breadth _______ kms. Don’t knowthe PMGSY road? /can’t say 9

4.4 Who will maintain the Gram Panchayat Office 1PMGSY of road after its Contractor 2completion? Don’t Know / Can’t Say 3

4.5 Do you know that the Yes 1contractor has to maintain No 2the road for five years afterthe completion of theconstruction of the road?

V. PROBLEM INCIDENCE, RESOLUTION AND RESPONSIVENESS


5.1 Are you facing any problems Yes 1during the construction of the No 2PMGSY road? (Go to 5.3)

5.2 What kind of problems Dust 1are you facing during the Noise 2construction of the PMGSY Smoke 3road? Restriction of movement to(Multiple responses possible) nearest main road 4

Disruption of essential serviceslike water, electricity, phone 5Social problems such asinflux of migrant labour,harassment bycontractor, etc. 6Corruption practices 7Others (specify):

5.3 Have you complained about Yes 1the problem you faced? No 2

(Go to 5.7)

60


5.4 Whom did you complain to? Gram Panchayat Office 1PMGSY Engineer 2Contractor 3Others (specify):

5.5 Has the problem been Yes 1resolved? No (Go to 5.7) 2

5.6 How much time was taken toresolve the problem? _____________ days

5.7 Have any accidents occurredat the PMGSY roadconstruction site?

5.8 Do you think the PMGSY Yes 1roads would be safe to travel? No 2

VI. SATISFACTION

S.No.Questions Coding categories

6.1 Taking into account yourobservation / experience with Satisfied 1regard to the PMGSY road Dissatisfied 2construction activities, how (Go to Section 7)satisfied are you with theconstruction quality of thePMGSY road?

6.2 What are your reasons fordissatisfaction?

VII. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PERCEPTION AND MONITORING


7.1 Do you think the constructionof the PMGSY road would Yes (Go to 7.3) 1benefit your village/GP No 2in any way?

7.2 Why do you say so?(INSTRUCTION – Afterrecording the answer,please go to 7.4)

7.3 In what way would the PMGSY Economic benefitsroad benefit the village / GP? Transport of agricultural(Multiple responses possible) produce 1

61


Fast movement of perishablegoods 2Transportation of inputs suchas fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, etc. 3Better employmentopportunities 4Social benefitsBetter access to school facilities 5Better access to health facilities 6Better access to post officefacilities 7

Better access to bank facilities 8

Better maintenance of servicessuch as water supply, electricity,telephones, etc; 9Others (specify):

7.4 Is the community playing any Yes 1role in monitoring the No (Go to 7.6) 2construction of the road?

7.5 What is the role being playedby the community?

7.6 Do you think there should be Yes, to a great extent 1community participation in the Yes, to some extent 2monitoring of the maintenance No (Go to 7.8) 3of the PMGSY road afterits completion?

7.7 Who do you thinkshould participate?

7.8 Would you be willing to be Yeas 1a citizen monitor? No 2

7.9 Would you be willing to be Yes 1trained in monitoring and No 2quality control of thePMGSY road?

THANK YOU!

62


Annexure 4

CITIZEN MONITORING AND AUDIT OF PRADHAN MANTRI GRAMSADAK YOJANA (PMGSY) ROADS

BENEFICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE– COMPLETED WORKS

Introduction: Namaskar, I am ………………………….., a Citizen Volunteer from………………………… We would like to take your feedback on the Pradhan MantriGram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) that has been constructed recently in/near yourvillage. Your views and experience will help us to understand better, the quality ofroad services. Could I please talk to any adult member of the family, for a fewminutes in this regard?

Instruction: Speak to any Adult (21 years or older) in the household.

I. DETAILS REGARDING THE INTERVIEW

1. Name of the state Karnataka 1 Orissa 2

2. Name of the district

3. Name of the taluka

4. Name of the Gram Panchayat

5. Name of the village

6. Date of the Interview ____ / ____ / ___ (DD/MM/YR)

7. Name of the Interviewer

8. Starting time of the interview ___________ am / pm

II. GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONDENT / HH

2.1 Name of the respondent

2.2 Name of the head of thehousehold

2.3 Address of the household

63


2.4 Occupational background Cultivators 1of the household Agricultural labourers 2

Cultivator-cum-agriculturallabourers 3Labourers (non-agriculture) 4Petty Business/Shop 5Self employed (professional) 6Service (Govt./Panchayat) 7Service (Private) 8Other

III. AWARENESS AND USAGE


3.1 Have you heard of the YesPradhan Mantri GramSadak Yojana (PMGSY)? No 1

3.2 Are you aware of the PMGSYroad that runs through Yes 1your village/GP? No 2(INSTRUCTION – If No, askabout road construction activitiescurrently being carried out inthe village/GP and terminate)

3.3 How did you initially come to Display board near the road 1know about the PMGSY construction site (Go to 3.5) 2road? Gram Panchayat Office 3(Multiple response possible) Gram Panchayat members 4

Through Gram Sabhas 5NGOs/CBOs 6IEC from the implementingdepartment 7Friends 8Neighbours 9Relatives 10Others (specify)

3.4 Are you aware of any Yes 1information display board No (Go to 3.6) 2placed at the PMGSY roadconstruction site?

64


3.5 What information have you Name of the starting place 1observed on the information Name of the place where

road ends 2display board? Length of the road 3

Cost 4Name and address ofcontractor 5Name and address of office-in-charge 6Other (specify)

3.6 When was the PMGSY roadconstruction initiated? ______ / ______ (MM / YY)

Don’t know / Can’t say 9

3.7 When is the likely date of ______ / ______ (MM / YY)completion of the PMGSY Don’t know / Can’t say 9road?

3.8 Before initiating the PMGSY Yes 1road construction in your No 2GP/village was any exercise (Go to 3.10)carried out to assess theneeds of the people?

3.9 What kind of informationwas collected from yourhousehold?

3.10 Was the PMGSY roadproject discussed in anypublic platformssuch as the Gram Sabha?

3.11 How far is the PMGSYroad from your residence? ___________ kms.

3.12 Have you and/or your Yes 1household members used the No (Go to 3.14) 2PMGSY road after itsconstruction?

3.13 What has been the frequency Daily 1of usage? Alternate days 2

Once a week 3Monthly 4Seasonally 5Less frequently 6

65


3.14 For what purposes have you Work-relatedand/or your household Transport of agriculturalmembers produce 1(Multiple response possible) Movement of perishable 2

goodsTransportation of inputssuch as fertilizers, seeds,pesticides, etc. 3Seek/use employmentopportunities 4Family-relatedAccess to school facilitiesAccess 1to health facilities Access to post2office facilities 3Access to bank facilities 4Others (specify):

3.15 Do you think the construction Yes 1of the PMGSY road has No 2benefited your householdin any way? (Go to 3.14)

3.13 In what way has yourhousehold benefited from thePMGSY road?

3.14 Why do you say so?

IV. QUALITY


4.1 Did you observe the Yes 1construction of the PMGSY No 2road any time during theconstruction?

4.2 What is the length of thePMGSY road from your ______ kms.village /GP? Don’t know/can’t say 9

4.3 What is the breadth of ______ kms.the PMGSY road? Don’t know/can’t say 9

4.4 Does the PMGSY road have Divider 1the following features? Side walls / fences 2

66


(Read out each feature and Footpaths 3circle those applicable) Road crossing zebra markings 4

Road signs 5Speed stoppers/bumpers 6Streetlighting 7

4.5 Who maintains the Gram Panchayat Office 1PMGSY road? Contractor 2

Don’t Know / Can’t Say 3

4.6 Did you know that the Yes 1contractor has to maintain No 2the road for five years after thecompletion of the constructionof the road?

V. PROBLEM INCIDENCE, RESOLUTION AND RESPONSIVENESS


5.1 Did you face any problems Yes 1during the construction of the No (Go to 5.3) 2PMGSY road?

5.2 What kind of problems did you Dust 1face during the construction of Noise 2the PMGSY road? Smoke 3(Multiple responses possible) Restriction of movement to

nearest main road 4Disruption of essentialservices like water, 5electricity, phoneSocial problems such asinflux of migrant labour,harassment by contractor,etc. 6Corruption practices 7Others (specify):

5.3 Have you observed/experienced Yes 1any problem using the No (Go to 5.7) 2PMGSY road?

67


5.4 What are the problems that Quality relatedyou have observed / Potholes 1experienced after Bad patches and cracks 2the PMGSY road is in use? Unevenness of road surface 3(Multiple responses possible) Flooding during normal rains 4

Faded road crossing markers 5Accumulation of sand/gravel on the road 6Lack of side drains 7Safety-relatedLack of safety barriers onboth sides 1of the roadLack ofvisibility of vehiclesin the opposite directions 2Lack of appropriateroad signs 3Unused constructionmaterial stillleft on/by the road 4Overgrown vegetation 5Lack of footpaths 6Others (specify)

5.5 Did you complain about the Yes 1problem you faced? No (Go to 5.9) 2

5.6 Whom did you complain to? Gram Panchayat Office 1PMGSY Engineer 2Contractor 3Others (specify):

5.7 Was the problem resolved? Yes 1No (Go to 5.9) 2

5.8 How much time was taken toresolve the problem? ___________ days

5.9 Did any accidents occur on the Yes 1PMGSY road due to the No 2problems mentioned by you?

5.10 Are the PMGSY roads Yes 1safe to travel? No 2

68


VI. SATISFACTION


6.1 Taking into account yourobservation / experience with Satisfied (Go to Section 7) 1regard to the PMGSY road Dissatisfied 2in your village/GP, howsatisfied are you with thePMGSY road?

6.2 What are your reasons fordissatisfaction?

VII. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PERCEPTION AND MONITORING


7.1 Do you think the construct-ion of the PMGSY road has Yes (Go to 7.3) 1benefited your village/GP No 2in any way?

7.2 Why do you say so?(INSTRUCTION – Afterrecording the answer,please go to 7.4)

7.3 In what way would the Economic benefitsPMGSY road benefit the Transport of agriculturalvillage / GP? produce 1(Multiple responses possible) Fast movement of perishable

goods 2Transportation of inputssuch as fertilizers, seeds,pesticides, etc. 3Better employmentopportunities 4Social benefitsBetter access to school facilities 5Better access to health facilities 6Better access to post officefacilities 7Better access to bank facilities 8

69


Better maintenance of servicessuch as water supply,electricity, telephones, etc; 9Others (specify):

7.4 Did the community play any Yes 1role in monitoring the No (Go to 7.6) 2construction of the road?

7.5 What was the role playedby the community?

7.6 Do you think there should be Yes, to a great extent 1community participation in the Yes, to some extent 2monitoring of the maintenance No (Go to 7.8) 3of the PMGSY road?

7.7 Who do you thinkshould participate?

7.8 Would you be willing to be Yeas 1a citizen monitor? No 2

7.9 Would you be willing to be Yes 1trained in monitoring and No 2quality control of thePMGSY road?

THANK YOU!

Ending time of interview (Hour/Min) __________ am / pm

Whether spot-checked Yes 1 No 2

Whether back-checked Yes 1 No 2

Whether scrutinized Yes 1 No 2

70


Annexure 5

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF TRAININGAND FIELD IMPLEMENTATION

CMATs in Orissa measuring formation width as a part of field training held on 10 April 2009

Field demonstration for CMATs in Bijapur on 15 April 2009

71


Measuring shoulder camber by CMATs team as a part of PMGSY road monitoring in Orissa

A CMAT volunteer demonstrating soil compaction as part of PMGSY road monitoring in Orissa

72


Checking compaction of the soil during training to the CMATS in Karnataka

Field demonstration for CMATs in Mysore as part of training held on 25 March 2009

73


Hands-on experience – Training in progress

CMATs interacting with PMGSY beneficiaries

74


Ann

exur

e 6:

Lev

el o

f adh

eren

ce t

o W

BM

II

& o

ther

spe

cifi

cati

on

WB

M G

rade

II

& O

ther

Spe

cifi

cati

ons

Det

ails

of

the

Roa

d an

dC

arri

agw

ayA

vera

ge63

mm

53 m

mA

vera

geR

olle

rO

vera

llw

idth

Cam

ber

rin

gri

ng

thic

knes

sm

ark

Scor

e(in

met

res)

(90

to(2

5 to

in m

m10

0%)

75%

)B

olan

gir

Bar

kani

Cho

wk

to K

huja

npal

li3.

952

-775

.7%

72%

72

2 st

retc

hes

Rly

col

ony

4.0

Med

ium

YPa

rtly

Part

lyY

YPa

rtly

13.3

6 km

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

3 st

retc

hes

10.

50.

51

10.

5T

itla

garh

to

Gul

mi

3.8

2.6

77%

67.5

%8

03

stre

tche

s4.

0 m

ediu

m

10.2

km

YPa

rtly

Part

lyY

YN

3 st

retc

hes

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

YSc

ore1

10.

5 0

.51

1 0

Gaj

apat

hi

RD

Roa

d to

3.3

3.8

61.3

%39

%8

3N

ilR

aipu

rPa

rtly

YPa

rtly

Yes

Y5.

9 H

igh

2.9

kmSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

e3

stre

tche

s0.

51

0.5

0.5

1 1

75


RD

Roa

d to

Min

jiri

3.3

425

.8%

19%

75

Nil

Part

lyY

NN

Y3.

5 m

ediu

m6.

09 k

mSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

e3

stre

tche

s0.

51

00

11

Bij

apur

Tum

bagi

,3.

82.

988

%78

%67

Nil

Got

kand

ki,

YPa

rtly

YN

oPa

rtly

Gud

isom

nal

4.0

med

ium

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

3.43

km

10.

51

00.

51

Mud

hebi

hal

5 st

retc

hes

Mys

ore

M.M

. R

oad

to M

alal

i4.

11.

192

%80

%7

5N

ilY

Part

lyY

No

Y4.

5 H

igh

9 km

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

H.D

.Kot

e1

0.5

10

11

4 st

retc

hes

Sin

gari

pura

4.0

489

%51

%7

5N

ilY

YY

YY

5.4

kmN

anja

ngu

dSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

e6.

0 H

igh

3 st

retc

hes

11

11

11

Ave

rage

/ to

tal

0.85

0.70

0.78

0.50

0.93

0.78

4.43

H

igh

76


WB

M G

rade

III

& O

ther

Spe

cifi

cati

ons

Det

ails

of

the

Roa

d an

dC

arri

agw

ayA

vera

ge63

mm

45 m

m11

.2 m

m5.

6A

vera

geR

olle

rO

vera

llw

idth

Cam

ber

rin

gri

ng

rin

gth

ickn

ess

mar

kSc

ore

(in m

etre

s)(9

0 to

(65

to(1

00%

)in

mm

100%

)90

%)

Bij

apur

Kat

hral

–B

olch

ikka

lki-

3.82

1.0

83%

84%

87%

82%

75

Nil

Nan

dyal

YPa

rtly

Part

lyY

Part

lyPa

rtly

YY

Bija

pur

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

Scor

eSc

ore

6.0

(75%

)5

stre

tche

s1

0.5

0.5

10.

50.

51

1hi

gh

Ann

exur

e 7:

Lev

el o

f adh

eren

ce t

o W

BM

III

& o

ther

spe

cifi

cati

ons

77


Annexure 8: Shoulder specifications:Shoulder components and scoring scheme

Shoulder component Scoring scheme Points

Width of the shoulder Adheres to specifications fully 1(approximately 3.5 meters Adheres to specifications partly 0.5& above including both Falls short drastically/does not meet 0sides)

Camber(3.5% to 4%) Adheres to specifications fully 1Adheres to specifications partly 0.5Falls short drastically/does not meet 0

Is shoulder free from All /most stretches free from vegetation 1vegetation like grass/ Some stretches free from vegetation 0.5shrubs None/very few free from vegetation 0

Is the shoulder free from All /most stretches free from 1obstructions obstructions

Some stretches free from obstructions 0.5None/very few free from vegetation 0

Maximum score: 4Level of adherence

• High (75% & above): 3 to 4• Medium (50% to 74%): 2.0 to 3.0

• Low (0 to 49%): 0 to 1.5

78


1. Road component Scoring scheme Points

specifications

Width of the road Adheres to specifications fully 1

(carriageway Adheres to specifications partly 0.5

– 3.75 metres Falls short drastically/does not meet 0

Camber (3.5% to 4%) Adheres to specifications fully 1

Adheres to specifications partly 0.5

Falls short drastically/does not meet 0

Thickness of the Adheres to specifications fully 1

premix carpet surface Adheres to specifications partly 0.5

(20 mm) Falls short drastically/does not meet 0

Maximum score: 3

Level of adherence: low (0 to 49%) 0 to 1.4; medium (50% to 74%)

1.5 to 1.9; high (75% and above) - 2 to 3

2. Quality of the

surface Scoring scheme Points

Potholes All /most stretches free from potholes 1

Some stretches free from potholes 0.5

None /very few stretches free from

obstructions 0

Cracked areas All /most stretches free from cracked areas 1

Some stretches free from cracked areas 0.5


cracked areas 0

Shallow depressions All /most stretches free from depressions 1

Some stretches free from depressions 0.5


depressions 0

Heavings All /most stretches free from heavings 1

Some stretches free from heavings 0.5

None /very few stretches free from heavings 0

Annexure 9: Road surface specifications and quality ofroad surface - components and scoring scheme

79


Surface bleeding spots All /most stretches free from bleeding 1

Some stretches free from bleeding 0.5

None /very few stretches free bleeding 0

Damaged edges All /most stretches free from damaged edges 1

Some stretches free from damaged edges 0.5


damaged edges 0

Maximum score permissible is 6

Quality of surface

High (75% & above): 4.5 to 6

Medium (50% to 74%): 3 to 4.4

Low (0 to 49%): 1 to 2.9

Road furniture Scoring scheme Points

Whitewashing All the stones whitewashed 0.5of KM stones Some stones are whitewashed 0.25

Kilometre None are whitewashed 0stone Visibility of Information on all stones

information on are clearly visible 0.5Km stone Information on only some

clearly visible 0.25Information on none of thestones clearly visible 0

Stones used Yes 0.5for erection No 0

Boundary of boundaryWhitewashing All the stones whitewashed 0.5of boundary Some stones are whitewashed 0.25stones None are whitewashed 0

Maximum score: 2

Level of adherence:High (75% & above): 1.5 to 2

Medium (50% to 74%): 1 to 1.4Low (below 50%): 0 to 0.9

Annexure 10: Specifications for road furniture– components and scoring scheme

80


Adh

eren

ce t

o Sh

ould

er S

peci

fica

tion

s

No.

of

stre

tche

sN

ame

of t

heT

otal

obse

rved

Ave

rage

Ave

rage

Is s

houl

der

Is s

houl

der

Ove

rall

Scor

ero

adle

nght

h(1

str

etch

=sh

ould

ersh

ould

erfr

ee o

ffr

ee o

fan

d le

vel

ofan

d20

0 m

per

wid

thca

mbe

rve

geta

tion

?ve

geta

tion

?ad

her

ence

year

km.)

(in m

ts)

Bol

angi

r di

stri

ct

PWD

Roa

d to

3.0

km3

7.87

3.86

Deo

garh

20

07

Yes

Yes

No

No

Scor

e:1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 0

Scor

e:0

2 - m

ediu

m

PWD

roa

d to

2.2

km3

7.86

2.8

Kut

umun

da2

00

8Ye

sPa

rtly

No

No

Scor

e:1

Scor

e: 0

.5 S

core

: 0Sc

ore:

01.

5 - l

ow

Gaj

apat

hi d

istr

ict

Kru

shna

pur

Cho

wk

2.9

km3

2.6

3.0

to B

uruj

anga

20

04

Part

lyPa

rtly

Part

lyN

oSc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

1.5

- Low

RD

roa

d to

4.0

km4

3.73

1.1

Padh

igam

20

06

Yes

Part

lyPa

rtly

Part

lySc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

0.5

Sco

re:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

.52.

5 –

med

ium

Ann

exur

e 11

: Lev

el o

f adh

eren

ce to

sho

ulde

r sp

ecif

icat

ions

81


Sara

lapa

dar

to3.

5 km

42.

453.

75A

nug

uru

20

08

part

lyYe

sPa

rtly

Part

lySc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0.5

2.5

- med

ium

Bija

pur

dist

rict

Bijj

argi

-Gon

sagi

-7.

2 km

73.

671.

6A

lagi

nal

20

07

Yes

Part

lyN

oPa

rtly

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0Sc

ore:

0.5

2.0

- med

ium

Tada

vala

ga –

12.0

12

4.4

0.75

Aga

san

al-N

H13

20

08

YPa

rtly

Part

lyPa

rtly

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e 0.

52.

5 - m

ediu

m

Mys

ore

dist

rict

Gud

dada

kopp

alu

3.4

km5

3.6

3.68

20

08

YYe

sN

oYe

sSc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1 S

core

: 0Sc

ore:

13.

0 -

high

Aya

rabe

edu

to9

km6

3.4

2.1

M.B

.Roa

d2

00

8Pa

rtly

Part

lyPa

rtly

Part

lySc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

.52.

0 - m

ediu

m

Ang

atha

halli

5.4

km5

4.3

3.64

20

07

YYe

sYe

sPa

rtly

Scor

e: 1

Scco

re:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

0.5

3.5

- hig

h

Ave

rage

/tot

al5

20.

850.

70.

350.

42.

3 -

med

ium

82


Ann

exur

e 12

: Adh

eren

ce to

roa

d sp

ecif

icat

ions

Adh

eren

ce t

o Sh

ould

er S

peci

fica

tion

s

No.

of

stre

tche

sN

ame

of t

heT

otal

obse

rved

Ave

rage

Ave

rage

Ave

rage

Ove

rall

Scor

ero

adle

nght

h(1

str

etch

=ro

adsh

ould

erth

ickn

ess

and

leve

l of

and

200

m p

erw

idth

cam

ber

of t

head

her

ence

year

km.)

(in m

ts)

prem

ixca

rpet

(on

mm

)

Bol

angi

r di

stri

ct

PWD

Roa

d to

3 km

33.

723.

321

.9D

eoga

rh2

00

7Y

-1Y

-1 Y

-13

- Hig

h

PWD

roa

d to

2.2

km3

3.85

2.6

20

Kut

umun

da2

00

8Y

-1Pa

rtly

: 0.

5Y

-12.

5 - H

igh

Gaj

apat

hi d

istr

ict

Kru

shna

pur

Cho

wk

2.9

km3

3.0

3.75

21to

Bur

ujan

ga2

00

4Pa

rtly

-0.

5Y

-1Y

-12.

5 - H

igh

RD

Roa

d to

4 km

3.66

3.5

Padh

igam

20

06

4Y

-1Y

-119

Y-1

3.0

high

Sara

lapa

dar

to3.

54

3.1

33.

52

3A

nug

uru

km20

08Pa

rtly

: 0.

5Y

-1Y

-12.

5 - H

igh

83


Bija

pur

dist

rict

Bijj

argi

-Gon

sagi

-7.

2 km

73.

751

12

Ala

gina

l 2

007

Y-1

Part

ly:

0.5

Part

ly:

0.5

2 - H

igh

Tada

vala

ga –

Aga

sana

l-12

.01

23.

342.

619

NH

132

00

8Y

-1Pa

rtly

: 0.

5Y

-12.

5 - H

igh

Mys

ore

dist

rict

Gud

dada

kopp

alu

3.4

km5

3.75

3.74

20

20

08

Y-1

Y-1

Y-1

3 - H

igh

Aya

rabe

edu

to9

km6

3.65

2.8

20

M.B

.Roa

d2

00

8Y

-1Pa

rtly

0.5

Y-1

2.5

- Hig

h

Ang

atha

halli

5.4

km5

3.77

2.7

212

00

7Y

-1Pa

rtly

: 0.

5Y

-12.

5 - H

igh

Ave

rage

/tot

al s

core

52

Y-0

.9pa

rtly

0.5

Y- 0

.95

2.35

hig

h

84


Qua

lity

of r

oad

surf

ace

No.

of

Nam

e of

the

Tot

alst

retc

hes

No.

of

No.

of

No.

of

No.

of

No.

of

No.

of

Ove

rall

road

leng

hth

obse

rved

poth

oled

crac

ked

stre

tche

sst

retc

hes

stre

tche

sst

retc

hes

Qua

lity

and

(1 s

tret

ch =

stre

tche

sst

retc

hes

wit

hw

ith

wit

hw

ith

Scor

eye

ar20

0 m

per

shal

low

hea

vin

gsbl

eedi

ng

dam

aged

km.)

depr

essi

ons

spot

sed

ges

Bol

angi

r di

stri

ct

PWD

Roa

d to

3 km

3N

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilD

eoga

rh2

00

7Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

16

- Hig

h

PWD

roa

d to

2.2

km3

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

3K

utum

unda

20

08

Scor

e:1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 0

5 - H

igh

Gaj

apat

hi

Kru

shna

pur

Cho

wk

2.9

km3

32

11

Nil

4to

Bur

ujan

ga2

00

4Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e 0.

5Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

03

- Med

ium

RD

Roa

d to

4 km

42

1N

il2

33

Padh

igam

20

06

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0Sc

ore:

02.

5 - L

ow

Sara

lapa

dar

to3.

5 km

43

11

1N

il4

An

ugur

u2

00

8Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

03

- Med

ium

Ann

exur

e 13

: Qua

lity

of r

oad

surf

ace

85


Bij

apur

Bijj

argi

-Gon

sagi

-7.

2 km

7N

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilA

lagi

nal

20

07

Scor

e:1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

6 - H

igh

Tada

vala

ga –

Aga

sana

l-12

.01

2N

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilN

ilN

H13

20

08

Scor

e:1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

6 - H

igh

Mys

ore

Gud

dada

kopp

alu

3.4

km5

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

52

00

8Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

1Sc

ore:

05

- Hig

h

Aya

rabe

edu

to9

km6

22

Nil

Nil

Nil

2M

.B.R

oad

20

08

Scor

e: 0

.5Sc

ore:

0.5

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 0

.54.

5 - H

igh

Ang

atha

hally

5.4

km5

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

20

07

Scor

e:1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

Scor

e: 1

6 - H

igh

Ave

rage

/tot

al5

20.

80.

90.

90.

950.

90.

454.

9 hi

gh

86


Ann

exur

e 14

: Lev

el o

f adh

eren

ce t

o ro

ad fu

rnit

ure

spec

ific

atio

ns

Kilo

met

re S

ton

esB

oun

day

No.

of

stre

tche

sN

ame

of t

heT

otal

obse

rved

Wh

ite-

Vis

ibil

ity

Ston

esW

hit

e-O

vera

llro

adle

nght

h(1

str

etch

=w

ash

ing

of I

nfo-

used

to

was

hin

gad

her

ence

and

200

m p

erof

rmat

ion

oner

ect

of b

oun

dary

scor

eye

arkm

.)K

M s

tone

sK

M s

tone

sbo

un

dary

ston

es

Bol

angi

r

PWD

Roa

d to

3 km

3Ye

sYe

sYe

sPa

rtly

Deo

garh

20

07

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.25

1.75

- hi

gh

PWD

roa

d to

2.2

km3

Part

lyPa

rtly

No

Part

lyK

utum

unda

20

08

0.25

0.25

00.

250.

75 -

low

Gaj

apat

hi

Kru

shna

pur

Cho

wk

2.9

km3

No

Yes

No

No

to B

uruj

anga

20

04

00.

50

00.

5 - l

ow

RD

roa

d to

Pad

higa

m4

km4

No

Part

lyN

oN

o2

00

60

0.25

0 0

0.25

- lo

w

Sara

lapa

dar

to3.

5 km

4Pa

rtly

Part

lyPa

rtly

Part

lyA

nug

uru

20

08

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

1.0

- med

ium

87


Bij

apur

Bijj

argi

-Gon

sagi

-7.

2 km

7Pa

rtly

Part

lyN

oN

oA

lagi

nal

20

07

0.25

0.25

00

0.5

- low

Tada

vala

ga –

Aga

sana

l-12

.02

12

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NH

130

08

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

2.0

- hi

gh

Mys

ore

Gud

dada

kopp

alu

3.4

km5

Yes

No

No

No

20

08

0.5

00

00.

5 - l

ow

Aya

rabe

edu

to9

km6

No

No

No

No

M.B

.Roa

d2

00

80

00

00

- nil

Ang

atha

hally

5.4

km5

Yes

Part

lyN

oN

o2

00

70.

50.

250

00.

75 -

low

Ave

rage

/tot

al5

20.

275

0.27

50.

125

0.12

50.

80 -

low

88


citizen monitoring and audit of pmgsy roads: pilot … · 4 citizen monitoring and audit of pmgsy...

Documents