Shortfalls of the Kadri Park Road Development Project by MSCL Discussed by AAP with Officials

Spread the love

Shortfalls of the Kadri Park Road Development Project by Mangaluru Smart City Limited (MSCL) Discussed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) members with Concerned Officials of MSCL

Mangaluru: Aam Aadmi Party members, under the leadership of Er Rajendra Kumar-President of Dakshina Kannada-AAP joined by AAP members Walter Menezes and Ms Bennet Crasta put forth the shortfalls of the Kadri Park Road Development project undertaken by Mangaluru Smart City Ltd (MSCL) during a meeting held at MSCL conference hall, which was attended by Er Arun Prabha K S- General Manager (Technical)-MSCL; Ar Venkatesh Pai- of Pailands Corporation, Mangaluru the Architect of the project; Er Deeksha Rai- Assistant Engineer-MSCL; Er Sabik Mohammed- Assistant Executive Engineer-MSCL; Er Linge Gowda- Executive Engineer-MSCL; and Ms Mamatha- MSCL Admin Manager.

The Points Discussed between MSCL executive members and AAP members were :

A) Thoroughfare Closure of Road, Traffic Movements:

a) Page 17 of 235 DPR, Concept Note for Roads, Points 2 : Join two parks by creating a central plaza (With Pedestrian access only) between the parks b) MOM at DC office on 08-06-2020. c) AEC Letter dated 23-02-21 – Thoroughfare road is still pending AND not conveyed to Architect d) Page 228 to 232, Traffic survey: Page 230 {1350+450+1100=2900} & {850+250+700=2300} Page 234/235 – Project Risk assessment; 1-Closure of thoroughfare Road; states that MCC shall take effect for road user change through appropriate measures

AAP Concerns:

Because of the road closure for thoroughfare, there is significant increase in traffic at KPT junction. An increase of 4 to 6 vehicles per minute is expected at KPT. AAP requested for the existing traffic capacity studies at the KPT junction and the traffic studies because of the Kadri park road closure for thoroughfare.

AAP also mentioned that in an event conclusion at the park, will result in the exit of 80 vehicles from east plaza road to NHAI and will result in complete chaos at the junction and thus result in the accidents. The MSCL design results in the accident spot at Padua junction.

MSCL response:

MSCL informed AAP that there is discussion going on with various parties/departments/ regarding the thoroughfare closure. Original idea of thoroughfare is intact and is valid. However, a few issues need to be sorted out and MSCL is working on it.

MSCL took note of the additional increase of Traffic at KPT junction. MSCL also informed that there is discussion with NHAI to overcome the traffic congestion at KPT.

MSCL clarified that the only exit from east plaza is through the NH only. Therefore, MSCL had discussed this issue with NHAI. It is agreed with NHAI that NHAI will provide service roads on both sides of NH66 from KPT junction to Nanthoor junction. The issue will get addressed there upon. Until such time, the issue will remain.

B) PARKING :

TC Meeting on 21-03-2019: Smart parking details to be developed along with line items and rates validated through competitive quotes.TC Meeting on 21-03-2019: Suitable implementation plan & O&M plan shall be documented in the DPR Page 233 of 235 DPR, Bus parking -10 Nos, 4 wheeler Parking 134 Nos – & 2 Wheeler parking 164 Nos

AAP View:

AAP brought to MSCL attention that the bus parking provided on the east plaza does not take account of the turning radius of buses (12m to outer tyre) and hence bus parking as shown in drawing is not feasible. Also, with the space available it is not possible for buses to get in/get out of bus park. Further, there is no place for the bus to take reverse on the road. (Refer to the dotted circle in the drawing)

MSCL response:

MSCL noted the observation. It opined that there is enough place to park the bus with the 12m turning radius. However, MSCL agreed to revisit the design and do the necessary changes as required to address the concern. MSCL clarified that the only place where the bus can reverse is at the Jogi Mutt entrance and confirmed that this is the only place for reversing and is enough for the same.

C) Storm Water Drainage (SWD):

i) Storm water Drainage on East Plaza Side
ii) Desiltation & Silt traps
iii) Top slab thickness of 250mm for the SWD
iv) Rain water harvesting and groundwater discharge

AAP Concerns:

AAP wanted to know from MSCL whether stormwater discharge/drainage calculation taking rainfall/surface runoff/other parameters have been considered in the design. AAP brought to MSCL attention that the Storm water drainage on east plaza side caters only for draining of the water from private property (Jogi Mutt). The provision of a whole drain for one private property is not justified (expected drain cost of 30 lakhs). In reality only one exit point should have been provided. (Refer to the rectangle on the drg)

AAP asked MSCL to confirm the provision of Desiltation Silt traps. The provision of 250mm thickness for the SWD is over design as the loading is limited to pedestrian only

MSCL response:

MSCL confirmed that drainage calculation has been carried out taking the rainfall/surface runoff and other parameters into account and are available.
MSCL noted the observation on storm water drainage on east plaza. MSCL confirms that a desiltation facility is available at west plaza & east plaza side but not silt trap. MSCL clarified that 250mm thickness is required from the 4 wheeler loading and also for the bus park. MSCL clarified that they verified the subsoil strata at three locations and found the laterite soil layer for a depth of 1.8m. Hence rain water harvesting is not feasible.

D) Horticulture Department:

i) Entrance to Kadri Park for materials traffic

AAP Concerns:

AAP brought to MSCL attention that as the central plaza is meant for pedestrians only, the Horticulture department will have problems in moving in/out their materials. AAP took this subject to the Horticulture Senior Director and mentioned to MSCL that they have no idea of the development going on. AAP expressed concern that the interdepartmental meetings are not to the project requirements

MSCL response:

MSCL responded stating that interdepartmental meetings are happening at regular intervals. Further, MSCL has earmarked one gate near the east plaza side (adjacent to the ramp) and also on the lane near the marriage hall for the kadri fountain park entry is being proposed by MSCL to address the materials movement.

E) CYCLE TRACK :

i) MSCL DPR mentions dedicated cycle tracks at East Plaza, central Plaza; West Plaza
ii) There are many minutes of meetings where dedicated cycle tracks are mentioned.
iii) The latest GFC drawings shows only cycle park on west plaza with no dedicated cycle tracks

AAP Concerns:

The DPR’s various meeting minutes refer to dedicated cycle tracks while the latest GFC drawings show only cycle parks. MSCL to justify the change in scope of work for the dedicated cycle track.

MSCL response:

MSCL responded stating that though originally it was planned but now it is not feasible to provide a dedicated cycle track for west, central & East plaza. Public can use the roads only for cycling and only parking is needed.

F) Solar Power :

i) MSCL has a separate project called Solar roof top for public buildings

AAP Concerns:

Number of shops are being erected at the west as well as East Plaza. AAP wanted to see MSCL utilising the space available for solar power? If not why.

MSCL response:

MSCL responded stating that the space is not conducive for solar power generation as it has a lot of green cover and hence roof area for exposure to sunlight is less. Hence Solar power is not planned.

G) Physically Challenged society requirements:

AAP Concerns:

Physically challenged sections of society are an integral part of our society. Their needs should be addressed compassionately. AAP sought explanation from
MSCL to this effect.

MSCL response:

MSCL responded stating that the physically challenged sections requirements are well taken care of. There are reserved parking lots for them. Also wherever

H) Safety of the Visitors

AAP Concerns:

AAP brought to MSCL attention that based on the DPR, daily visitors of about 5000 are expected. There will be senior citizens, women; children whose safety is of utmost importance. There is no reference to the safety aspects in the DPR/project documents. AAP demanded an explanation from MSCL on this.

MSCL response:

MSCL responded stating that the safety of visitors is being addressed by providing CCTV at various locations. But this is being done as a part of another MSCL project. Hence it is not being mentioned here.

I) Shops

AAP Concerns:

i)AAP brought to MSCL attention that there is no vehicular access to any of the shops. So all shop vendors have to park their vehicles on the main road/parking lots and then physically carry it to their shops. AAP discussed this aspect with the current shop vendors at the location who expressed their unhappiness at these arrangements. AAP sought an explanation for these arrangements.

Ii} AAP sought explanation for the disposal of solid waste from the Shops and also the used water
disposal.

MSCL response:

MSCL responded stating that this is the only way that this can be done. Vehicular access for the shop vendors can not be provided as it hampers flooring. MSCL gave an example wherein any shop owner in a commercial complex will park his vehicle at a distance and physically carry his items to shop. Regarding used water disposal, MSCL clarified that the used water is being directed to underground drainage. Regarding the solid waste disposal, it needs to be collected separately and disposed through collection system

J) Scope of work in the DPR

AAP Concerns:

i)There is reference to various aspects such as – Walking/jogging/yoga/children play area/picnics/nature watching-birds,fishes,butterflies etc. However, the project document does not address any of this.

MSCL response:

MSCL stated that DPR presents the scope as a complete amalgamation of kadri park, central road and the kadri fountain park on the other side and is to be seen in totality. The DPR reference needs to be looked at from this aspect not from the road development only.

Click Here To View More Photos


Spread the love

2 Comments

  1. The world st design, plan and probably a ******** looks better. No proper parking the width of the road should have been left for 3 vehicles to pass so incase if there is a breakdown, vehicular traffic wouldn’t cause a jam. The current width for just 2 autorickshaws (literally) looks like all *****eers got a certificate like the Entire political science. 😂😂😂

Comments are closed.