Business
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Best Service
Best Service OurCompany
India’s finest transport company with more than 30 years experience in International and Domestic Moving Service, we offer high quality storage services. We are backed by a dedicated team of customer oriented office staff, trained & experienced moving team, offices across the country, self-owned warehouses and fleet of vehicles. The operation has been built around understanding the client's requirements and offering a full logistics package delivered by knowledgeable staff. We offer great quality services at competitive prices. All managed by experienced location logistics personnel. Choose us and you can be assured of the very best quality of services. Whether you are moving locally, nationally or overseas, choosing is the best move you could make.To be a dependable feature in our customers business and an extension to their shipping department is what keeps our business moving forward.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The study team of CEG-IIMA team interacted with the former transport commissioner (who
conceived and executed the CICP project) and other RTO officials to get their perceptions about
the computerized interstate check posts. The following sections give an analysis of the data
collected.
3.3.1 Transport Commissioner
When the transport commissioner took over his position in 1998, on a random observation of the
check post operations recognized the need for improvement in the estimation and collection
systems at the check posts in order to plug leakage of government revenues.
To start with, the commissioner introduced the Pre-paid Card System in 1998, allowing a
transporter to voluntarily pay Rs. 1200 per month for overloading. This scheme allowed the
vehicle to overload up to 20% of the permissible weight. This scheme proved to be quite popular
and revenues jumped by 82% in that year (from Rs. 31 crores to 56 crores – see the table below).
92% of drivers have perceived no difference in the attitude of transporters in terms of equipping
them with adequate cash. 2% perceive deterioration with an average deterioration of 1.0. 6% of
drivers perceive an average improvement of 2.17. The average score for the CICP works out to
3.53, which is less than 4.00 of the control group. This is possibly due to minimum cash
requirement at the non-computerized check post (due to gold card system
system.
iii. Transparency
56% of drivers perceive no difference in the transparency levels of both the old and new system.
10% perceive a decline of 1.50, while 34% of drivers have noticed an average improvement by
3.2. The overall positive impact is 0.93. The control group score is 3.33, which is a bit higher
than the CICP score of 3.44. Thus the drivers perceive the computerized check post to be
somewhat more transparent in its processes.
3.2.2 Check Post Amenities
The drivers were asked to score their perceptions on the amenities at the check post (presented in
the questionnaire) on a 1 to 5 scale. The drivers have responded to the questions related to only
two amenities namely waiting lanes and parking facilities. The following table summarizes the
analysis of observations and the sections below present an analysis of the results of each
amenity.
Amenities at the Check Posts
Perceptions Waiting Parking
Number of Respondents 83 83
Average SL: Before CICP 1.66 1.66
% perceiving deterioration 4% 0
Average SL: deterioration (1.67) -
% perceiving no difference 23% 8%
% perceiving improvement 73% 92%
Page 16 of 42
Average SL: Improvement 2.92 2.86
Average SL after CICP 3.94 4.33
Overall Impact 2.08 2.61
Control group Respondents 16 16
Average SL : control group 1.31 1.31
a. Waiting Lanes
73% of drivers find the convenience of having a well laid out waiting lane quite significant, a
score of 2.92 out of 5. Hence, the overall average positive shift works out to 2.08, with 23%
finding no difference and with only 4% of the 83 responses being negative. The respondents of
the control group perceive this amenity as not satisfactory, giving an average score of 1.31. Thus
this amenity is significantly enhanced both after computerization and in comparison with the
control group.
b. Parking Space
92% of drivers are satisfied and perceive a major shift in the parking amenities. Only 8% opine
that there is no change and there are no negative answers. Hence this factor has the highest
positive shift of 2.61, and can be clearly considered a significant by-product of CICP, providing
a much-needed amenity to the weary driver. Control group respondents are not satisfied with the
parking amenity and the average score works out to 1.31.
3.2.3 Inspector Behavior
Drivers were asked to score their perceptions on the RTO inspector’s behavior (politeness,
fairness and efficiency) at the check post on a 1 to 5 scale. The following table summarizes the
analysis of observations. Sections below present an analysis of the results.
Attitude of Inspectors
Perceptions Politeness Efficiency Fairness
Number of Respondents 106 106 99
Average score before CICP 2.14 2.29 2.34
% perceiving deterioration 5% 8% 6%
Average deterioration (1.60) (1.88) (1.17)
% perceiving no difference 82% 67% 77%
% perceiving improvement 13% 25% 17%
Average Improvement 2.14 2.41 2.88
Average score after CICP 2.44 2.84 2.89
Overall Impact 0.21 0.47 0.42
Control group Respondents 11 10 11
Average score for control group 3.09 2.70 2.64
a. Politeness
82% of drivers perceive no change in the behavior of inspectors. The status quo is maintained.
5% of drivers perceive deterioration in this parameter and 13% find an improvement amounting
to an average of 2.14. The overall impact is marginally positive (0.21). The average score for the
control group is 3.09 and that for CICP is 2.44. Thus, respondents at the non-computerized
check post find the inspectors more polite, although there is a small improvement at CICP, pre
and post computerization.
b. Efficiency
Page 17 of 42
67% of drivers have opined that there is no significant change in efficiency levels of Inspectors.
25% of the respondents have stated some improvement (average score of 2.84), which leads to
an overall positive shift of 0.47. The control group perceives that the inspectors at the noncomputerized
check post are marginally less efficient, with an average score of 2.7 as against the
CICP score of 2.84. Thus, CICP has slightly enhanced the efficiency levels of inspectors.
c. Fairness
77% drivers perceive no change in the inspectors, with respect to fairness in dealings. 17% have
perceived improvement of 2.88, which reads into an overall positive shift of 0.42. The average
score for the control group is 2.64 and that of CICP is 2.89. Thus the inspectors at CICP are
perceived to be more fair and transparent, both in comparison to before computerization and
with a non-computerized check post.
3.2.4 Transporter Preparedness
The drivers were asked to score their perceptions of transporters on a 1 to 5 scale. The difference
in the score of each parameter (overloading, documentation, tax compliance, license plate
compliance, providing adequate cash) after computerization and before computerization is
computed for each respondent. A positive value of such difference conveys an improvement and
the negative value conveys deterioration / dissatisfaction on the attitude parameter with reference
to the respondent. These values are averaged over all the respondents to obtain the overall
impact of computerization on the attitudes of the transporters. The following table summarizes
the analysis of observations. Sections below present an analysis of the results of each attitude
parameter.
Transporter Preparedness
Perceptions Overloading Documentation Road Tax
Payments
License
Plate
Adequate
Money
Number of Respondents 106 96 97 92 100
Average score before CICP 2.79 3.16 3.46 3.45 3.49
% perceiving deterioration 7% 1% 0% 0% 2%
Average deterioration (2.00) (2.00) - - (1.00)
% perceiving no difference 71% 91% 99% 99% 92%
% perceiving improvement 23% 8% 1% 1% 6%
Average Improvement 2.22 2.75 4.00 1.00 2.17
Average score after CICP 3.09 3.35 3.48 3.43 3.53
Overall Impact 0.33 0.21 0.04 0.01 0.11
Control group Respondents 8 8 8 8 8
Average score for control group 3.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
a. Overloading
71% of the drivers perceive that there is no change in the pattern or routine of overloading by
transporters, post-computerization. 23% of drivers perceive some improvement and only 7%
perceive deterioration (by a score of 2.00). Overall shift is positive at 0.33. The average score for
the control group is 3.25, higher than the CICP score of 3.09. Thus the attitude of transporters
towards overloading post computerization has improved marginally. An improvement here
signifies that transporters are more careful now and do not overload their vehicles
indiscriminately. The presence of accurate weighing mechanisms at the check post has made
them more cautious. However, at the non-computerized check post transporters are perceived as
more careful in overloading of goods.
Page 18 of 42
b. Documentation
91% of respondents perceive no difference in the documentation provided by transporters to
them. 8% have perceived an average improvement of 2.75, with an overall positive shift of 0.21.
The average score for the control group works out to 4 which is far higher than 3.35 of CICP.
This is possibly due to simple document checking procedures at non-computerized check post as
the drivers carry Gold Cards, and Inspectors know they would only be provided the cards if their
documents were in order and up-to-date.
c. Road Tax Payments
99% of drivers perceive no difference in payment compliance of road taxes after
computerization. The average score for the CICP works out to 3.48, which is less than 4.00 of
the control group. This is again possibly due to simple document checking procedures at noncomputerized
check post.
d. License Plate Standard Compliance
99% of drivers have perceived no difference in the attitude of transporters towards compliance to
license plate norms. None of the respondents have found any deterioration in the new system
either. The average score for the CICP works out to 3.43, which is less than 4.00 of the control
group. This is also possibly due to simple checking procedures at non-computerized check post.
The computerized check posts insist on standardization as they are expected to capture the
license plate information through video cameras.
Unaccounted Collections
61% of drivers have responded that payment of 'additional' money to RTO staff continues to be
the same, post CICP. 14% have responded that they have to pay more money now giving an
average decline of 2.17, while 25% opine that CICP has resulted in an improvement by giving a
positive impact of 2.81. Overall, there is a positive shift of 0.39 in this dimension of processing
at the check post. The control group average works out to 3.33, which is slightly better than the
CICP average of 3.25. Possibly the drivers in the control group may be paying lesser additional
money, as compared to drivers passing through CICP – in the absence of accurate estimation of
weight of the trucks and other control procedures.
Almost all the drivers interviewed told the study team that an unofficial 'entry fee' of Rs. 20 to
Rs. 50 has to be paid by them irrespective of the weight of the goods being carried by them.
Once the Inspector does the weighing and penalty estimation process, the driver is given an
option to pay the 'official' or 'unofficial' sum of money (the former goes to the Government
treasuries and the latter gets unaccounted).
The table below summarizes the pattern of penalty collections at the surveyed computerized
check posts:
Penalty Amounts paid Given Receipt Unaccounted Collection
by drivers
N = 106
Over
Weight
Over
Dimension
Along with
OD or OW
penalties
In lieu of
OW or
OD
penalties
No. of Vehicles 54 (50%) 12 (11%) 15 (14%) 36 (33%)
Total Amount (Rs.) 61995 16225 570 4100
Average per vehicle (Rs) 1148 1352 38 114
It can be seen from the table that about 50% of the vehicles paid penalty for overloading and
11% of the vehicles paid penalty for over dimensioning. The average penalty per vehicle for
overloading is Rs.1148 and for over dimensioning is Rs.1352.
However, 33% of the vehicles although are either overloaded or over dimensioned, were not
charged official penalty and were let off by collecting an average of Rs.114 per vehicle, which
went unaccounted. Thus creating a clear leakage of government revenue to the extent of
Rs.1250*36 = 45,000 with a corruption amount of Rs.4, 100.
In addition to the above, unaccounted money of Rs.38 per vehicle was collected from 14% of the
vehicles, which were given official receipts for either overloading or over dimensioning. Thus
even with CICP, unaccounted money was collected from 47% of the vehicles passing through
the check post.
An interesting facet, on the use of the weigh- bridge, came into light, during the study. In the
traditional system, weighing was not an exact procedure, due to non-availability of weighbridges
at the check post. The inspectors used to stop only some suspect vehicles and estimate
the overload weight visually and by experience and collect penalty charges from them.
Page 15 of 42
With the introduction of the weighbridge, the exact weight is known for all vehicles. Neither
there is a locking mechanism (where once a vehicle gets weighed through the electronic weighbridge,
the system logs the transaction and does not permit non-payments for over loading)
existing nor is the monitoring mechanism in place. Thus, CICP has offered a greater opportunity
for 'leakage'. Inspectors now randomly bypass the system and collect a smaller 'unofficial'
amount in lieu of the large official penalty charges. Unwittingly, technology has become a useful
and perfect tool in the hands of the corrupt.
Possibly, introduction of suitable locking mechanisms and elimination of cash collection (by
using electronic means of payment like debit cards, etc.) at check posts may improve the
situation.
70% of the drivers complained that Inspectors habitually harass them (in spite of paying the due
amounts), sometimes even going to the extent of manhandling them.
61% of drivers have responded that payment of 'additional' money to RTO staff continues to be
the same, post CICP. 14% have responded that they have to pay more money now giving an
average decline of 2.17, while 25% opine that CICP has resulted in an improvement by giving a
positive impact of 2.81. Overall, there is a positive shift of 0.39 in this dimension of processing
at the check post. The control group average works out to 3.33, which is slightly better than the
CICP average of 3.25. Possibly the drivers in the control group may be paying lesser additional
money, as compared to drivers passing through CICP – in the absence of accurate estimation of
weight of the trucks and other control procedures.
Almost all the drivers interviewed told the study team that an unofficial 'entry fee' of Rs. 20 to
Rs. 50 has to be paid by them irrespective of the weight of the goods being carried by them.
Once the Inspector does the weighing and penalty estimation process, the driver is given an
option to pay the 'official' or 'unofficial' sum of money (the former goes to the Government
treasuries and the latter gets unaccounted).
The table below summarizes the pattern of penalty collections at the surveyed computerized
check posts:
Penalty Amounts paid Given Receipt Unaccounted Collection
by drivers
N = 106
Over
Weight
Over
Dimension
Along with
OD or OW
penalties
In lieu of
OW or
OD
penalties
No. of Vehicles 54 (50%) 12 (11%) 15 (14%) 36 (33%)
Total Amount (Rs.) 61995 16225 570 4100
Average per vehicle (Rs) 1148 1352 38 114
It can be seen from the table that about 50% of the vehicles paid penalty for overloading and
11% of the vehicles paid penalty for over dimensioning. The average penalty per vehicle for
overloading is Rs.1148 and for over dimensioning is Rs.1352.
However, 33% of the vehicles although are either overloaded or over dimensioned, were not
charged official penalty and were let off by collecting an average of Rs.114 per vehicle, which
went unaccounted. Thus creating a clear leakage of government revenue to the extent of
Rs.1250*36 = 45,000 with a corruption amount of Rs.4, 100.
In addition to the above, unaccounted money of Rs.38 per vehicle was collected from 14% of the
vehicles, which were given official receipts for either overloading or over dimensioning. Thus
even with CICP, unaccounted money was collected from 47% of the vehicles passing through
the check post.
An interesting facet, on the use of the weigh- bridge, came into light, during the study. In the
traditional system, weighing was not an exact procedure, due to non-availability of weighbridges
at the check post. The inspectors used to stop only some suspect vehicles and estimate
the overload weight visually and by experience and collect penalty charges from them.
Page 15 of 42
With the introduction of the weighbridge, the exact weight is known for all vehicles. Neither
there is a locking mechanism (where once a vehicle gets weighed through the electronic weighbridge,
the system logs the transaction and does not permit non-payments for over loading)
existing nor is the monitoring mechanism in place. Thus, CICP has offered a greater opportunity
for 'leakage'. Inspectors now randomly bypass the system and collect a smaller 'unofficial'
amount in lieu of the large official penalty charges. Unwittingly, technology has become a useful
and perfect tool in the hands of the corrupt.
Possibly, introduction of suitable locking mechanisms and elimination of cash collection (by
using electronic means of payment like debit cards, etc.) at check posts may improve the
situation.
70% of the drivers complained that Inspectors habitually harass them (in spite of paying the due
amounts), sometimes even going to the extent of manhandling them.
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
i. Weighing
All the drivers were unanimous is stating that they were quite satisfied with the weighbridge
provided at the check post. This is perhaps the only component in the system, which is perceived
as adding maximum value for the stakeholders. In the absence of a weighbridge, drivers often
have to go to a privately owned weighbridge, which was both cumbersome and time consuming.
Only 20% of the drivers at the non-computerized check post felt the need of a weighbridge.
Page 11 of 42
It may be noticed that 55% of 110 drivers, who responded, perceive an improvement of 2.77 in
the weighing process at CICP. 21% of the drivers expressed dissatisfaction over weighing
process after computerization, while the balance 24% noticed no difference. The weighing
procedure is clearly perceived as an improvement in the new system (an average score of 3.54)
by the drivers, with an overall impact of 1.22. This compares favorably with the control group
respondents, who have given an average score of 3.11 to the weighing process at the noncomputerized
check post.
Display of weight
The electronic display board meant for the drivers to know the overloaded weight and the
penalty due is always switched off. This complaint has been voiced by 50% of drivers
interviewed. The receipt given to them also does not carry the overloaded weight of the truck.
The drivers opine that the receipt bearing the overloaded weight can be produced as an official
document at check posts in other states, as well.
ii. Document Checking
61% of drivers have noticed no change in the checking of documents in CICP, while 13%
perceive a deterioration of 2.38. 27% of the responses indicate that there is a benefit to the
drivers to the extent of 3.00, resulting in an overall average positive impact of 0.5. The control
group respondents perceive an average score of 3.56, which is superior to the CICP average of
3.25. Most of the truck drivers in the control group possess a pre paid card (Gold Card System),
and hence document checking may not be needed.
iii. Document Depositing
In case a driver is short of money, he goes to his nearest office after depositing the vehicle
documents with the check post Inspector, and collecting the receipt. 61% of respondents find no
change in the document depositing process at CICP. 29% of the drivers found an average
improvement of 3.0, leading to an average positive impact of 0.61. The control group's average
scores are 3.38, a bit lower than CICP score of 3.42.
iv. Official receipt
64% drivers have found no difference in the issuance of official receipts in CICP. A marginal
group of 5% of respondents perceive deterioration while 30% have noticed an average
improvement of 2.91.The overall impact is 0.74. Control group respondents have given an
average score of 3.5, which is very close to the average score at CICP (3.49). Thus this
parameter is not effected, either way, due to CICP and there is no difference with the control
group, either.
v. Payment
It may be noticed that 40% of the 86 drivers, who responded, perceive no impact of CICP on
payment mode at the check post. 34% perceive an average deterioration of 2.10 in the payment
process in CICP. The overall perceived benefit is a small negative value of 0.05. The control
group is more satisfied with the manual system giving an average score of 3.38, which is slightly
above the average score of 3.00 of CCIP.
Page 12 of 42
70% of drivers perceive that the Gold Card system in Rajasthan is a hassle-free method of
collection of overload penalty. In the gold card system, the transporter pays a certain sum of
money (Rs. 3000 to Rs. 5000) at the local Road Transport Office (RTO) and is issued a Gold
Card. This card is affixed on the truck and the driver cruises through the check post, without
halting even for a minute, as the card is visible on the truck itself. This card allows the vehicle to
carry a certain overload for the validity period of the Gold Card. There are no mechanisms to
check whether the vehicle is carrying the permissible overload or more, at the check post and is
trust-based.
The Gold card system was introduced in Gujarat during 1998 and the check post revenues went
up by 80% (from Rs. 30 crores to 55 crores). Although this system minimizes the harassment of
the drivers, the government felt that it would not plug the leakage completely and thus it decided
to introduce 100% checking through computerized electronic weighbridges. However the current
payment system at CICP needs significant improvement, to enhance the customer convenience,
perhaps through electronic payment systems.
vi. Document Collection
62% of drivers find that collection of documents is the same in the new system. 29% perceive an
improvement of 3.00 and an overall positive impact is 0.67. The control group's average score
stands at 3.56, which is slightly better than the CICP average of 3.46.
Transport
Rajkot is connected to major Indian cities by Air, Railway and Road.[edit] Roads and highways
The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) runs regular buses to and fro from Rajkot to other cities of Gujarat.There are more than 81000 people who travelling daily with GSRTC. Rajkot is very well connected with Gujarat State Highways, National Highway 8 and East-West Corridor. Rajkot is allocated the vehicle registration code GJ-3 by RTO(Road and Transport Office) which is a government body. There are a number of private bus operators connecting city with Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and other states of India.[edit] Rail and bus
Rajkot Railway Station is a main railway junction of Saurashtra (region), trains for the all the major cities of India are available from here.Rajkot Municipal Corporation has restored city bus services with Public Private Partnership in 2007. RMC and a private company is providing around 80 CNG buses under 15 to 20 routs in city and suburbs. RMC is also working for Rajkot Bus Rapid Transit System (RBRTS)[30] for providing better transportation within city.[31] Rajkot has sufficient number of auto rickshaws, which are running round the clock within city, most of which are converting to CNG from petrol or diesel.
Processes at Check post
Drivers were asked to score their perceptions on each of the process parameters (presented in the
questionnaire) on a 1 to 5 scale. The difference in the score of each process parameter after
computerization and before computerization is computed for each respondent. A positive value of
such difference conveys an improvement and a negative value conveys deterioration /
dissatisfaction of the process parameter with reference to the respondent. These values are
averaged over all the respondents to obtain the overall impact of computerization on each process
parameter. The following table summarizes the analysis of observations. Sections below present
an analysis of the results of each process parameter.
Process Parameters
Perceptions Weighing Payment
Handling
Official
Receipt
Document
Checking
Document
Depositing
Document
Collection
Number of Respondents 110 86 73 64 59 58
Average SL Before CICP 2.33 3.00 2.67 2.70 2.73 2.71
% perceiving deterioration 21% 34% 5% 13% 10% 9%
Average SL deterioration (1.52) (2.10) (2.50) (2.38) (2.50) (2.40)
% perceiving no difference 24% 40% 64% 61% 61% 62%
% perceiving improvement 55% 27% 30% 27% 29% 29%
Average SL Improvement 2.77 2.45 2.91 3.00 3.00 3.00
Average SL After CICP 3.54 3.00 3.49 3.25 3.42 3.46
Overall Impact 1.22 -0.05 0.74 0.50 0.61 0.67
Control group Respondents 9 8 10 9 8 9
Average SL : control group 3.11 3.38 3.50 3.56 3.38 3.56
Note: SL refers to Satisfaction Level, which is measured over a scale of 1-5.
CICP refers to Computerized Inter State Check Post
Parentheses refer to negative value of the figures given.
As an example, the weighing process parameter (column) is explained below:
In the process parameter of weighing, the number of respondents is 110. They gave an average
satisfaction level score of 2.33 to the manual system (before CICP). Thus, 21% of 110 respondents
perceive deterioration in the weighing process. The average deterioration in satisfaction level is a
negative score of 1.52.(Subtracting the average score of before and after CICP). 24% have perceived no
difference in the weighing process, after computerization. 55% have perceived improvement in the process
and the average satisfaction level score given to this process is 2.77 (on a scale of 1 to 5) The actual
average score provided by the respondents is 3.54. Hence the overall impact of the weighing process after
CICP is a positive figure of 1.22. The number of control group respondents totaled 9 and their average
satisfaction level is 3.11 (on a scale of 1 to 5).
Based on these readings, the analysis for each process parameter is provided in the following sections.
Drivers were asked to score their perceptions on each of the process parameters (presented in the
questionnaire) on a 1 to 5 scale. The difference in the score of each process parameter after
computerization and before computerization is computed for each respondent. A positive value of
such difference conveys an improvement and a negative value conveys deterioration /
dissatisfaction of the process parameter with reference to the respondent. These values are
averaged over all the respondents to obtain the overall impact of computerization on each process
parameter. The following table summarizes the analysis of observations. Sections below present
an analysis of the results of each process parameter.
Process Parameters
Perceptions Weighing Payment
Handling
Official
Receipt
Document
Checking
Document
Depositing
Document
Collection
Number of Respondents 110 86 73 64 59 58
Average SL Before CICP 2.33 3.00 2.67 2.70 2.73 2.71
% perceiving deterioration 21% 34% 5% 13% 10% 9%
Average SL deterioration (1.52) (2.10) (2.50) (2.38) (2.50) (2.40)
% perceiving no difference 24% 40% 64% 61% 61% 62%
% perceiving improvement 55% 27% 30% 27% 29% 29%
Average SL Improvement 2.77 2.45 2.91 3.00 3.00 3.00
Average SL After CICP 3.54 3.00 3.49 3.25 3.42 3.46
Overall Impact 1.22 -0.05 0.74 0.50 0.61 0.67
Control group Respondents 9 8 10 9 8 9
Average SL : control group 3.11 3.38 3.50 3.56 3.38 3.56
Note: SL refers to Satisfaction Level, which is measured over a scale of 1-5.
CICP refers to Computerized Inter State Check Post
Parentheses refer to negative value of the figures given.
As an example, the weighing process parameter (column) is explained below:
In the process parameter of weighing, the number of respondents is 110. They gave an average
satisfaction level score of 2.33 to the manual system (before CICP). Thus, 21% of 110 respondents
perceive deterioration in the weighing process. The average deterioration in satisfaction level is a
negative score of 1.52.(Subtracting the average score of before and after CICP). 24% have perceived no
difference in the weighing process, after computerization. 55% have perceived improvement in the process
and the average satisfaction level score given to this process is 2.77 (on a scale of 1 to 5) The actual
average score provided by the respondents is 3.54. Hence the overall impact of the weighing process after
CICP is a positive figure of 1.22. The number of control group respondents totaled 9 and their average
satisfaction level is 3.11 (on a scale of 1 to 5).
Based on these readings, the analysis for each process parameter is provided in the following sections.
Truck Driver Responses
The survey instrument presented in Annexure-5 has been used for collecting responses from the
truck drivers. The section below provides the respondent profile, their perceptions in terms of
awareness, convenience, corruption, amenities, and attitude of transporters and inspectors.
Almost 90% of the drivers interviewed are below 40 years of age. Out of the 142 drivers spoken
to, 50% have a driving experience of 5 to 15 years. All of them are literate, with 60% having
attended secondary school.
50% of all the drivers interviewed were not aware that the check posts are computerized. This
includes 12 of the 16 drivers spoken to, at the non-computerized check post in Ratanpur,
Rajasthan.
The survey instrument presented in Annexure-5 has been used for collecting responses from the
truck drivers. The section below provides the respondent profile, their perceptions in terms of
awareness, convenience, corruption, amenities, and attitude of transporters and inspectors.
Almost 90% of the drivers interviewed are below 40 years of age. Out of the 142 drivers spoken
to, 50% have a driving experience of 5 to 15 years. All of them are literate, with 60% having
attended secondary school.
50% of all the drivers interviewed were not aware that the check posts are computerized. This
includes 12 of the 16 drivers spoken to, at the non-computerized check post in Ratanpur,
Rajasthan.
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
| Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| current | 13:57, 11 April 2010 |  | 2,170×1,722 (362 KB) | Chumwa | (== {{int:filedesc}} == {{Information |Description= {{de|Postionskarte von Gujarat}} Quadratische Plattkarte. Geographische Begrenzung der Karte: * N: 24°49'00" N (24.8167°N) * S: 19°57'00" N (19.9500°N) * W: 68°00'00" O (68.0000°O) *) |
File links
More than 100 pages link to this file. The following list shows the first 100 page links to this file only. A full list is available.
- Gujarat
- Lothal
- Gandhinagar
- Ahmedabad
- Surat
- Porbandar
- Vadodara
- Nadiad
- Ankleshwar
- Bharuch
- Alang
- Dahod
- Godhra
- Junagadh
- Rajkot
- Barbodhan
- Somnath
- Bhuj
- Dwarka
- Sabarmati Ashram
- Kandla
- Bopal
- Mehsana
- Kheda
- Bhavnagar
- Dandi, Gujarat
- Patan, Gujarat
- Anjar, India
- Limbdi
- Jamnagar
- Dakor
- Dholka City
- Valsad
- Vallabhi
- Vallabh Vidhyanagar
- Mandvi
- Idar
- Anand, Gujarat
- Surendranagar district
- Rajpipla
- Ahwa
- Vapi
- Modasa
- Khambhat
- Palitana
- Palanpur
- Umreth
- Akrund
- Sinugra
- Malpur
- Bhachau
- Himatnagar
- Dabhoi
- Morvi
- Gandhidham
- Naroda
- Amreli
- Navsari
- Vadodara district
- Valsad district
- Mahisa
- Vasad
- Bansda
- Bardoli
- Jessore Sloth Bear Sanctuary
- Gondal, India
- Dhrangadhra
- Radhanpur
- Padra
- Sanand
- Saputara
- Pardi
- Ambaji
- Bhadran
- Veraval
- Madhapar
- Manavadar
- Sun Temple, Modhera
- Kutiyana
- Ahmedabad Cantonment
- Template talk:Infobox Indian jurisdiction
- Borsad
- Sayan, India
- Vadgam
- Aadityana
- Aambaliyasan
- Aantaliya
- Arambhada
- Abrama
- Adalaj
- Andada
- Anklav
- Bagasara
- Bajva
- Bavla
- Bhanvad
- Bhayavadar
- Bilimora
- Bodeli
- Botad
Monday, February 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)