Transit-oriented development (TOD) has been, for some years now, the most popular urban planning concept discussed in Union budgets. The term has been mentioned five times in budget speeches since the 2019-20 one. This year’s budget speech also mentioned it. Working on TOD planning over the past several years, one was thrilled to hear about it the first three times. Then, it got tiresome, especially when nothing much seemed to follow in terms of on-ground implementation.
Before the term became popular in the finance ministry, a national TOD policy was formulated in 2017 by the ministry of housing and urban affairs. Indeed, a report by the parliamentary standing committee on housing and urban affairs reads, “The Committee recommends the Ministry to exhort, persuade, and produce the state governments to implement Transit Oriented Development along metro stations in respective states.” Such a choice of words indicates the desperation felt in implementing transit-oriented development in our cities.
The concept denotes planning for an increased quantum of living, working, and shopping options near transit stations. This promotes public transport use and minimizes travel distances within the city. The plan is to develop transit-influencing zones that are compact, dense, mixed-use, and diverse. There is also a need for more open spaces, social infrastructure, wide sidewalks, and active frontages of buildings to attract and accommodate a high volume of people using these areas. TOD is not merely about tall buildings near transit points. People need better access and more choices to travel in the city, and the transit systems need commuters. The concept represents a sweet deal between the two. When implemented right, it helps reduce carbon emissions and improve liveability.
However, it is a long road to meaningfully implementing transit-oriented development in our cities. Here are the three key areas that need work.
One, TOD is losing its competitive advantage against highway-oriented development. With the introduction of the TOD a few years ago, floor area ratio norms were liberalized near transit stations or transit corridors. The logic was to give the advantage of redevelopment to the areas where the transit supply is stronger. Cities like London determine their floor space supply based on public transit accessibility levels. Contrary to this, many Indian cities like Bengaluru, Chennai, Pune, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, and Gurugram have started incentivizing estate projects around wider roads and highways.
Today, highway-oriented development outcompetes transit-oriented development in many cities. Why would developers invest in a middle-of-the-city, messy redevelopment project if they profit more from peripheral land development with smaller investments? As we have seen in the past, these highways and wider roads in the peripheries get congested in just a few years. People living in the peripheries get used to their vehicle-centric lifestyle and demand more flyovers and free parking. Advantage in favor of transit-oriented cities needs to be restored.
Two, there is a lack of coordination and joint planning between transit agencies and cities’ planning authorities. Policymakers want the metro rail system to make money to recover massive investments made, at least partly. The metro system can make money by increasing ridership and selling development rights near transit stations. This can be done with efficient TOD planning. At present, development rights are monopolized by the planning authorities in our system. Years of conflicts and lack of coordination between transit agencies like the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and civic planning authorities like the Delhi Development Authority are well known. In every large city where metro rail is planned, a lack of coordination or squabbles over revenue-sharing persists between the transit agency and the planning authority. The planning authority is not obliged to share its floorspace sale revenue with the transit agency. Transit agencies often behave too exclusively in coordinating with local authorities. Our cities need joint planning mechanisms where the land and the transit agencies are mandated to work together.
Three, our current planning system needs reform to accommodate TOD. Urban planning practices today are laden with a command-and-control approach and pseudo-scientific norms. The new approach to planning is about promoting development and not controlling the urban land excessively. Beyond the reforms in planning mechanisms, much work is required to change the mindsets and embedded institutional culture. Transit-oriented development needs to be featured prominently in the city’s master plans, and not just policy documents. We need to reduce supply-side constraints of serviced land and restore the advantage of developing land near transit.
Transit-oriented development is not limited to making money from tall buildings near transit but also concerns sustainably improving accessibility and liveability in our cities. There is much to be done on urban planning and transit-oriented development in our cities. We are just beginning to discuss the right ideas and practices. The long road to implementation of transit-oriented cities will require restoring the competitive advantage of the concept backed by institutional coordination and reforms in urban planning practices.
Rutul Joshi teaches urban planning at CEPT University, Ahmedabad.The views expressed are personal
