Strengthening Intermediate Public Transport in Urban India

India’s urban transport crisis is no longer limited to congestion alone. Rising pollution, increasing fuel consumption, unsafe roads and declining quality of life are now visible across cities of every size. Yet our transport planning remains focused on metros, flyovers and road widening. One of the most vital mobility systems continues to remain neglected: Intermediate Public Transport (IPT), or paratransit.

In the Indian context, IPT traditionally refers to systems such as auto-rickshaws, shared autos, e-rickshaws, cycle-rickshaws and minibuses that provide short-distance and flexible mobility services. Unlike formal public transport systems, these modes generally do not operate on fixed schedules or rigid routes. In most developing countries, including India, paratransit has evolved as an informal but highly adaptive mobility solution that fills the gaps left by formal public transport systems for millions.

Although official estimates put the modal share of auto-rickshaws at nearly 25 per cent of all motorised trips, in many small and medium-sized Indian cities, their use exceeds that of formal public transport by almost nine times. Thus, for commuters, IPT is not supplementary transport but the primary mobility system.

Why IPT Matters in Indian Cities

The nature of IPT in India is also evolving rapidly. Traditional systems are now increasingly being supplemented by app-based ride-hailing and ride-sharing platforms such as Uber, Ola and Rapido. In many ways, these platforms are the digital extension of paratransit, providing flexible, on-demand and often shared mobility that bridges critical gaps in formal networks. Together, they now serve over 72 million weekly users. Studies have also shown that the spread of ride-hailing has helped lower private vehicle ownership rates in several cities.

Despite this, urban transport policy continues to channel disproportionate funds into large infrastructure projects while treating IPT as informal, temporary or even a problem. This approach needs urgent rethinking.

The experience of the last two decades clearly shows that infrastructure alone cannot solve urban mobility challenges. Since the National Urban Transport Policy of 2006, India has built more than 1,000 kilometres of metro rail at an investment of several lakh crores. Yet over the same period, the number of registered motor vehicles surged from nearly 90 million to over 413 million by 2025, driven mainly by motorised two-wheelers. 

The Last-Mile Gap

Much of this gap can be traced to inadequate “last mile” connectivity in public transport networks. For most commuters, the journey does not start at a metro station or bus stop. It begins with walking along broken footpaths, crossing dangerous roads, searching for an e-rickshaw, or waiting for a shared auto. In city after city, this last link remains fragmented, poorly planned, and deeply inconvenient, precisely where IPT becomes indispensable.

A frequent criticism is that IPT vehicles add to congestion and street disorder. But this argument overlooks the essential difference between private cars and shared mobility. A private car typically carries one or two people, occupies valuable road space, and then stays parked for most of the day. By contrast, auto-rickshaws, e-rickshaws, and shared tempos serve multiple passengers continuously, stopping only briefly between trips. Their road-space efficiency is far higher.

The real problem in Indian cities is not shared mobility but the unchecked growth of private vehicles and the sustained investment in car-centric infrastructure. India’s cities still have relatively low car ownership compared to many developed countries, yet they suffer severe congestion because streets are designed to move and store private cars, not to move people efficiently.

What Cities Should Do Instead

Rather than sidelining IPT, cities need to integrate these systems into formal transport planning. This requires a shift toward demand-side reforms instead of relying only on road widening and flyovers. Measures such as better feeder connectivity, parking pricing, congestion charges, integrated ticketing, and incentives for shared mobility can meaningfully reduce unnecessary private vehicle dependence.

At the same time, IPT systems need formal recognition and policy backing. Dedicated pickup and drop-off zones, route rationalisation, digital integration, strong safety standards, and support for electric fleets can significantly improve the commuter experience while cutting emissions.

Bhubaneswar Example

Cities are already demonstrating how IPT can be effectively integrated into formal urban transport systems. Bhubaneswar’s Capital Region Urban Transport (CRUT) launched the Mo E-Ride initiative, deploying electric rickshaws to strengthen last-mile connectivity in underserved areas. As a result, CRUT became the first public transport agency in India to own and manage an e-rickshaw fleet as part of an integrated urban mobility system.

Conclusion

India’s urban mobility challenge cannot be solved through flyovers and road widening alone. Walking infrastructure, cycling networks, bus systems, and IPT integration often deliver broader citywide mobility benefits than isolated high-cost transport projects. The future of urban transport in India will depend not on how many vehicles cities can accommodate, but on how efficiently they can move people. Strengthening IPT and paratransit systems is therefore not a secondary reform; it is central to building more accessible, less congested, and more sustainable cities.

For further insights and recommendations, read ICUT’s Review of the National Urban Transport Policy of 2006.

FAQs