Ahmedabad has the makings of a smart city. D Thara, chief executive authority of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, talks to Karthikeyan Hemalatha about what makes Ahmedabad tick and if its models can be replicated elsewhere
How do we make growing cities smarter? As a city grows, we have two options — expand horizontally or vertically. We in Ahmedabad are very clear that we want to grow vertically. We cannot give unlimited land resources to private developers and except the municipality to provide basic amenities.
It costs approximated Rs 2,500 crore to give basic amenities like drainage, drinking water and electricity for every 100 square km. Horizontal growth is just not a viable option. Unfortunately, big southern cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore and Chennai have grown more horizontally than vertically.
In 2001, we clearly demarcated the city area. No high density development was allowed outside this boundary. The rules were framed so as to make development there economically unviable. Unless you are very rich, you cannot develop outside this area.
With the 2001 census, we projected the population growth — both natural growth and immigration — for the next ten years. On most factors, it was 95% to 99% accurate. With this projection, we built the city.
Standards were set. For instance, we laid down that roads can be only of a certain width.
The last road leading to your house should not be less than 12m wide.
will add 27% more land available for the public.
Across south India, there is a general reluctance to increase FSI. But we are flexible with it.
We have several things to learn from Chennai as well. Our public transportation is not as good as it is there. But in han dling growth I think we have done well. We can be proud of our BRTS. Land acquisition has been a problem while executing projects. How does Ahmedabad handle the problem? When it comes to land acquisi tion, we follow a 40-60 rule. Of the land acquired, the government will use 40%, develop it and give back the remainder 60%.
But after development that 60% has much higher value. Of the 40%, about 17% to 20% is used for roads and open spaces, 5% for homes are earmarked for economically weaker sections of the society, and 5% is kept for commercial exploitation.
Such a development increases the value of the land — even if the area that is given back to the land owners is lesser. For instance, just the road increases the land value by 1.8 to 2.5 times.
With increased FSI, open spaces, commercial developments and footpaths the value can sometimes go up by 50%. We calculate the cost of infrastructure development and subtract it from the value of the land acquired. More often than not, the development cost is higher than the land value and the owner ends up paying the government. This funds our office.
The growing traffic problems of our cities call for urgent and effective remedies. Yet old-school solutions such as flyovers, wider roads, and elevated expressways actually make matters worse. Such infrastructure may provide a short-term illusion of relief from traffic woes. But by making it easier for people to use their own vehicles, new roads attract even more traffic, repeating the vicious cycle of congestion all over again.
Smart cities acknowledge that the key to urban mobility is moving people, not vehicles. This means giving priority to the cleanest, most efficient modes: walking, cycling, and public transport.
Cities from Seoul to San Francisco are tearing down flyovers, replacing them with human-scaled spaces that promote green modes of transport. In doing so, these cities have been able to reduce pollution, improve safety, and ensure that highquality public transport offers a meaningful alternative to sitting in traffic.
One of the fundamental requirements of a smart transport system is footpaths. The Corporation of Chennai’s groundbreaking initiative to create high-quality footpaths on the city’s major roads has shown that better designs can carve out space for broad, continuous walkways while streamlining the flow of traffic. We also need more dedicated
walking spaces, taking a cue from the well-used pedestrian zone around Madurai’s Meenakshi Temple.
As we rethink the design of our streets, we also need to start building cycle tracks. Tamil Nadu is a pioneer in the mass distribution of cycles to schoolchildren, but students quickly graduate to bikes and scooters as they get older. If our streets offer dignified cycling facilities, cycling can become a lifelong habit. Local bodies, highways department, and other agencies that oversee the design of major streets all have a role to play in ensuring that every cycle journey is a safe one.
For longer-distance trips, we need to significantly expand access to public transport. Cities in Tamil Nadu typically have around 40 buses per one lakh residents — a ratio well below the 50 to 120 buses required to provide frequent, reliable service. Expanding city bus fleets will relieve overcrowding and ensure that cities like Salem have enough buses to satisfy demand that is currently met through informal share auto services.
One of the biggest obstacles to adding more buses is the misconception that doing so would make congestion worse. But picture what would happen if all of the passengers on a bus were to travel by car instead. Their vehicles would occupy 30 times as much space on the road, not to mention the parking spaces at either end of the trip! Besides more buses, our cities
need fast, reliable mass transit to meet the growing demand for mobility. By international standards, our cities need 40 km of mass transit for every 10 lakh residents. This means that the six largest cities in the state require over 630 km of rapid transit.
Currently we only have around 100 km — all of it in Chennai — and at present rates, it would take two generations to build this much rapid transit! We need to quickly scale up our ability to provide high capacity public transport corridors in all of the major urban centres in the state.
One of the most cost effective options is bus rapid transit (BRT). BRT systems feature dedicated median lanes for buses, allowing commuters to bypass the congestion in mixed traffic lanes. BRT can be deployed quickly and at a fraction of the cost of rail-based systems.
Finally, as we expand sustainable transport options, we need to do a better job of managing our streets.
The cost of on-street parking should reflect the value of the public land that it occupies. Chennai and Coimbatore are showing the way through their initiatives to implement modern, IT-based parking management and enforcement systems. The revenue from parking fees can be plowed back into alternative transport initiatives, such as better streets and improved public transport.
