BENGALURU: Indian cities will not become more liveable by fixing footpaths alone. That, in essence, is the argument running through the Economic Survey’s chapters on urbanisation and governance. While better pavements are necessary, the Survey makes clear that liveability emerges from how cities function as systems, not from standalone infrastructure projects.
Liveability, it argues, emerges when cities are designed around people’s time, choices, and creativity, not just around infrastructure delivery. “Globally, the most liveable cities are not necessarily the richest or newest; they are the ones that organise urban life to reduce friction, enable expression, and reward everyday participation,” it notes.
For example, it argued, US’ Detroit made massive investments in highways, factories, stadia, but ultimately did not keep up with the scale of investments in terms of economic output and yet the population collapsed. On the other hand, Boston is infrastructure-light, with old housing styles, narrow lanes, and limited road and flyover construction, but it is swarming with educational institutions and a high concentration of universities.
“This has ultimately led to a shift towards modern and emerging sectors like education, finance, and biotech. In India, Bengaluru, arguably with insufficient physical infrastructure compared to Delhi or Mumbai, is almost the Silicon Valley of India, reaping the dividends of the agglomeration benefits of an entrepreneurial ecosystem,” the Survey reads.
Bengaluru, it points out, grew primarily due to the concentration of engineering talent and institutions, and to wage growth and the creation of a modern city.
The Survey argues that urban design must prioritise ease, safety, and predictability in everyday movement, rather than assuming speed and private vehicles as the default.
“Streets as social infrastructure, not just traffic corridors: Street design can be guided by Guillermo Penalosa’s “8-80” philosophy that good streets must work equally well for an eight-year-old and an eighty-year-old in order to prioritise safety, comfort and accessibility,” the Survey reads.
Pointing out that footpaths are undermined without reliable public transport, predictable enforcement, and civic norms, it cites global examples like Barcelona's superblocks show reclaiming streets for pedestrians boosts play and culture, but India's fragmented governance dilutes such efforts.
One of the Survey’s central observations is that Indian cities suffer from a governance and coordination deficit. Urban residents lose time not just because of broken footpaths, but because work, housing, schools, healthcare, and public services are poorly aligned in space and time. Long commutes, fragmented public transport, and mismatches between jobs and housing impose daily friction on households. Footpaths may improve the last few hundred metres of a journey, but they cannot compensate for cities that are spatially and economically misaligned.
Mobility, the Survey notes, must be understood as a city-wide problem rather than a street-level one. Indian cities rely heavily on informal and intermediate transport modes because formal systems do not adequately cover where people live and work.
Without reliable, affordable public transport that integrates walking, cycling, and mass transit, pedestrian infrastructure alone remains underused or unsafe. The Survey stresses that liveable cities reduce the need for travel in the first place by bringing opportunities closer to people.
Another recurring theme is the informal nature of urban India. A large share of economic activity, housing, and service delivery operates outside formal planning frameworks. Vendors spill onto pavements, utilities are laid without coordination, and streets become sites of competing claims. In this context, footpaths are quickly encroached upon or repurposed.
The Survey suggests liveability requires managing informality through design and regulation, rather than treating footpaths as isolated engineering assets. It also links liveability to the quality of basic urban services: Water supply, sanitation, waste management, and drainage shape daily life far more directly than cosmetic improvements.