Imagine stepping out of your home and walking to the market, a school, a railway station or a bus stop. It sounds like the most basic activity in a city. Yet, in many Indian cities, walking can mean navigating broken pavements, parked vehicles, street vendors, construction material and fast-moving traffic.
Andhra Pradesh has now taken a significant step to change this reality.
On 7 August 2026, the state notified the Andhra Pradesh Pedestrian Safety & Universal Accessibility Policy, 2026, making it the first Indian state to establish a dedicated statewide framework focused specifically on pedestrian safety and universal accessibility.
The policy represents a larger shift in thinking: roads should not be designed only for vehicles; they must also be designed for people.
Why does pedestrian safety matter?
India’s rapid urbanisation has brought more vehicles, wider roads and greater traffic volumes. But pedestrian infrastructure has often failed to keep pace.
According to 2024 road accident data, Andhra Pradesh recorded 8,346 road accident deaths, of which 1,739 were pedestrians. At the national level, pedestrians accounted for 36,526 of around 1.77 lakh road deaths.
These figures highlight a fundamental problem. A road system cannot be considered successful simply because vehicles move faster. It must also ensure that people can cross roads, reach public transport and walk through neighbourhoods without being exposed to unnecessary danger.
From vehicle-centric roads to people-centric streets
The most important feature of Andhra Pradesh’s policy is its change in approach.
Instead of treating pedestrians as an afterthought, the policy attempts to make walking an integral part of road planning. It applies not only to major cities but also to rural areas, peri-urban regions, urban fringes and satellite towns. It covers both new infrastructure and the upgrading of existing roads.
This is important because pedestrian safety is not merely an urban issue. A person walking beside a highway in a village can face the same fundamental danger as a pedestrian crossing a busy urban junction.
Three pillars of the policy
The framework essentially works through three interconnected areas:
1. Audit the roads before fixing them
Authorities will undertake scientific road-safety audits to identify dangerous locations and deficiencies in pedestrian infrastructure.
High-footfall areas such as markets, railway stations, bus stands, religious institutions and educational institutions will receive priority.
The policy also requires authorities to identify 15–20 pedestrian accident-prone black spots using recent accident data. At least 20% of roads are to be surveyed during the first year to identify additional requirements for pedestrian crossings and safety improvements.
This data-driven approach is significant because road safety should ideally be based on evidence rather than simply reacting after accidents occur.
2. Make footpaths actually usable
A footpath exists for walking. Yet in many cities, pedestrians are forced onto the carriageway because pavements are occupied by parked vehicles, vendors, construction material or unauthorised structures.
The new policy specifically calls for the removal of encroachments and unauthorised structures from pedestrian spaces.
It also establishes infrastructure standards. The clear walking portion of a footpath should generally provide at least two metres of walking space, while provisions are made for accessibility, buffers and other street functions.
The policy also provides for:
• Tactile paving for visually impaired pedestrians
• Accessible ramps at crossings
• Firm, stable and slip-resistant walking surfaces
• Pedestrian guardrails and bollards
• Safer pedestrian crossings
• Better illumination
• Accessibility for wheelchair users
The idea is simple: a footpath should be usable by everyone, not merely by an able-bodied person on an empty street.
Technology enters the footpath
The policy also recognises that constructing footpaths is only half the job. Keeping them safe and obstruction-free is equally important.
For this purpose, it proposes tools such as GIS mapping, photographic records, drone surveys, camera-based monitoring and dashboard-based tracking. Citizens will also be able to report violations through grievance mechanisms.
This can potentially create a feedback loop:
Identify problem → Report it → Record it → Fix it → Monitor it
Such technology becomes particularly useful for recurring problems such as illegal parking or repeated encroachment.
Accessibility is more than a ramp
One of the strongest aspects of the policy is its emphasis on universal accessibility.
A genuinely inclusive street must consider children, senior citizens, wheelchair users and people with visual or other disabilities.
For example, the policy provides for tactile paving, accessible crossings and standards for bollards and pedestrian movement. It also discourages unnecessarily forcing pedestrians to use foot overbridges where a safe at-grade crossing can be provided. Where foot overbridges or subways are necessary and involve significant level differences, accessibility measures such as lifts are envisaged.
This changes the question from “Can a pedestrian cross the road?” to “Can every pedestrian cross the road safely and independently?”
That is a much more meaningful standard.
Accountability for unsafe design
The policy also connects pedestrian safety with responsibility.
It invokes Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which officials, contractors and consultants can face penalties where infrastructure or design failures contribute to pedestrian death or disability.
This is an important principle.
Road accidents are often discussed as a matter of driver behaviour. While reckless driving is undoubtedly a major concern, safety also depends upon road design, lighting, crossings, footpaths and maintenance.
If infrastructure itself creates danger, accountability cannot stop with the person behind the steering wheel.
Citizens are part of the solution
The policy does not leave pedestrian safety entirely to government departments.
Citizen reporting, awareness campaigns and community participation are incorporated into the framework. Resident welfare associations, civil society organisations, academic institutions and organisations representing persons with disabilities can also contribute to planning and implementation.
This is important because streets are shared public spaces. Their safety depends not only on engineers and enforcement agencies but also on motorists, pedestrians, vendors, property owners and local communities.
A green dimension too
Interestingly, the policy also incorporates elements of the circular economy.
It provides for the use of processed construction and demolition waste in certain non-structural pedestrian infrastructure such as pavement tiles, seating and bollards.
Thus, pedestrian infrastructure is being linked with another urban challenge: managing construction waste.
The bigger constitutional idea: the right to walk
The policy gains even greater significance in the context of recent judicial developments concerning pedestrian rights.
The broader legal debate has increasingly recognised that the ability to walk safely on properly demarcated pedestrian infrastructure is connected with constitutional guarantees, including the Right to Life under Article 21.
This transforms pedestrian safety from merely a question of municipal convenience into a question of citizens’ rights and dignity.
A person should not have to choose between reaching the other side of the road and risking their life.
But policy is only the beginning
The real test will not be the notification of the policy. It will be its implementation.
Removing encroachments can create conflicts with livelihoods. Building accessible footpaths requires coordination between multiple agencies. Maintaining them requires continuous funding and monitoring. And safer infrastructure will have limited impact if traffic rules continue to be ignored.
There is also a danger that a policy could become another document that looks impressive on paper but produces limited change on the ground.
The success of Andhra Pradesh’s initiative will therefore depend on enforcement, maintenance, funding, coordination and measurable outcomes.
The policy itself attempts to address this by introducing performance indicators related to pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, accessibility, walkability and reductions in road accidents.
What can other Indian cities learn?
Andhra Pradesh’s initiative offers a broader lesson for India’s rapidly growing cities.
Urban development should not be measured only by:
More roads + more flyovers + more vehicles
It should also be measured by:
Safer crossings + better footpaths + accessibility + public transport connectivity + walkable neighbourhoods
A city where a child can walk to school, an elderly person can reach a bus stop and a wheelchair user can cross a junction independently is arguably more developed than a city filled with impressive highways but unsafe streets.
And perhaps that is the most important message behind Andhra Pradesh’s new approach.
A road is not successful merely when vehicles move quickly. It is successful when people can move safely.
Andhra Pradesh has now put that principle into a statewide policy framework. The next challenge is to turn the promise of a “right to walk” into something people can experience every day, on every street.
Comments
Post a Comment