Smart Cities Initiative

Almost a decade has passed since the Indian government announced the concept of “smart cities” as the new lighthouses of urbanisation. The June 2015 announcement of 100 smart cities aimed to create models of urban development. However, these lighthouses of urbanity have now been relegated to the annals of India’s urbanisation history.

About Smart Cities Mission

• The Smart Cities Mission, launched by the Indian government in June 2015, was aimed at developing 100 smart cities across the country to serve as models of urbanization.
• These cities were meant to integrate technology and innovation for better urban living, with a focus on mobility, waste management, and urban infrastructure.
• However, after nearly a decade, the initiative has struggled, and many of these cities are far from meeting their goals.
• Key Components of the Smart Cities Plan

• Pan-City Proposals: These involved IT-enabled services, such as smart mobility systems and waste management.
• Area-Based Development (ABD): Focused on retrofitting existing infrastructure, redeveloping old areas, and creating new greenfield projects (entirely new urban zones).
• Governance Structure: The projects were managed by Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which were set up like private companies, bypassing local government authorities. This approach assumed that private management could deliver better results than city councils.

What Happened in Shimla?

• Shimla was initially excluded from the smart cities list but later included after legal challenges. The city developed a smart city plan that included both pan-city and ABD components. The plan included:
  • Pedestrian crossing improvements and better vehicular mobility on key roads.
  • Eco-tourism initiatives like eco-adventure tourism and improvements in stormwater management.
  • Redevelopment projects aimed at replacing old, unsafe buildings with modern, resilient structures.
• The estimated investment for Shimla was around Rs 2,906 crore, with funding coming from Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), municipal bonds, external borrowings, and government schemes.
• What Went Wrong? Despite ambitious plans, the actual outcome has been disappointing:

• Funds have been mismanaged: Only about 24% of the estimated budget has been spent, with most funds allocated to ongoing projects rather than redevelopment.
• Traffic issues worsened: Instead of easing congestion, the traffic situation has worsened.
• Neglect of non-motorized mobility: Despite promises, pedestrian mobility was largely ignored.
• Incongruent projects: Instead of the promised redevelopment, funds were spent on items like flower pots worth Rs 2 crore and the construction of non-operational escalators that obstruct Shimla’s scenic views.