In 2021, India experienced an urbanisation rate of 1.34 percent, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 1.5 percent. Notably, India has surpassed China to become the most populous nation globally, with its urban population reaching approximately 475 million. Projections suggest that by 2050, approximately 68 percent of the global population will reside in urban areas, with India expected to witness an urban influx of 416 million individuals. The exponential population growth of India is shown in Figure 1.
India is home to nearly 475 cities, each with a population exceeding 100,000. These cities contribute approximately 63 percent to India’s gross domestic product (GDP), a proportion likely to rise to 75 percent by 2030. The operational efficiency of these urban areas is vital for sustaining India’s economic growth, as any inefficiencies may impede the country’s development trajectory.
Rapid urbanisation has led to various challenges, including overcrowding, housing shortages, the proliferation of slums, environmental pollution, inadequate water supply and sanitation, social inequality, poverty, traffic congestion, and deficiencies in urban transportation infrastructure.
Viewed specifically from an urban transportation perspective, urbanisation, along with an increase in consumers’ purchasing capacity, has led to a rise in the number of vehicles per 1,000 urban residents from nine during the period 1961‒1965 to 402 in 2011‒2015. Additionally, the number of vehicles per 1,000 members of the working population in India has also increased, from three in 1961‒1965 to 197 in 2011‒2015. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2: Vehicles per 1,000 Population to Working and Urban Populations in India
This has led to negative externalities, including road congestion, increased traffic accidents, a shortage of parking spaces, poor air quality in urban areas, insufficient infrastructure for non-motorised transport, and an inadequate public transportation system. In many Indian cities, the prevailing urban transport planning approach — which has focused on constructing flyovers, managing traffic flow, improving junctions, and developing rapid transit systems — is a key contributing factor for this scenario. This strategy has led to a fragmented and unsustainable urban transport system, characterised by short-term, reactive, and piecemeal solutions. Consequently, Indian cities continue to face persistent mobility challenges, necessitating a more holistic and sustainable approach to urban transport planning.
Despite comprehensive mobility plans (CMPs) being the prerequisite for receiving Central funding for infrastructure development over a decade, their practical efficacy remains poorly studied across cities. With this background, the present study seeks to evaluate the CMPs of seven Indian cities and address the following questions:
This paper aims to analyse and evaluate urban transport planning documents, specifically CMPs, to assess their strategic alignment, content, and implementation readiness. The focus is on document-based analysis instead of empirical investigation. While the inclusion of primary data from stakeholder consultations could offer additional depth, such data collection falls outside the defined scope and methodological framework of this study. This approach was intentionally adopted to maintain consistency in evaluating planning documents across multiple cities using secondary sources. Future research could build upon this study by incorporating stakeholder perspectives to further enrich the understanding of institutional dynamics and ground-level challenges in CMP implementation.
Historically, transportation policies in India have prioritised vehicular movement over the development of efficient and user-centric transport systems. This approach has led to an overemphasis on private vehicle use, neglecting the potential benefits of a well-integrated and efficient public transportation system in mitigating transport-related externalities. Figure 3 shows the various urban transport planning initiatives taken by the Indian government.
Figure 3: Evolution of Urban Transport Planning in India
The first landmark mission dedicated to addressing urban issues was the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), launched in 2005. The Mission strategically emphasised enhancing urban infrastructure efficiency, improving service delivery mechanisms, fostering community participation, and strengthening the accountability of urban local bodies (ULBs) and parastatal agencies in ensuring sustainable urban mobility.
Following the JNNURM, the National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP), 2006 introduced a shift in urban transport planning. Its primary objective was to facilitate safe, affordable, efficient, comfortable, reliable, and sustainable access to employment, education, recreational facilities, and essential services for the rapidly expanding urban population.
A key reform introduced under the JNNURM was the development of a CMP by each city. A CMP is a strategic framework for improving urban transportation by enhancing accessibility and mobility for both individuals and goods, designed in coordination with a city’s spatial development plan.
The primary objective of a CMP is to optimise the mobility pattern of people and goods instead of focusing solely on vehicles. It aims to address urban transport challenges by promoting efficient mobility while optimising the utilisation of existing infrastructure and improvements in public transportation systems, pedestrian pathways, and facilities for non-motorised transport (NMT). It seeks to enhance the efficiency of public and paratransit systems, ensure network connectivity, preserve pedestrian-friendly urban environments, control urban sprawl, and mitigate environmental degradation. It calls for integrating land use and transport planning, a fundamental requirement to advance the concept of smart cities.
In line with this initiative, approximately 500 cities are set to develop their respective CMPs. To support ULBs in formulating effective mobility plans, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) in 2008 introduced a toolkit for CMP preparation, which was subsequently revised in 2014. Additionally, in 2016, it introduced “A Toolkit for the Preparation of Low Carbon Mobility Plans” to further strengthen sustainable urban mobility strategies. MoHUA also introduced the “Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Preparation of Comprehensive Mobility Plans (CMPs)” as a directive to enhance the formulation of CMPs for Indian cities. The Terms of Reference outline a detailed five-stage methodology for preparing these plans (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Methodology Flowchart for CMP Preparation
Despite these measures, the CMPs of several Indian cities highlight massive gaps in their formulation and implementation. Most of these plans are developed in isolation, with limited integration into broader city master plans. Furthermore, they often follow a generic approach, resulting in a lack of customisation and adaptation to specific urban contexts. These CMPs fail to establish effective mechanisms for multimodal integration and propose realistic funding strategies and implementation frameworks.
Other challenges include reliance on outdated and incomplete data, non-compliance with national guidelines, and absence of a robust governance mechanism for on-ground execution. For instance, in Nagpur, although the CMP outlines mass rapid transit corridors and intelligent traffic systems, the implementation remains fragmented due to delays in state-level approvals and lack of institutional clarity. Similarly, in Bhubaneswar, the expansion of the Cuttack Ring Road has seen slow progress despite being identified in the CMP, mainly due to interagency coordination issues, and procedural delays in land acquisition and environmental clearances.
In Chennai, metro expansion under Phase 2 has been delayed by terrain and execution complexities, which are further exacerbated by institutional silos and the absence of a single-point coordination agency. In Greater Kochi, meanwhile, despite the operationalisation of the Water Metro, the draft CMP recommends enhancements to the bus system, which are yet to be implemented due to weak institutional capacity and lack of coordinated implementation strategies.
This paper evaluates the CMPs of seven Indian cities: Ahmedabad, Surat, Greater Kochi, Nagpur, Bhubaneswar, Hyderabad, and Chennai. It will offer policy recommendations to enhance urban transport planning in India, focusing on improving the formulation of CMPs.
The selection of seven cities as case studies was based on the need to encompass typological heterogeneity and geographical representativeness while ensuring the accessibility of essential data for a rigorous comparative evaluation of their respective CMPs. These cities exhibit considerable divergence across key demographic and infrastructural parameters, including population (ranging from approximately 0.8 million inhabitants in Bhubaneswar to 11.2 million in Chennai), spatial extent (ranging from 252 square kilometres in Bhubaneswar to 6,852 square kilometres in Hyderabad), and the length of their extant road networks (varying from 1,168 kilometres in Kochi to 6,010 kilometres in Chennai). This heterogeneity permits a multiscalar investigation into the urban mobility strategies implemented.
Furthermore, modal share was another criterion considered as the data revealed disparate transportation characteristics among the selected cities. Notably, the utilisation of non-motorised transport (NMT) modes is most prevalent in Surat (43 percent) and Greater Kochi (42 percent), signifying a substantial potential for the advancement of NMT infrastructure within these contexts. Conversely, public transport (PT) patronage is most pronounced in Hyderabad (31 percent) and Chennai (28.2 percent), highlighting their reliance on mass transit systems. The cities also represent a spectrum of urban development phases and the maturity of their transport planning endeavours — from cities with established and operational metropolitan rail networks (e.g., Chennai, Hyderabad, and Ahmedabad) to those where such systems remain in the preliminary planning stages (e.g., Bhubaneswar). Moreover, incorporating cities with distinct road network configurations (e.g., ring-radial versus fragmented grid patterns) and varying degrees of infrastructural complexity enhances the analytical depth of CMPs in addressing diverse urban morphologies.
To capture the diverse approaches adopted across Indian cities in urban transport planning, the study did not limit the analysis strictly to finalised comprehensive mobility plans. Instead, a broader range of mobility planning documents was considered to reflect the contextual and institutional variations in how cities conceptualise and implement their mobility strategies. For Bhubaneswar, the Low Carbon Mobility Plan was selected, as it serves the functional role of a CMP by outlining sustainable transport interventions aligned with the city’s mobility and environmental objectives.
In the case of Ahmedabad, the Integrated Mobility Plan was included due to its comprehensive scope and alignment with the principles of a CMP, addressing multimodal integration, infrastructure planning, and policy direction. For Greater Kochi, the draft CMP was considered appropriate for analysis, as it represents the most recent and relevant planning effort, reflecting current priorities, stakeholder consultations, and strategic mobility directions, despite not yet being finalised. This inclusive approach allows for a more representative and nuanced evaluation of mobility planning practices across diverse urban contexts.
The key characteristics of the selected cities are presented in Table 1.
The population and geographical expanse of these cities were sourced from the 2011 Census. However, to determine the modal share of transportation within these cities, efforts were made to acquire the most up-to-date and pertinent data available. To this end, contemporary government publications, such as the Comprehensive Mobility Plan and the City Development Plan, along with other relevant documents, were meticulously chosen and studied. It is important to note that the data presented in Table 1 covers the 2011‒2022-time frame.
Table 2 illustrates a comprehensive analysis for the first research question about who prepares the CMP and when.
Table 2: Horizon Period, Agencies Involved, and Past Efforts
Source: Compiled using various documents: CMP Bhubaneswar, CMP Greater Kochi, CMP Chennai, CMP Surat, CMP Nagpur, CMP Ahmedabad, CMP Hyderabad, CEPT Portfolio M23
Note: The initiatives highlighted here represent select efforts undertaken by urban local bodies (ULBs) under various schemes and missions as well as by policy think tanks. The list is not exhaustive.
The comparative analysis reveals critical issues around the timings and the responsible entities involved in the preparation of the CMPs.
Table 3 highlights the analysis of the second research question, examining what the CMP aims to address. The findings reveal a lack of synergy between the visions, goals, and objectives of the seven CMPs.
An analysis of the visions, goals, and objectives of the various CMPs reveal the following issues.
Table 4: Time Lag from Initial Planning to Commencement of Metro Rail Services
A central tenet of this approach is the establishment of a climate-resilient transport network, involving the re-engineering of essential vehicular arteries with enhanced drainage systems, robust viaduct constructions, and fortified road surfaces designed to endure severe meteorological phenomena. Furthermore, the CMP advocates for the augmentation of non-motorised transport (NMT) infrastructure, encompassing the development of 120 kilometres of pedestrian-oriented pathways and 40 kilometres of exclusive, segregated cycling routes, with the dual objectives of fostering low-carbon transit and mitigating urban heat island effects. Moreover, the plan underscores a commitment to transitioning towards cleaner energy sources via the acquisition of 50 battery-electric buses and the formulation of a supportive electric mobility directive in partnership with the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
The envisioned Multimodal Transit Centre (MMTC) represents another pivotal undertaking, intended to integrate diverse public and paratransit modalities while prioritising energy efficiency and climate-adaptive infrastructure design. Complementarily, transit-oriented development (TOD) strategies are being devised to encourage high-density, mixed-use urban configurations that curtail travel distances and bolster sustainable mobility paradigms. Cumulatively, these integrated strategies establish Bhubaneswar’s CMP as a progressive blueprint that fundamentally integrates climate resilience within the domain of urban mobility planning.
The CMPs of the seven cities have strategised their approach to addressing their transport challenges under the following domains: integrated land use transport system; comprehensive road network planning; integrated multimodal public transport system; NMT facilities: parking management; and intelligent transport system facilities. The detailed strategies proposed by each city under the domains are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Strategies Proposed in the CMPs of the Select Cities
Source: Compiled using various documents: CMP Bhubaneswar, CMP Greater Kochi, CMP Chennai, CMP Surat, CMP Nagpur, CMP Ahmedabad, CMP Hyderabad, CEPT Portfolio M23
A comparison of the urban transport strategies proposed in the CMPs of the seven Indian cities reveals distinct approaches and varying levels of comprehensiveness:
This evaluation of comprehensive mobility plans across seven Indian cities reveals shortcomings in their formulation and implementation. While these plans articulate ambitious goals for sustainable urban mobility, their effectiveness is hindered by a number of critical factors. Notably, a lack of robust implementation strategies, characterised by a disconnect between proposed interventions and their operationalisation, impedes the translation of plans into tangible outcomes. This is exacerbated by weak interagency coordination, limited public participation, and inadequate integration with broader urban planning initiatives.
Addressing these challenges requires a multipronged approach. Strengthening institutional capacities within urban local bodies is crucial for fostering effective collaboration between stakeholders and ensuring the periodic review and revision of CMPs. Diversifying funding sources through innovative mechanisms such as value capture financing, public‒private partnerships, and green bonds is essential to secure the financial resources necessary for implementing ambitious transport projects.
By overcoming these challenges and adopting a more integrated and participatory approach to urban transport planning, Indian cities can develop and implement effective CMPs that enhance connectivity, reduce congestion, and foster equitable access to transport services. This can fuel the development of more resilient, efficient, and inclusive urban transport systems that support sustainable urban growth.
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.
