Amidst urban growth, equipping cities with the most optimal, cost-efficient, and effective mass rapid transport systems is imperative
In 2021, India recorded an urbanisation rate of 1.34 percent, marking a year-on-year increase of 1.5 percent. The country’s urban population, currently pegged at 475 million, is projected to witness an additional influx of 416 million by 2050. Its 475 cities with 0.1 million-plus population contribute nearly 63 percent to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is projected to rise to 75 percent by 2030.
The efficient functioning of these urban areas is thus paramount for India's sustained economic growth. The projected urban growth necessitates accommodating the anticipated surge in population, managing industrial and commercial development, and recognising the evolving role of cities as service hubs for their rural surroundings. Equipping cities with the most optimal, cost-efficient, and effective mass rapid transport systems is imperative.
Enhanced standard of living and the increased affordability of personal modes of transportation across various income strata have contributed to the proliferation of private automobiles. Consequently, this surge in private vehicle ownership has given rise to many transportation challenges—traffic congestion, elevated occurrences of road accidents, suboptimal travel experiences during peak hours, and adverse environmental impacts, to name a few.
The projected urban growth necessitates accommodating the anticipated surge in population, managing industrial and commercial development, and recognising the evolving role of cities as service hubs for their rural surroundings.
Historically, India has witnessed a discernible lack of emphasis on sustainable transportation, with strategies frequently prioritising private vehicular movement at the expense of efficient mass transportation. This prevailing paradigm led to an undue concentration on private automobile usage, diverting attention from the potential efficacy of a robust public transport system as a viable alternative capable of alleviating transportation externalities.
However, the pivotal turning point came with the introduction of the National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) in 2006, which, for the first time, attempted to address urban transport issues. It aimed at ensuring safe, affordable, expeditious, comfortable, reliable, and sustainable transportation for the growing urban population to employment, education, recreation, and other essential services. NUTP also catalysed the focused implementation of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), instituted a year earlier, with the primary objective of promoting governance reforms and expediting planned urban development. The mission strategically focused on enhancing urban infrastructure efficiency, improving service delivery mechanisms, fostering community participation, and reinforcing accountability of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and parastatal agencies to citizens.
JNNURM’s framework involved the formulation of Comprehensive Mobility Plans (CMP) by all the mission cities. CMP was conceptualised as a strategic transportation blueprint aligned with the city’s spatial Development Plan (DP) or Master Plan (MP) to define long-term accessibility and mobility patterns for people and goods within the urban agglomeration. They prioritised efficient mobility of individuals and facilitated the optimal utilisation of existing infrastructure, including public transport, pedestrian, and non-motorised transport (NMT) facilities. CMPs, slated to be developed by 500 cities, encompassed operational efficiency of paratransit and public transport systems, achieving network completion, preserving pedestrian-oriented characteristics of the city, curbing urban sprawl, and mitigating environmental degradation. Such an approach necessitated land use and transport development integration. To aid ULBs in formulating CMPs, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) devised a toolkit in 2008, revised in 2014. In 2016, in line with India’s climate commitments, it released the Toolkit for Preparation of Low Carbon Mobility Plan.
CMPs, slated to be developed by 500 cities, encompassed operational efficiency of paratransit and public transport systems, achieving network completion, preserving pedestrian-oriented characteristics of the city, curbing urban sprawl, and mitigating environmental degradation
While most cities followed the MoHUA guidelines, substantial gaps exist between the planning processes and the substantive content of these plans. Besides deficient stakeholder and community collaborations during the plan preparation process, they also suffered from a lack of clarity in defining the vision and objectives of the plans. Most CMPs incorporated aspirational terms such as “inclusive,” “safe,” “reliable,” “integrated,” “sustainable,” and “efficient” and focused on the “Prioritisation of public transit,” “Low carbon Mobility,” “Reduction of travel demand,” “Strengthening of Non-Motorised Transport (NMT) infrastructure,” and “Creating reliable multimodal transport systems.” However, despite these articulated goals, the plans fail to provide practically implementable strategies for their realisation.
Moreover, the cities failed to establish linkages, strategic alignment and integration of CMPs with other city planning documents, such as the 20-year MPs and DPs. For instance, the Development Plan 2035, prepared by the Surat Development Authority and the Comprehensive Mobility Plan 2046, prepared for the city by CEPT University, are presented as distinct documents, resulting in inconsistencies in their respective proposals. This lack of coordination raises concerns regarding the seamless integration of transportation strategies with broader urban development initiatives.
The sectoral examination of CMPs reveals how all cities have failed to recommend the provision of necessary institutional arrangements and infrastructure for NMT. They also ignore hawkers, who are an integral component of roadside infrastructure.
The cities failed to establish linkages, strategic alignment and integration of CMPs with other city planning documents, such as the 20-year MPs and DPs.
CMPs either inadequately address or altogether omit crucial aspects such as the safety and security of users, universal accessibility, enhancement of the quality of the existing public transport system, integration of public and paratransit systems, improvement of accessibility to public transport systems, promotion of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in mobility solutions, parking management and the transition towards sustainable fuel sources.
CMPs serve as a visionary framework for transport within a city. They delineate potential strategies and projects to transform urban transport infrastructure. However, the comprehensiveness of its coverage across all sectors within the urban transport system is pivotal. It necessitates the development of distinct plans tailored to individual sub-systemic plans, such as NMT, parking management, Transit-Oriented Development, Urban Freight Mobility, etc. These sub-systemic plans are imperative for a nuanced understanding of the specific interventions required to operationalise the proposed strategies effectively.
Furthermore, the successful execution of these plans demands the expertise of ULBs in comprehending existing challenges and translating the proposed strategies into tangible urban projects. Consequently, a critical need arises for capacity-building and training initiatives for municipal officials to equip them with the requisite knowledge and skills to navigate the intricacies of implementing the proposed measures in real-world urban contexts.
The successful execution of these plans demands the expertise of ULBs in comprehending existing challenges and translating the proposed strategies into tangible urban projects.
To enhance the efficacy of the urban planning process, cities must foster more comprehensive engagement with both the community and experts. Such a participatory approach must include focused group discussions conducted at various planning and implementation phases. Furthermore, the ULBs must regularly disseminate pertinent plan information in easily understandable documents and brochures to ensure broad participation and engagement with diverse user groups, fostering a more inclusive and informed interaction with the city's urban transport plan.
CMPs must be intricately aligned with all the other pertinent plans, policies, and strategies to avoid isolated functioning and contribute comprehensively to the overarching vision for the city. Furthermore, it is inevitable to review CMPs at regular and uniform intervals to systematically gauge the city's progress towards the ultimate objectives of sustainable transportation. Lastly, the procedural framework of the CMPs must have legislative and legal support to ensure their effective implementation and foster a sustainable trajectory for urban mobility.
Nandan Dawda is a Fellow with the Urban Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr Nandan H Dawda is a Fellow with the Urban Studies programme at the Observer Research Foundation. He has a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering and ...
Read More +
PREV
