Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ULHASNAGAR CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DRAFT FINAL REPORT ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CONTENTS CDP OVERVIEW CITY PROFILE EXISTING PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES AND PROPOSALS COMMENTS CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN • CDP defines the perspective and reflects the vision for the future development of a city • It indicates: • Where the City is now? • Where it wants to go? – vision, goals • What are its priorities? • How can it reach there? • What interventions are required? CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN • The CDP would provide a framework for the vision within which projects can be identified and implemented • The goal of CDP is to create an economically productive, efficient, equitable, and responsive cities. • A CDP would create a structure bringing accountability and transparency • Provide the basis for cities to undertake urban sector reforms and help direct investment into city infrastructure CDP OBJECTIVES • To focus attention to integrated development of infrastructural services in the cities covered under the Mission. • To secure effective linkages between asset creation and asset management so that the infrastructural services created in the cities are not only maintained efficiently but also become self- sustaining over time. • To Ensure adequate investment of funds to fulfill deficiencies in the urban infrastructural services. CDP OBJECTIVES • To plan development of the city including peri-urban areas, out growths, urban corridors, so that urbanization takes place in a dispersed manner. • Scale up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities with emphasis on universal access to urban poor. • To take up urban renewal programme, i.e., re-development of inner (old) cities area to reduce congestion. CDP PROCESS URBAN LOCALBODY CDP + CIP Detailed Project Reports DPR Central & State Governments Implementation of Reforms Funds Infrastructure Upgrade CITY DEVELOPMENT CDP PROCESS Ulhasnagar being in MMR Region Central & Share of funds in % for City’s development State Governments Central State ULB Government Government 35 % 15 % 50% Funds The City Assessment Parameters SWOT and Unmet •Demography C demand/Gap •Economic Base •Financial •Physical Environment D Future Perspective and •Infrastructure Mission •Institutions P Multi- •Univerasalization of Stakeholder Direction of Change and services especially for the Consultation expectation poor Sector/ Components P Strategies and Development Options and Strategies •Environmental Services R •Social Infrastructure •Urban Renewal •Slum improvement and O Link with Reform Agenda housing for EWS •Transport and Road C Services of the Urban Poor Criteria for Prioritization E SS City Investment Plan & Financial Alternatives CITY PROFILE DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS Year Population Increase % Increase Incremental increase 1961 107760 1971 168462 60702 56.33 1981 273668 105206 62.45 44504 1991 369077 95409 34.86 -9797 2001 473731 104654 28.36 9245 Average 91342 Geometric mean= 0.43 14450 500000 450000 473731 400000 350000 369077 300000 273668 250000 200000 150000 168462 100000 10 776 0 50000 0 19 6 1 19 71 19 8 1 19 9 1 2 0 0 1 POPULATION DENSITY • Ward # 2, 6, 15, 20, 21 and 22 are densely populated, having Gross density of 600 persons per hectare and above. • These wards has structures having FSI up to 4 and above. • Slum pockets also contribute in the undesirable density in these wards • Wards 10,11,12 and 13 are the ones with least density with density less than 300 persons per hectare. POPULATION PROJECTIONS Population Population Method Method Year Population Density in PPH Year Population Density in PPH 2001 473731 355.1 2001 473731 355.1 Geometric 2011 678013 508.3 Incremental 2011 579524 434.4 Progression 2021 970385 727.4 increase 2021 699769 524.6 2031 1351564 1013.2 2031 834463 625.5 2001 473731 355.1 2001 473731 360.5 Revised Arithmetical 2011 565074 423.6 Projection 2011 570483 434.2 Progression 2021 656417 492.1 Ward wise 2021 666645 507.3 Assessment 2031 747759 560.5 2031 751333 571.8 1600000 Arithmetical progression 1400000 Geometric prog Incremental increase 1200000 Final-Final Projections 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 POPULATION PROJECTIONS Assumptions • Population figures from Incremental Increase Method is taken for projecting population, as the actual population figures for the year 2005 were matching with the projected population of 2005. • Population projections are based 1991 and 2001 population figures for 25 panels. • Average growth rate of 1.00% is considered for projecting population, in panels where the gross density reached its carrying capacity of 600 pph • Population were freeze in wards where the gross density reached 1000 pph, as the development beyond which it is not practicable to provide a minimum quality of life considering existing conditions and development norms. POPULATION PROJECTIONS PROJECTION FIGURES Year Population Gross Density 2001 473731 360.5 2011 570483 434.2 2021 666645 507.3 2031 751333 571.8 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 EXISTING CITY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTING SITUATION W •Total Supply – 120 MLD A T •16 Zones (North-7 & South-9) E R •Number of connections – 54,532 Domestic- 52,081 (99,152 hh 2001) Non domestic- 2,312 S Special- 139 U P •Total losses 27.5% P L •Actual per capita supply 183 lpcd Y PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE MAJOR ISSUES W • Old Distribution Systems A • Incomplete water storage tanks T E • Higher level topography R • Water leakages S • Illegal water tap connections Gross Gross Existing Required GAP GAP Year Population Demand Supply Storage Storage U (MLD) (ML) (MLD) (MLD) (ML) (ML) P 2007 541,012 114.91 120 -5.09 23.54 38.30 14.76 P 2011 570483 121.17 120 1.17 23.54 40.39 16.85 L 2016 618155 131.30 120 11.30 23.54 43.77 20.23 Y 2021 666645 141.60 120 21.60 23.54 47.20 23.66 2026 712636 151.36 120 31.36 23.54 50.45 26.91 2031 751333 159.58 120 39.58 23.54 53.19 29.65 PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE S EXISTING SITUATION E • Underground Drainage System 0 35 150 150 Constructed by MJP in 1994 & 15 150 0 0 W 45 1 50 3 5 0 1 7 5 1 0 50 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 3 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 transferred to UMC 50 5 5 1 1 250 1 0 5 0 50 1 1 0 2 E 5 50 1 5 5 0 3 0 1 5 0 15 5 0 0 0 15 700 2 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 1 4 5 0 2 0 1 5 00 5 0 1 2 0 50 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 9 0 5 5 1 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 5 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 250 1 50 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 5 1 5 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 6 0 50 0 3 3 0 0 R 0 2 7 50 50 1 1 15 0 5 0 0 5 0 25 2 15 150 0 00 0 6 50 50 2 • Collection Network: 150 to 1000 0 0 20 0 150 0 0 1 0 50 0 1 5 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 50 2 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 4 0 1 5 0 0 5 900 1 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 3 A 5 15 5 0 0 5 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 250 5 200 5 1 1 0 1 1 15 mm diameter RCC Sewer Line = 00 1 5 8 30 0 0 5 250 30 0 200 0 25 150 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 15 200 1 0 3 1 0 2 5 5 0 2 0 1 0 0 00 20 0 0 5 0 2 3 2 0 1 5 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 2 0 5 150 0 2 2 0 0 5 200 150 150 00 5 1 1 0 1 0 5 2 2 0 5 0 50 5 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 0 5 1 G 120 km 1 200 3 50 0 1 0 2 50 2 0 1 00 0 0 15 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 200 0 5 0 2 1 3 1 1 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 15 5 20 0 1 150 0 1 E 5 5 2 1 1 0 0 5 150 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 1 0 5 2 1 700 0 1 5 0 0 5 150 4 0 0 2 0 3 00 0 1 00 5 4 0 0 • 2 Pumping Stations 5 1 1 0 50 5 1 1 0 0 5 2 4 0 5 0 0 20 200 50 0 4 5 1 0 5 1 0 0 5 150 0 1 6 200 2 0 150 0 150 150 0 250 00 0 50 2 3 50 1 0 1 0 0 50 150 2 0 1 1 S 3 150 9 5 0 150 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 5 0 6 2 5 3 3 50 1 0 0 0 0 150 1 0 50 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 5 2 0 5 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 15 1 5 50 50 1 0 5 2 1 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 2 2 1 1 5 00 150 1 5 1 1 8 1 5 5 0 0 50 0 1 0 0 5 00 0 50 2 2 0 5 1 0 • 1 STP with 28 MLD Capacity 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 1 50 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 5 50 50 150 Y 1 1 1 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 15 50 0 1 0 200 2 5 2 5 150 0 1 0 2 0 5 0 5 0 50 0 1 0 5 1 150 1 1 6 Sewerage network complete.shp 2 5 1 150 150 50 5 0 0 1 2 0 4 1 150 5 1 0 50 0 5 0 5 2 5 15 0 0 2 0 150 0 150 50 1 50 1 50 1 1 50 3 2 5 150 00 0 0 2 0 2 0 00 5 200 1 50 400 0 15 1 1 30 45 0 5 50 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 250 5 0 5 2 0 50 1 0 1 1 5 1 2 5 5 5 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 5 00 1 0 S 5 3 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 5 4 300 5 0 0 0 0 50 1 2 5 1 0 5 5 1 5 0 0 1 0 350 0 5 1 1 2 5 1 5 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 • Sewage treated currently: 7-8 15 0 50 300 0 400 1 0 200 2 0 5 2 150 5 50 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 5 5 450 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 50 5 0 11 1 5 5 50 5 0 0 1 1 500 5 1 0 T 1 5 1 0 5 00 2 1 0 2 00 5 50 0 1 600 1 1 1 5 0 25 5 5 5 0 1 0 150 0 1 0 1 5 1 5 0 5 MLD 700 1 0 0 5 3 0 2 00 5 00 0 2 2 800 5 2 0 0 0 0 900 35 E 1000 25 wards.shp M PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE S MAJOR ISSUES E • Lines are old & depilated causing regular choking.