Can Policy Intervention Alone Fix Urban Congestion Woes?

The rapidly rising trend of motorisation – leading to severe congestion and urban air pollution, besides rising oil import bill and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as increased incidence of road accidents – has been the primary factor hindering any progress in finding a solution to fix congestion woes. 

National Urban Transport Policy

Towards this end, the National Urban Transport Policy was approved by the Centre in April 2006, recommending investments in public transport and non-motorised modes of transport, besides investments in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.

To enhance operational efficiency, the policy also suggested utilising the private sector in operating public transport systems, recommending innovative methods to finance such projects, as the public budget alone would not suffice. It also suggested a shift towards cleaner technologies, such as electric vehicles (EVs).

Twenty years have elapsed. The policy has largely been hailed for its intent, but each of the problems it sought to resolve has only exacerbated. 

The number of registered motor vehicles in India, which stood at 55 million in 2001, went up to 142 million in 2011, and to a whopping 334 million in 2021. The worsening air quality needs no numbers to demonstrate. People have left larger cities only because the air quality poses a severe health risk. Crude oil imports, which stood at 1.9 million barrels per day in 2005, went up to 4.8 million barrels per day in 2024. The increasing consumption of petroleum fuel translates into an increase in GHG emissions in a similar proportion.

Deteriorating Situation

All of these raise a fundamental question. If the National Urban Transport Policy has generally been hailed as a good one, why have things got worse? Are there gaps in the policy that need to be corrected, or has the implementation been weak and unsatisfactory?

These are questions that need to be answered if we have to fix mobility in our cities and curb the steeply rising motorisation curve.

As in most such cases, there is no single answer to this question. It is true that the policy has been implemented only in a piecemeal manner. While the policy emphasises investments in public transport, these investments have been skewed very heavily in favour of high-cost metro rail systems.

There is nothing wrong with metro rail systems, but building them as standalone systems, without integration with other modes of transport, results in relatively low ridership. A civil engineering mindset seems to have dominated the planning of metro rail systems, in which ease of construction has prevailed over passenger convenience. 

If the metro rail system fails to provide passenger convenience, commuters would turn to alternative modes of transport, especially personal vehicles. 

So, the issue lies not in the metro rail technology, but in the planning.

New Paradigms, Old Woes

But the new paradigms that have emerged in the years following the formulation of the policy should also be taken into consideration.

For instance, the developments in information technology, which have facilitated a wide range of vehicle-sharing options and extremely convenient paratransit options, did not exist in 2006, when the policy was approved. 

In the intervening years, ride-hailing service platforms such as Uber, Ola, and Rapido found their way to the transportation market. The younger generation seems to clearly prefer such app-based mobility platforms. 

These aggregated paratransit systems serve a purpose if people opt for them in place of personal transport, but they may not be the best if it draws people away from public transport. The solution lies not in dissuading these aggregated taxis but in making public transport systems a lot more integrated and convenient to use.

All of these seem to suggest that a review of the National Urban Transport Policy is necessary to bridge the gaps and improve its implementation. If cities continue to be congested, economic activities will be affected.

(The writer is a retired IAS officer. Views expressed are personal.)