Changspa Street Redevelopment

Activity: Meeting with stakeholders for redevelopment of Changspa Street Date: June 21, 2018
Location: LAHDC Meeting Hall
Participants: 22

Facilitator(s): LEDeG

1. Objective: To update the stakeholders about the Changspa street redevelopment plans
2. Summary Agenda:

Time Activity PiC 3:30 PM Welcome speech CEC LAHDC 3:40 PM Presentation on redevelopment work on Changspa Street Smanla Dorjey/ Prithvi Aravind 4:00 PM Concerns/feedback from the stakeholders/residents
4:30 PM Administrative discussion 5:00 PM Vote of thanks CEC LAHDC

1. Summary of Results:  For the two schools in main Leh area that contribute largely to mobility issues/traffic congestion: o MP suggests to the DC to persuade Mission School to move – if not completely, then the primary section be kept in the market school, while other higher sections must move to the land allocated to them
2. in order to reduce congestion etc on the street of Lamdon School no school buses be allowed to come through the market and an alternate route must be used by the Lamdon School buses
3. Concerns/questions raised by the MP, MLA: Was there a survey done for the parked cars on Changspa Street – whether they belonged to residents/shop keepers/guests at restaurants, shops etc?
4. Parking cars issue will have to be addressed and an option for parking will have to be provided o Material to be used for the pavements
5. Most durable and cost efficient options have to be considered and taken o Material for road to be used o Measures taken for bikers on street who ride recklessly and will be a hazard for pedestrians? Concerns of Changspa community members: Apart from one woman representative who was extremely agreeable to the idea of one way and the focus on pedestrianization of the street, most members seemed opposed to it

Members of the street have faced business losses due to the constant on-going works and dug up streets for the past over two years and delay in work is a great hindrance. Their only concern is the work should happen quickly and make Changspa street working again as quickly as possible. o Health concerns for shopkeepers – who have been facing constant dust for over two years now o Protection of and making for inlet/outlet of the irrigation channels in the stretch for redevelopment
 accounting for it in the design plan o Measures taken for big vehicles (like tipper etc) that will be used to bring in materials etc at places of construction
 a turning radius will be provided and bollards will be placed accordingly
Hazard of rash bike riders for pedestrians – since pavement will be at the same level
 bollards will not deter bike riders from going on the pavement o One-way in the winter too
 persons will have to travel all around, an additional 2-3 kms If we’re talking about removing poles from the street – will the underground electricity cabling happen along with this redevelopment implementation?  Administrative Discussions: The DC reassured the Changspa street members that all their concerns will be addressed as far as possible by the administration o No provision for underground cabling in this plan – will have to be discussed and decided at a later stage o Final decisions have to be taken now – in principal MP & MLA give a go ahead for the plan. Funding needs to be sorted. o MP asks the time duration for tendering and work implementation
 to keep in mind that Changspa street members are now very agitated and frustrated after over two years of continuous roadwork going on MP requests the Administration to submit a detailed cost estimate – will look for CSR funds MLA suggests the administration to look for the “flood” funds from the center that are not allocated to Ladakh