Indian Cities Need More than Incentives to Clean Up its Air!

8th October 2026 by admin

This blog explores how Indian cities can address vehicular air pollution by moving beyond incentives for cleaner vehicles and strengthening measures that discourage the continued use of highly polluting vehicles. It examines pollution pricing through Low Emission Zones as a gradual alternative to outright bans, outlining how such a system could work, the conditions needed for effective implementation, and how it could encourage a shift towards cleaner and more sustainable modes of transport.

Across India’s cities, conversations about air pollution have become almost routine, however, there is ambiguity around the source of pollution depending on the city in concern. Of the multiple sources, road transport currently contributes to 20-30% of the urban air pollution. Unlike seasonal sources like crop burning or localised and temporary causes like construction, vehicle pollution persists throughout the year and across the city. So, how should we tackle vehicular emissions?

Acknowledging the issue, many governments have introduced air quality improvement plans that follow the ‘Improve, Shift, Avoid’ approach to phase out polluting vehicles. Improve encourages use of cleaner technology vehicles like EVs; Shift nudges people to use more public transport, walking and cycling; Avoid discourages the use of polluting vehicles. While the first two approaches have seen growing policy attention, “avoid” remains largely underexplored.

While there are measures such as vehicle scrappage schemes, higher re-registration charges, and green taxes to support phase out of polluting vehicles, they don’t tackle the problem directly. That leaves cities with the question: how do we make the shift away from polluting vehicles happen on the ground?

If Indian cities are serious about cleaner air, they will need to move beyond incentives for cleaner alternative alone. Cities cannot rely only on subsidising electric vehicles, improving public transport, or promoting walking and cycling while the whole system makes the use of polluting vehicles easy. The next step lies in strengthening the “avoid” strategy through policy tools that actively discourage the continued use of polluting vehicles.

What is a better alternative to reduce the use of high polluting vehicles – Ban or Pricing?

When it comes to phasing out high polluting vehicles, a complete ban may seem like the most obvious solution. A ban is also easier to implement. However, obvious or easy does not mean it is effective. For many people, shifting to a cleaner, compliant vehicle is not an overnight decision—it requires upfront capital, planning, and the ability to absorb a sudden change. For those with limited purchasing power, an immediate ban can quickly become a harsh and difficult transition.

This is where a daily pricing approach on high polluting vehicles offers a more practical way forward to actively discourage vehicular emissions. Instead of abruptly forcing vehicles off the road, this approach begins by making their continued use more expensive. Eventually, when the cost of continuing as usual becomes difficult to justify, it results in a change of behaviour.

A pricing approach creates space for transition. It gives people time to adapt, whether by upgrading to cleaner vehicles, shifting to public transport, or choosing walking and cycling. It allows limited use of older vehicles during occasional or emergency situations, while steadily discouraging routine dependence on them. Cities such London and Antwerp have already introduced similar pricing measures through low-emission zones, helping reduce the use of highly polluting vehicles and nudging commuters towards cleaner travel choices.

But pricing will only work if the right conditions are in place!

Before introducing pricing, four important points must be kept in mind.

Pricing is not designed as a revenue-generating mechanism:
The primary intention of pricing is to discourage continued use of high polluting vehicles and gradually phase them out. This measure is designed to solve a problem, not sustain a system. Therefore, as the number of polluting vehicles reduces, the need for pricing will phase out as well.
Pricing high polluting vehicles is not the same as congestion pricing:
Congestion pricing aims to reduce traffic congestion, by discouraging the use of personally owned vehicles or privately hired taxis or autorickshaws, irrespective of whether the vehicles are polluting or clean. Whereas pricing polluting vehicles specifically focuses on only reducing the use of high polluting vehicles. The pricing strategy and the zone where it applies will vary for both. For instance, London has implemented congestion pricing in Central London, whereas pricing on high polluting vehicles applies city-wide.
Revenue collected must be reinvested in sustainable mobility:
Collected charges should only be used on initiatives that directly reduce air pollution such as investing in procuring electric buses, improving walking and cycling infrastructure. This amount should not be seen as a source of income for the city, and should not be used for recurring operations costs.
Pricing on high polluting vehicles must be set carefully:
The charge should be high enough to discourage the continued use of high polluting vehicles. At the same time, the charge should be calibrated in a way that clearly nudges behaviour change, rather than functioning as a fee that people simply absorb and continue to pay.

How would pricing work?

In practice, pricing highly polluting vehicles is implemented through the creation of Low Emission Zones (LEZs)—designated areas where high polluting vehicles entering or inside the zone will have to pay the charge. Such zones could be a part area of the city, the whole city, or extend to the metropolitan area, depending on the pollution levels of the city. The zone area can also expand gradually.

It is important that the zones are sizeable enough to discourage the use of high polluting vehicles. Small areas would not yield desired results. A pilot area should also look at a minimum size of 5 square kilometers.

These zones are enforced digitally. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are installed across entry points and key locations inside the area to identify non-compliant vehicles. By combining digital monitoring with clear emission criteria, cities can implement pricing in a transparent and enforceable manner.

What impact could pricing have on people’s travel choice?

Insights from a perception study, Public Opinion on Low Emission Zone Strategies, conducted in 2025 with 2,000 private vehicle users in Pimpri-Chinchwad and Pune offer an interesting perspective. The study combined citizen surveys, data analysis, and focus group discussions to understand how residents might respond to the idea of introducing daily pollution pricing for entering low-emission zones.

The findings reveal that only about 4% were willing to pay charges to use their high polluting vehicles. This shows that pricing could potentially discourage a big percentage of high polluting vehicles. While this may appear to signal public opposition, it actually highlights the potential effectiveness of the measure.

Most respondents were unwilling to pay the charge, and many indicated they would instead adapt their travel behaviour—by switching to cleaner vehicles such as electric vehicles or newer emission-compliant models, or by shifting to public transport, walking or cycling. From a policy perspective, this response reflects exactly what pollution pricing is designed to achieve: a behavioural nudge that discourages the use of highly polluting vehicles and encourages a transition toward cleaner mobility choices.

A new way of thinking about urban air quality

Improving urban air quality demands a broader shift in how cities manage mobility and emissions. Pollution pricing should be seen as one part of a holistic sustainable mobility strategy that encourages people to reconsider how they travel. By placing a cost on highly polluting vehicles, cities can nudge commuters toward cleaner vehicles while also strengthening the case for public transport, walking and cycling.

For Indian cities grappling with worsening air pollution and rapidly growing vehicle ownership, exploring such policy tools could open up new pathways for action. Pollution pricing may not be an easy conversation to start, but it offers a practical way to gradually shift behaviour while supporting investments in cleaner mobility systems. As cities search for solutions that move beyond short-term fixes, experimenting with approaches like pollution pricing could help reshape the way urban transport contributes to cleaner, healthier air.

Written by Shreesha Arondekar, Senior Associate, Development and Communications | With inputs from Parin Visariya, Programme Manager, Inclusive Compact Cities
Edited by Donita Jose, Deputy Manager, Communications

Frequently Asked Questions

How will cities decide which vehicles are considered highly polluting?

In India, vehicle emissions are regulated through national standards, with vehicle age and Bharat Stage (BS) emission norms providing key criteria for identifying older, more polluting vehicles. Cities can use these standards to define which vehicles are subject to pollution pricing, while adopting stricter criteria where local air-quality conditions warrant stronger action.

Will pollution pricing actually reduce air pollution?

Pollution pricing is intended to reduce the use of high-polluting vehicles, thereby reducing their contribution to urban air pollution. Its effectiveness will depend on how strongly the charge influences travel and vehicle-use decisions, as well as the availability of cleaner alternatives such as public transport, walking, cycling, and cleaner vehicles.

What is a Low Emission Zone and how can it be enforced?

A Low Emission Zone (LEZ) is a designated area where high-polluting vehicles are either charged for entering or travelling within the zone, or they completely banned. Cities can enforce LEZs using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras to identify vehicles and determine whether they meet the required emission criteria. Non-compliant vehicles can then be charged digitally.

The Right to Walk in India Must Not End in the Courtroom – Why India needs a Bharat Janpath Yojana

22nd July 2026 by admin

Every day, millions of Indians begin and end their journeys on foot. Yet our cities continue to treat walking as an afterthought. The consequences are measured not just in inconvenience, but also in the lives lost.

The Supreme Courts’s landmark judgement in Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan in June 2026 marks a clear break from this reality. By recognising the right to walk on safe, well demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution, the Court has fundamentally changed the way India’s streets must be planned and governed.

More importantly, the Court has established a new hierarchy for urban mobility: the movement of people on foot takes priority over the movement of vehicles. The judgement has made clear that footpaths are no longer optional urban amenities, but essential public infrastructure. Wherever a road exists, municipal authorities have an enforceable duty to provide and maintain a safe footpath.

While the judgement settles an important constitutional question, the answer to a practical question remains: how do we ensure that every Indian can exercise the right to walk?

Because rights alone do not build safe footpaths.

What is Missing in the System to Deliver Better Streets?

Across India, cities have demonstrated that people-first streets are possible. The challenge is that these remain isolated successes because the systems needed to plan, fund, and sustain them at scale are still missing.

No long-term vision: Firstly, cities continue to operate without a long-term vision for connected pedestrian networks, resulting in isolated projects rather than continuous walking infrastructure. This is compounded by the absence of a strong legislative framework that makes safe footpaths and pedestrian infrastructure a mandatory part of every road project. Existing policies and guidelines encourage better streets, but they are largely advisory and often ignored.
Lack of funding and misallocation of resources: Even where the intent exists, cities struggle to implement Healthy Streets because the problem is not just one of limited funding, but of how funding is prioritised. Transport budgets continue to favour infrastructure for vehicles, while walking infrastructure receives only a fraction of the investment it needs.
Frequent changes in administrative leadership and lack of technical capacity: This imbalance of funding is compounded by frequent changes in political and administrative leadership, weak technical capacity, and poor coordination between multiple road-owning agencies. Tier II and III cities face even greater constraints, with limited municipal finances and little access to specialised expertise for planning and delivering high-quality streets.
Public perception tilted in favour of vehicles: Finally, transforming streets also requires changing public perception. For decades, road space has been designed almost exclusively around vehicles. When projects seek to rebalance streets in favour of pedestrians and cyclists, they are often met with resistance because the vehicle owners see this as taking road space away from vehicles. Without sustained public engagement to communicate the wider benefits—for safety, mobility, health, and local economies—cities will continue to face pushback that slows or derails meaningful street transformation.

What’s Needed to Make the Constitutional Right a Public Reality?

The next task for decision-makers is to redefine how Indian streets are planned and delivered. The Supreme Court has recognised the right to walk; translating that right into everyday reality requires pedestrian infrastructure to be treated with the same priority as every other mode of transport. The proposed Bharat Janpath Yojana, as elaborated in the recent report: The Healthy Street Dividend, offers a framework to achieve this through three interconnected actions.

Legislative Framework: The first is a legislative framework that formally recognises and protects the right to walk while making safe, continuous, and universally accessible pedestrian infrastructure a mandatory part of every road project. While a comprehensive national framework is the long-term aspiration, states are well placed to lead this reform in the near term by enacting legislation that reflects the Supreme Court’s principles. Just as the Motor Vehicles Act provides a statutory framework for improvement of vehicular movement, India now needs a legislation that makes safe, continuous, and universally accessible footpaths mandatory in every road. Karnataka’s proposed Active Mobility Bill offers one such pathway.
National Streets Programme: India also needs a dedicated national programme to support implementation at scale. The second action is a National Streets Programme to help cities move beyond isolated street improvement projects and build connected walking networks at scale. Beginning with a target of 10,000 kilometres of Healthy Streets across 100 cities, the programme would prioritise continuous footpaths, safe at-grade crossings, traffic-calmed streets, protected cycling infrastructure, shade, lighting, and universal accessibility. More importantly, it would create complete networks that connect homes with schools, healthcare, markets, workplaces, and public transport hubs, closing the critical first- and last-mile gap while making streets safer and more inclusive for everyone.
Creating an enabling ecosystem: The third action is to build the institutional and financialecosystem needed to sustain this transformation. Delivering better streets cannot depend on individual champions or one-time funding. States should establish dedicated Urban Transport Cells, while cities create Active Mobility Cells to coordinate agencies, build technical expertise, and oversee implementation. This must be backed by dedicated funding for Healthy Streets, regular monitoring of outcomes, and sustained public engagement to build support for people-first streets. Together, these reforms can ensure that India’s walking networks are not only built, but maintained, expanded, and continuously improved.

The Case for Investing in Better Streets

The proposed Bharat Janpath Yojana is more than a roadmap for implementing the Supreme Court’s Judgement. It is a compelling public investment. The strongest argument for better footpaths and well-designed streets will always be that they save lives; this alone is reason enough to act. However, the benefits don’t end there. Streets designed for people determine who can access the city, how healthy neighbourhoods become, how resilient cities are to extreme weathers, and even how local economies grow.

This is the central finding of The Healthy Street Dividend, a multi-city, multi-indicator assessment launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) and GIZ India, prepared by ITDP India. The study examined Healthy Streets across 10 cities and compared it with streets in the same city where basic pedestrian infrastructure is lacking. The findings make a compelling case.

The most immediate dividend is social. A well-designed street gives people confidence to step out, especially those who have historically been excluded from public spaces. Women are 1.5 times more likely to walk on Healthy Streets, and nearly nine in ten women report feeling safe after dark. Older adults and children also use these streets significantly more. Healthy Streets allow for independence, dignity, and equal access.

The benefits extend to the environment we live in. Healthy Streets improve air quality by 27%, reducing people’s exposure to harmful pollutants such as PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 by 23%. They also help cities cope with rising heat street through shaded trees. As Indian cities grapple with extreme heat and worsening air pollution, pedestrian infrastructure must be recognised as climate and public health infrastructure too.

The economic dividend is equally compelling. Streets that are safer and easier to walk on attract more customers and increase spending at local shops. Shopkeepers on Healthy Streets reported a 20% increase in annual turnover, while street vendors saw 50.6% higher daily sales. The benefits extend beyond individual businesses. Walkable, people-friendly streets make neighbourhoods more desirable, contributing to 10–60% higher real estate values across cities, strengthening the local tax base. They also unlock the value of India’s massive investments in public transport by making the first and last leg of every journey safer and more convenient. In other words, the same investment that protects lives also supports businesses, strengthens city finances, and makes existing transport systems work better.

The Stars Have Aligned. We Must Act Now!

In May 2026, the Prime Minister of India, called on Indians to rely more on public transport and reduce dependence on private vehicles, recognising the strategic importance of reducing fuel consumption in an uncertain geopolitical landscape. The Supreme Court has affirmed safe footpaths as a fundamental right. With political intent and constitutional backing moving in the same direction, what remains is decisive implementation. The time to redesign India’s streets is not sometime in the future, it is now.

Written by Shreesha Arondekar, Senior Associate, Development and Communications | With inputs from Venugopal AV, Programme Manager, Healthy Streets and Partnerships, ITDP India

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the Supreme Court judgement on walkability say?

The Supreme Court’s judgment recognises the right to walk safely on a footpath as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The Court held that the right to walk is an essential part of a person’s right to life, dignity, and freedom of movement.

The judgment makes five important points:

People walking on footpaths should be given priority over motor vehicles.
Footpaths are a legal responsibility. Wherever there is a road, local authorities such as municipal corporations, municipalities, development authorities, and panchayats have a duty to provide and maintain safe, well-demarcated footpaths.
Current laws are not enough, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, which focuses on vehicles, and does not protect the rights of pedestrians.
India needs a dedicated legal framework that clearly protects the right to walk, defines the responsibilities of governments, and creates systems to ensure this right is implemented.
Citizens can seek legal remedy, if authorities fail to provide safe walking infrastructure, and a person’s right to walk is violated.

What is the proposed Bharat Janpath Yojana?

The Prime Minister’s Bharat Janpath Yojana is a proposed national mission, recommended by ITDP India, to help cities build safe, accessible, and people-friendly streets across India. Its vision is to reclaim India’s streets as vibrant, equitable, and sustainable public spaces that prioritise people over vehicles, recognising that the right to walk safely is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21.

To make this vision a reality, the proposed Yojana brings together three key elements:

A legislative framework to protect the right to walk and make safe pedestrian infrastructure a mandatory part of every road project.
A National Streets Programme to create 10,000 kilometres of Healthy Streets across 100 cities, building connected walking and cycling networks instead of isolated pilot projects.
An enabling ecosystem that provides dedicated funding, strengthens state and city institutions, builds technical capacity, and establishes monitoring and accountability mechanisms to support long-term implementation.

What is Healthy Street?

A Healthy Street is defined as a thoroughfare designed with pedestrian-oriented infrastructure that prioritises people and social activity over the movement of motorised vehicles. Unlike conventional “Unwalkable Streets” which lack dedicated pedestrian space, Healthy Streets are reimagined as equitable public spaces that support economic growth, social interaction, and environmental health.

The key characteristics and design components of a Healthy Street include:

Wide, continuous footpaths
Traffic-calming measures
Universal accessibility
Green buffers and shade to improve thermal comfort and manage stormwater
Street amenities
Integrated underground utility corridors

Cycling Isn’t Disappearing from Indian Cities. We’ve Just Made Cyclists Invisible

14th April 2026 by admin

Walk down a busy arterial road in an Indian city and you might conclude that cycling is a thing of the past. But look closer, especially during peak hours, and a different story emerges. On wide streets in Pune, industrial corridors in Pimpri-Chinchwad, and arterial streets in Nagpur, cyclists are very much present. They are just easier to miss because our streets are no longer designed to see them.

A recent study conducted by ITDP India across these three Maharashtra cities (Pune, Pimpri Chinchwad, and Nagpur) found visibly high cycle volumes at peak hours, even on streets where cycling infrastructure is incomplete or poorly enforced. The data challenges a popular myth: cycling hasn’t disappeared. It has simply been pushed to the margins.

Who Are India’s Cyclists Today?

India’s cyclists are not a homogenous group. Some ride to work, some to school, some to save money, and some for health or the environment. According to the survey of over 600 residents in three cities, nearly half of all cyclists use their cycles for daily, non-recreational trips—to jobs, colleges, markets, and homes.

58% of responses from male cyclists said they cycle for recreation and fitness, but women, in particular, seem to rely on cycling as a mode of necessity. Nearly 60% of women cyclists reported using cycles for commuting, education, or errands. This distinction matters because it reframes cycling not as a lifestyle choice, but as essential urban mobility—especially for those with limited access to private vehicles or public transport.

Children, too, are a critical yet overlooked group. Among cyclists under 18, two-thirds cycle primarily to reach schools and colleges, and 84% said they prefer dedicated cycle tracks over mixed traffic conditions. Their message is clear: safety, not speed, determines whether young people cycle. As one student cyclist put it, “Sometimes it gets too hot when I cycle back from school. I wish there were more trees or shade on the way.” Infrastructure, for them, is not just concrete—it is comfort, dignity, and protection. Some also said that their parent didn’t allow them to cycle to school as it was perceived to be unsafe.

Infrastructure Exists. But Is It Working?

Over the past decade, Indian cities have invested in cycling infrastructure. Pune alone has built over 90 km of cycle tracks, Pimpri-Chinchwad more than 50 km, and Nagpur has begun developing an early-stage network.

On paper, the city is making progress—cycle tracks have been built, and space has been allocated. But the reality on the ground tells a different story.

Nearly 60% of cyclists rate segregated cycle tracks as ‘bad’ for comfort, pointing to fundamental design and maintenance issues. More than 60% report that these tracks are frequently obstructed by parked vehicles and vendor encroachments, while 44% highlight discontinuity—tracks that simply disappear mid-route.

Faced with these challenges, cyclists are making a pragmatic choice. Instead of using unreliable and blocked infrastructure, many prefer riding in regular traffic lanes, even if it feels less safe. Ironically, shared streets with traffic calming measures receive better feedback, with 53% rating them as ‘good’ for comfort.

The takeaway is clear: infrastructure alone is not enough. If cycle tracks are not continuous, unobstructed, and comfortable, they fail to serve their purpose—leaving cyclists to navigate the very traffic they were meant to be protected from.

The single biggest complaint across all three cities? Obstructions.

Over 56% of cyclists cited parked vehicles and vendors blocking cycle tracks, while 54% pointed to weak enforcement as a key deterrent. One respondent asked bluntly: “What’s the use of a cycle track if it’s always full of parked vehicles?”

For women, the stakes are even higher. Half reported speeding vehicles and lack of enforcement as major deterrents, and more than 60% flagged poor road conditions and potholes as serious safety concerns. It is no surprise, then, that 87% of women cyclists said they prefer physically segregated cycle tracks.

Regarding surface materials, 52% of respondents preferred asphalt(blacktop) as the ideal material for cycle tracks. Paver clocks are strict no-no as surface materials.

The Silent Majority Waiting to Cycle

Perhaps the most striking finding is not about those who already cycle, but those who don’t.

Among non-cyclists and infrequent cyclists, 72% said they would consider cycling if safe, continuous cycle tracks were available, and 61% said strict enforcement of traffic rules would make a difference. These are not ideological opponents of cycling; they are pragmatic urban residents responding to risk.

With Comprehensive Mobility Plans in these cities ambitiously targeting ~35% of trips by walking and cycling by 2030, there is a clear need for reliable, safe, and high-quality cycling infrastructure—not just to support existing cyclists, but to encourage new users and a broader section of citizens to adopt cycling.

A Way Forward: From Token Lanes to People-Centred Streets

If we really want to see the cyclist back on the streets, we will need to provide dignity, safety and convenience to the users through nuanced design and strict enforcement.

First, continuity matters more than length. Fragmented cycle tracks that disappear at junctions or merge into traffic are worse than none at all.

Second, enforcement is infrastructure. Without managing parking, vending, and vehicle speeds, even well-designed tracks fail.

Third, cities must prioritise vulnerable users—women, children, and older adults—by providing shaded routes, smooth surfaces like asphalt, and traffic calming near schools and neighbourhood streets.

Finally, shared streets deserve renewed attention. When designed with narrow carriageways, speed tables, and pedestrian priority, they offer inclusive mobility without excessive segregation—an approach that many European cities have embraced and Indian cities can adapt.

Cycling in India is not dying. It is waiting. Waiting for streets that acknowledge its users, protect their journeys, and recognise that a cycle is not a symbol of the past—but a vehicle for a more equitable urban future.

Written by Pranjal Kulkarni, Programme Manager, Healthy Streets, ITDP India

Edited by Kashmira Dubash, Deputy Director, ITDP India