India’s smart cities: Lessons for New Zealand 

A busy entrance gate to a Jaipur bazaar

India’s SCM takes a more holistic view to urban planning, looking beyond the physical infrastructure to emphasise quality of life based on three pillars: liveability, economic viability, and sustainability. The mission was designed to be flexible enough that cities could interpret “smartness” in ways that reflect their socioeconomic and geographic contexts. 

The SCM adopts a dual-strategy framework comprising of area-based development (ABD) to transform specific urban pockets through retrofitting, redevelopment, or greenfield projects to create compact, high-density, mixed-use zones, as well as the Pan-City Initiative that extends smart solutions such as intelligent transport systems, integrated command centres, and digital governance platforms across the urban landscape. 

The SCM created a corporate entities structure as 50-50 joint ventures between state governments and urban local bodies (ULBs) that have operational autonomy. They embed the private sector’s efficiency within public governance structures.  

The SCM allocated funding to the top 100 cities according to the quality of their proposals (₹500 crore, approximately NZ$90 million per city over five years), contingent upon a matching contribution from state/local governments. This mechanism compelled ULBs to engage in self-assessment, strategic planning, and innovation. It also helped foster a sense of shared responsibility, financial discipline, and stronger local ownership of projects. These innovations position the SCM as a transformative approach to urban development that could be adopted by other urban planning entities. 

Jaipur is known as the Pink City due to its locally sourced pink sandstone

Rajasthan, one of India’s largest states, identified four cities (Jaipur, Udaipur, Kota, and Ajmer) as its Smart Cities. Each represents a distinct urban archetype: Jaipur, known as the Pink City, represents the heritage capital; Udaipur represents the ecological hub; Kota represents the industrial and educational hub; and Ajmer represents the spiritual city.  

Jaipur’s inclusion in India’s SCM faced the challenge of embedding digital intelligence into an 18th-century UNESCO World Heritage sites without disturbing its cultural soul. Unlike newer cities, where smart infrastructure can be integrated during expansion, Jaipur demanded an approach that could respect its dense, living heritage while responding to the rapidly growing population and constant tourist flows. This tension shaped the city’s Smart City vision. Rather than pursuing the “efficiency-first” model, Jaipur chose a “heritage-first” pathway to modernise its infrastructure and enhance quality of life within its historic precincts, particularly the Walled City, while safeguarding its defining visual and architectural identity. The goal was to layer intelligence onto tradition, ensuring that modernisation enhances, rather than erases, the city’s identity. 

Jaipur Smart City Limited (JSCL) was established to implement the SCM, gathering administrative authority, technical expertise, and institutional coordination under a single umbrella. 

The SMC used a dual strategy. The first part was the revitalisation of the Walled City through ABD, namely reclaiming urban space and streets from long-term clutter and stress. Overhead cables obscuring historic facades were removed, restoring visual coherence to the streetscape. Pedestrian-friendly pathways were introduced, encouraging walkability in the bazaars, and smart roads with underground utility ducts modernised the city’s infrastructure without altering its historic character. Facade restoration ensured that the architectural rhythm remained intact while the systems behind them were upgraded. Secondly, as part of the Pan-City initiative, the Integrated Traffic Management System (ITMS) was established to weave the diverse transport networks into a more synchronised and responsive system that allows Jaipur to manage mobility in real time to meet the needs of its three million residents, as well as the tourist population. 

The following section describes some of the projects undertaken as part of the SCM. 

Smart roads 

The Smart Roads initiative is the most ambitious and the most contested project in Jaipur. It is a transformative reimagining of Jaipur’s historic bazaars to address the longstanding spatial disorder. For decades, these commercial arteries were burdened by a dense web of overhead electrical cables, encroached footpaths, and unregulated mixed traffic. The result was visual chaos and significantly constrained pedestrian movement and economic activity. 

Jaipur's Ramganj Bazaar

The idea was spatial reclamation by rebalancing road space by prioritising pedestrians and non-motorised users, alongside vehicular traffic. Footpaths were widened and paved with heritage-sensitive materials. Designated vending zones were introduced to accommodate street vendors, an essential part of Jaipur’s informal economy, while preventing further encroachment onto carriageways. Simultaneously, digital infrastructure, including variable message signboards, environmental sensors, and multifunctional smart poles, aimed to convert these streets into dynamic urban corridors. 

The project’s implementation revealed the complexity of intervening in a “living” heritage environment. The process of laying underground utility ducts to remove overhead cables required extensive civil work that disrupted daily commercial activity. Shop closures triggered resistance from traders, forcing authorities to adopt a phased, piecemeal implementation. This prolonged the timeline and fragmented the users’ experience during the transition. 

Financial and operational constraints also complicated the rollout. Cost escalations led Jaipur Smart City Limited to abandon plans for several additional smart roads [1]. Meanwhile, the technological layer struggled to achieve full functionality. Although physical infrastructure such as WiFi nodes, sensors, and smart poles were installed, their integration into a cohesive, real-time data system remains incomplete. As a result, the “smartness” of Smart Roads risks being perceived as symbolic rather than truly transformative [2]. 

Jaipur’s Smart Roads initiative illustrates the potential and the pitfalls of smart mobility in heritage sites, demonstrating the challenges of technological ambition with socioeconomic realities. 

Parking and intelligent mobility  

Jaipur’s smart mobility strategy moved away from conventional road-widening approaches toward a more nuanced model of flow optimisation. In Jaipur’s dense, heritage-sensitive urban fabric, where physical expansion is impractical and undesirable, the priority is maximising the efficiency of the existing infrastructure, such as by establishing multilevel car parking (MLCP) facilities and the ITMS, both designed to leverage real-time data for better traffic and parking management [3].

In Jaipur, the Smart Cities Mission had to find ways to incorporate the city's heritage-sensitive areas with the requirements of a modern city

The MLCP initiative aims to decouple parking from the street. By relocating parked vehicles into vertical, off-street structures, it seeks to reclaim the public right of way for movement, not storage. Equipped with smart ticketing and digital payment systems, they aim to minimise entry and exit delays, alongside the related mobile application providing real-time information on slot availability to shift parking from a reactive, search-based activity involving prolonged cruising to a more efficient, planned experience, with implications for reducing congestion and fuel consumption [4]. In tandem, the ITMS framework integrates traffic signals, camera systems, and data analytics to monitor and regulate traffic flows across the city. Together, the MLCP and ITMS aim to build a responsive, data-driven network that optimises capacity. 

However, the reality is more complex. Despite the completion of key MLCP projects, their utilisation remains uneven. A significant barrier has been user behaviour. In the absence of strict implementation, many drivers continue to favour immediate roadside parking over designated facilities, undermining the intended decongestion benefits [5]. 

Additionally, issues of last-mile connectivity, such as the ease of access between parking facilities and final destinations, have further limited their adoption. These gaps highlight a critical insight: though infrastructure and technology can enable smarter systems, their success depends on behavioural change, enforcement, and seamless urban integration. 

Jaipur’s experience with MLCP and ITMS underscores the broader challenge of smart mobility in historic cities: not merely building infrastructure but aligning it with the everyday practices and expectations of urban users. 

Jaipur’s bicycle sharing scheme 

The success of Jaipur's Public Bycycle Sharing scheme has seen limited by a lack of a dedicated cycling infrastructure

The Public Bicycle Sharing (PBS) scheme, introduced as part of the Smart Mobility agenda, aimed to promote short-distance cycling, strengthen integration with public transport, address the “first and last mile” connectivity gap, and reduce traffic congestion in the Walled City while improving environmental quality and encouraging healthier urban lifestyles (JSCL, n.d.). Nevertheless, it exposes a gap between policy intent and on-ground implementation. 

Jaipur Smart City Limited implemented a dock-based bicycle sharing system at high-footfall nodes, comprising 50 stations and 500 bicycles. The initial rollout generated moderate enthusiasm, largely driven by novelty, but the system has not transitioned into a sustained mobility solution. Under the public–private partnership (PPP) model, the scheme has faced persistent operational and financial instability. Vandalism and theft have undermined its reliability and increased maintenance burdens, raising questions about the robustness of governance and enforcement mechanisms [6]. 

Jaipur’s lack of a dedicated cycling infrastructure limits the system’s effectiveness. Cyclists are unwilling to share congested roads with high-speed motorised traffic. This highlights a critical policy oversight: introducing shared mobility services without parallel investments in safe cycling networks undermines their long-term adoption [7]. 

The PBS model is also dependent on user fees and advertising revenues, which have both proven to be insufficient and inconsistent, resulting in disputes over maintenance responsibilities between JSCL and private operators. Similar patterns have been observed in other Indian cities, leading to private operators withdrawing from contracts altogether, exposing the fragility of PPP-based urban mobility models when financial risks are not adequately shared [8]. 

The PBS initiative illustrates the challenge in urban transport planning: the adoption of technologically and conceptually progressive mobility solutions without the necessary supporting institutional, infrastructural, and financial ecosystems. 

Reclaiming Jaipur’s verandas for walking  

Under Jaipur’s SCM, Jaipur Smart City Limited strove to reclaim the city's covered walkways

Jaipur’s smart mobility agenda extends into the realm of walkability, where the focus shifts from speed to experience. The Walled City introduced an intervention that is both cultural and infrastructural: the restoration of verandas, the semi-open arched walkways that line the city’s bazaars. These verandas were integral to Jaipur’s urban design. These shaded pedestrian corridors provided relief from the harsh desert climate while facilitating a vibrant interface between commerce and community life. Over time, many have been encroached upon – absorbed into shop extensions, blocked off, or repurposed – eroding their function as public walkways. 

Under Jaipur’s SCM, JSCL strove to reclaim these spaces. Encroachments were removed, and the verandas were restored as continuous pedestrian pathways, physically separating foot traffic from congested vehicular lanes. This was more than a simple improvement in mobility; it was an act of spatial and cultural recovery. By reinstating the verandas, the project enhanced walkability and revived the historic porous boundary where economic transactions, social interactions, and everyday life converge. 

This was complemented by the standardisation of shop signage to reduce visual clutter and reinforce the architectural coherence of the Walled City and create a more legible, accessible, and aesthetically consistent public space aligned with Jaipur’s heritage while accommodating contemporary urban needs. However, like other interventions in living heritage zones, the process has not been smooth. The removal of encroachments met resistance from local trade unions, who viewed the measures as disruptive to their livelihoods. For many shopkeepers, the encroached veranda space was an economic necessity. The uniform design codes intensified concerns about the loss of individual visibility and commercial flexibility [9]. 

This highlights the challenge of reconciling urban order with economic informality, and heritage conservation with everyday survival. The veranda restoration project, while successful in reclaiming pedestrian space, underscores the importance of stakeholder engagement and adaptive implementation to ensure that such transformations are inclusive and sustainable. 

India’s SCM, particularly Jaipur’s smart mobility initiatives, offers several lessons for New Zealand’s urban planners. 

1. Smart mobility is sociopolitical, not just technical 
Jaipur’s retrofitting of the heritage Walled City shows that even well-designed infrastructure can face strong resistance from local stakeholders, reflecting that early, genuine, and continuous public engagement is critical. For New Zealand, this reinforces that transport interventions must be co-designed with communities, not just introduced as technical upgrades. 

2. Balance delivery efficiency with democratic governance 
India’s SCM corporate-style delivery models improved speed but sometimes weakened coordination with elected local bodies. The lesson is to avoid parallel governance structures that undermine local accountability. In New Zealand, maintaining democratic oversight while improving delivery efficiency remains essential. 

Moreover, the separate Smart City corporate entity accelerated delivery but created handover risks. Once projects were transferred to municipal bodies, limited technical capacity and funding led to maintenance challenges. For New Zealand, where local councils retain long-term responsibility, we need to align innovation with enduring institutional capability from the outset. 

3. Integrate technology with integrated planning  
Jaipur reveals a “hardware–software gap”. The success of assets like MLCPs and bike-sharing systems was limited by poor enforcement (for example, on-street parking) and a lack of an enabling infrastructure (for example, safe cycling lanes). The key lesson for New Zealand is that digital tools and smart systems only work when supported by strong regulation, behaviour change, and integrated planning. Technology should enable, not replace, good governance.  

India’s Smart City initiatives were often technology-led, with limited meaningful community participation and over-reliance on digital feedback. Such an approach risks excluding less digitally connected populations. The takeaway for New Zealand is to prioritise inclusive, community-centred problem definition before selecting technological solutions. 

In summary, India’s SCM and smart mobility programmes attempted to reimagine urban governance and infrastructure planning in the context of rapid urbanisation and economic growth. Though the scale and context of India and New Zealand differ, the underlying principles of strategic direction and coordination, innovation, and community-centric planning offer valuable lessons. 

Dr Muhammad Imran is a Professor of Transport and Urban Planning at Massey University, New Zealand and is affiliate of Australian National University South Asia Research Institute.  

Dr Nand Kumar is Professor and Team Leader AMRUT Centre, Department of Architecture and Planning, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India.  

Vishant Dhankher is a graduate student at the Department of Architecture and Planning, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India.

Footnotes  

• Times of India. (2020, Jan 22). Bicycle-sharing scheme bites dust

• Times of India. (2021, July 17). Nodal agency stops building roads in Jaipur, says not cost-effective

• Times of India. (2025a, October 31). Half-done Jaipur Smart City to replicate model in 6 more Raj towns

• imes of India. (2025b, March 6). 900 traders protest after HC orders sealing of 19 buildings

• Government of Rajasthan. (2015). The Smart City Proposal: Jaipur. Jaipur Municipal Corporation

• Jaipur Smart City Limited (JSCL). (n.d.). Project Status Reports: Projects Completed

• Qucit. (2025, July 22). Between growth and challenges: What place for bike-sharing in Indian cities?

• Dawda, N. (2025, April 8). Challenges and Opportunities for Public Bike Sharing in India, Observer Research Foundation (ORF)

The Foundation's Asia in Focus initiative publishes expert insights and analysis on issues across Asia, as well as New Zealand’s evolving relationship with the region.