Between Planning And Practice: India's Transit-Oriented Development Impasse
Transit-oriented Development can curb India's urban dysfunctions by integrating land use with transport, but fragmented governance, weak execution, and poor planning hinder its transformative potential.
Published : October 26, 2025 at 6:31 AM IST
Indian cities face a perfect storm of dysfunction. Urban sprawl stretches endlessly outward. Air quality plummets as vehicle numbers soar. Mass transit systems lag far behind demand. Traffic congestion becomes the norm rather than exception. These crises feed off each other, threatening both the livability and economic vitality of our cities. All these can hamper Indian cities’ growth potential and quality of life unless remedial measures are soon taken. Transit-oriented Development (ToD) has emerged as one of the key policy choices, repeatedly featured in recent union budgets and planning documents.
Promises of ToD
ToD offers a straightforward solution: concentrate growth where infrastructure already exists. By clustering residential, commercial, and civic activities around transit nodes, cities can shorten trip distances, encourage public transport usage, and capture rising land values to finance further improvements. Evidence from cities worldwide demonstrates that well-executed ToD significantly diminishes private vehicle dependency while boosting public transit ridership and walking. It eases congestion, improves job accessibility, and enhances urban competitiveness. The logic is compelling - bring people closer to transit and transit becomes their natural choice.
Policies on Paper
India's ToD policy architecture has evolved considerably since the National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) of 2006 first advocated for greater public transport use and leveraging land values for infrastructure financing. The 2014 NUTP draft introduced concepts like higher floor area ratios and revised building regulations to encourage mixed-use development near transit stations. Mission-based programs from JNNURM to AMRUT and Smart Cities have emphasized public transport investments. In 2017, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs formulated the National TOD Policy that provides guidelines for states and cities to adopt TOD as an urban growth strategy. It was complemented by the National Urban Transport Policy (2014) and Metro Rail Policy (2017), creating an interconnected policy ecosystem. Budgetary support for metro projects have almost doubled from ₹15,600 crores (revised estimates) in 2018-19 to ₹ 28,816 crores (revised estimates) in 2024-25. The Union Budget (2024-25) also outlined ToD strategies for 14 cities exceeding three million populations. Several states and cities have either adopted TOD policies or are formulating them and metro rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) feature in their transit systems. For example, Delhi's TOD policy in 2021 aims to bring people and jobs closer to mass transit, resulting in compact, walkable, mixed-use developments. Mumbai and Bengaluru have similar TOD policies.
The Reality: Implementation Disconnect
Yet the chasm between policy rhetoric and ground reality remains distressingly wide. Several structural impediments prevent ToD from fulfilling its promise.
Institutional fragmentation tops the list. City governments regulate land-use through development plans. Transportation planning, however, involves multiple entities—state agencies, parastatals, private operators—each with separate mandates and planning processes. This creates fundamental misalignment. For example, metro authorities need development rights to recover massive capital investments. Urban development authorities control these rights but face no obligation to share revenues with transit agencies. The recurring conflicts between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Delhi Development Authority epitomize this dysfunction—a pattern replicated in every major metro city. Without mandatory joint planning mechanisms, transit and land agencies work against each other rather than in tandem.
The multidimensional nature of ToD compounds the challenge. Successful implementation requires safe sidewalks, pedestrian-friendly streets, last-mile connectivity, and seamless station access. Most Indian cities lack well-designed pedestrian infrastructure, making transit access difficult and hazardous. City governments are required to prepare and approve non-motorized transport policy, street vendor policy and parking policy. In most urban cities, none of these policies exist, and where prepared, they are not yet approved or implemented.
Moreover, the build-first-integrate-later approach severely undermines ToD implementation. Planning for transit node areas typically begins only after transportation projects are completed. Bengaluru's experience is instructive. A decade-long gap separated metro operations (2011) from ToD notification (2022), caused by delays in revising the city master plan originally due in 2015. The pattern repeats across our big cities. In most of them, metro lines operate while last-mile connectivity languishes. Without proper planning, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve multi-modal integration – for example, reroute the existing bus and other intermediate public transport, managed by different authorities, necessary for improving last mile connectivity.
Rigid regulatory frameworks create additional friction. Planning approaches remain fixated on controlling land use rather than enabling development. The requirement for over thirteen departmental approvals for a single ToD project in Delhi illustrates this regulatory quagmire. In Ahmedabad, urban authorities have permitted higher FSI of 4-5 around its BRT network and metro—compared to the average 1.8—and amended town planning regulations for local area plans, however, implementation tells a different story.
These plans often ignore crucial integration issues: parking management contradicts public transport goals when local plans prioritize on-street car parking. Pedestrian-friendly designs presuppose land availability or redevelopment consent from existing establishments—neither guaranteed in densely built Indian cities. Without locally responsive planning, ToD is likely to turn into transit Adjacent Development (TAD) and, thus, highly exclusionary.
The housing affordability crisis emerges as another serious concern. In major cities (e.g., Bengaluru), transit infrastructure has inflated property values, prompting developers to construct high-end housing and commercial spaces around transit nodes. This excludes precisely those who depend most on public transport—low-income residents—defeating ToD's inclusive objectives. Current FSI regulations distribute density uniformly regardless of transit availability, pushing up land prices near stations without ensuring affordability provisions.
From Planning to Practice
Realizing ToD's potential demands coordinated interventions across multiple dimensions.
Institutional reform must take priority. The 2006 National Urban Transport Policy recommended establishing Urban Metropolitan Transport Authorities (UMTAs) in all million-plus cities—a recommendation reiterated in the 2017 Metro Rail Policy. Yet only 15 of 53 eligible cities have established UMTAs, revealing slow institutional progress. These authorities must coordinate transport departments, development authorities, and city governments, setting regulatory guidelines for density, design standards, land-use mix, affordable housing ratios, and parking management.
Master plans must feature ToD prominently. The focus should shift from density maximization to quality urbanism: pedestrian-first environments with fine-grained street networks, generous sidewalks and integrated green networks.
Financial mechanisms need reimagining. ToD zones experience substantial land value appreciation that currently enriches private developers and landowners. Cities should capture this increment through policies that escrow increased revenues toward affordable housing, infrastructure upgrading, and public investments within ToD corridors.
Housing provisions must serve diverse income groups—economically weaker sections, low-income households, and affordable rental units. Higher FSI in ToD zones increases land prices, but accommodation costs can decrease as floor space increases, provided affordable housing requirements are mandatory rather than optional.
Finally, meaningful community participation remains essential. Inclusive outcomes require open, accessible, and equitable involvement of all stakeholders in decision-making, especially those most vulnerable to displacement and exclusion.
The Way Forward
In essence, Indian cities possess the policy frameworks. What they lack is execution: dismantling institutional silos, modernizing regulations, coordinating agencies, and ensuring inclusive benefits that protect vulnerable communities. Without addressing these implementation gaps, ToD will remain an aspirational concept rather than a transformative reality—and our cities will continue their descent into dysfunction, congestion, and inequality. The time for action is now.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writers. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
