A fresh Traffic Panchayat has put underground parking, pedestrian access, one-way circulation and kerb management back on the table. But official records show that Khan Market’s parking problem—and proposals to solve it—have circulated through Delhi’s institutions for more than a decade.
NEW DELHI — Delhi authorities and Khan Market traders have reopened one of the capital’s most persistent commercial-street questions: how to manage cars, pedestrians, parking, taxis and scarce public space inside one of central Delhi’s busiest markets.
At a Traffic Panchayat held on Saturday, August 22, representatives of Delhi Police, Delhi Traffic Police, the New Delhi Municipal Council and traders discussed parking shortages, pedestrian crossings, encroachments, traffic signals and circulation around the market. Among the possibilities considered were underground parking, additional parking capacity, a one-way traffic system, designated taxi and autorickshaw stopping space and a smart-parking solution.
The meeting is a fresh administrative intervention.
The underlying problem is not.
Public records reviewed by Urban Acres show that multilevel or underground parking around Khan Market has been contemplated through several planning cycles. A 2011 Delhi High Court decision recorded that NDMC had approached the Union government’s Land & Development Office seeking expedited allotment of a plot near Khan Market for a mechanised multilevel parking facility.
Seven years later, NDMC’s 2018-19 Budget said L&DO had allotted a plot of nearly 5,000 square metres and proposed an underground facility capable of accommodating roughly 800 cars.
In 2019, multilevel parking at Amrita Shergill Marg was again publicly reported as an NDMC proposal.
That history changes how Saturday’s discussion should be read.
What actually changed on August 22
The new development is not approval of an underground car park.
It is the reopening of an inter-agency discussion around Khan Market access and traffic management.
According to the meeting account, authorities considered manually managing the Sujan Singh Park signal at peak periods, reviewing signal timing on Subramania Bharti Marg, examining a one-way circulation system, defining a taxi/TSR pick-and-drop point and acting against occupations of public space that obstruct pedestrian and vehicle movement.
Those measures range from relatively low-cost operational changes to a potentially large capital project.
They should not be reported as though they have reached the same stage.
Signal optimisation or enforcement can potentially be implemented administratively.
An underground parking facility would require a much longer chain:
site confirmation → planning → technical design → approvals → cost sanction → procurement → contract award → construction → systems → commissioning → operation.
The current public record reviewed by Urban Acres does not establish that a new underground-parking project has progressed through that chain.
The street problem is larger than a parking shortage
Khan Market’s problem is often described simply as inadequate parking.
That is incomplete.
An official urban-design study documented on-street and designated parking around the market and noted that parking on both sides of Amrita Shergill Lane reduced the carriageway available for movement. It also described significant interaction between parking demand and pedestrian circulation.
Earlier NDMC planning work likewise identified Khan Market among central Delhi’s critical parking areas and linked parking spillover to reduced road capacity and pedestrian-vehicle conflict.
The infrastructure question is therefore not merely:
Where can another car be stored?
It is:
How should finite street space be divided among moving vehicles, parked vehicles, pedestrians, taxis, autos, deliveries and public access?
That distinction matters because additional parking capacity can relieve kerb pressure if it replaces illegal or inefficient street parking. But without pricing, circulation and enforcement measures, more parking can also make driving to an already constrained destination easier and increase vehicle demand.
The success metric should therefore not be the headline number of new parking bays.
It should be whether:
- illegal and double parking declines;
- pedestrian routes remain continuous;
- vehicle queues shorten;
- pick-up and drop-off moves out of through lanes;
- emergency access improves;
- vehicles spend less time circulating for parking;
- and public-transport access remains competitive.
Pedestrianisation returns to the conversation
Saturday’s discussion also considered making Khan Market more pedestrian-friendly.
That too has substantial history.
In 2016, the Union Urban Development Ministry publicly urged NDMC to consider making Khan Market and Connaught Place no-vehicle zones while strengthening pedestrian and non-motorised infrastructure.
The fact that parking expansion and pedestrianisation continue to appear in the same policy conversation illustrates the unresolved choice facing the market.
A coherent plan could combine them: intercept cars outside pedestrian-priority areas, organise structured parking, provide safe walking connections, reserve kerb space for essential pick-up/drop-off and deliveries, and enforce the remaining street rules.
But without such a network design, isolated interventions can simply move congestion from one lane to another.
The institutional interface
NDMC currently lists Khan Market within the areas managed by its Parking Management System.
Road space, parking facilities, public-realm management, traffic control and policing nevertheless sit across institutional interfaces.
That explains why Saturday’s meeting brought together municipal and police agencies.
It does not, however, remove the need for clear ownership.
For every measure now discussed, residents and traders should be able to see:
measure → responsible agency → approval status → deadline → performance indicator.
Without that ledger, “coordination” remains difficult to evaluate.
Smart parking needs a service metric
Officials reportedly said a smart-parking system for Khan Market is under consideration.
Technology can help identify space availability, regulate entry or improve payment and enforcement.
But the relevant outcome is not the installation of another digital system.
It is whether drivers spend less time searching for spaces and whether kerbside obstruction declines.
The useful dataset would therefore include occupancy by time of day, parking turnover, average search time, violations, towing, system uptime and pedestrian obstruction—not simply app adoption.
What happened to the old parking plan?
This is now the central accountability question.
If an underground facility was being pursued as early as 2011, formally appeared in NDMC’s 2018-19 Budget and returned to public discussion in 2019, authorities should disclose what prevented delivery.
Possible explanations could include design, procurement, site, finance, heritage, traffic or feasibility constraints.
Urban Acres found insufficient authoritative evidence to attribute the non-delivery to any one of them.
That distinction is important.
A stalled project is an observable outcome.
Its cause requires evidence.
What Delhi should publish now
Before another large parking project is announced, NDMC and traffic authorities should publish a compact Khan Market mobility ledger containing:
| Metric | Public disclosure needed |
|---|---|
| Existing legal car capacity | Number and location |
| Peak occupancy | Weekday / weekend / hour |
| Illegal parking | Violations by location |
| Parking turnover | Vehicles per space per day |
| Kerb allocation | Parking / taxi / auto / deliveries |
| Pedestrian widths | Continuous usable width |
| Traffic circulation | Entry/exit volumes and queueing |
| Earlier parking project | Approval, tender and cancellation history |
| Proposed underground project | Current stage |
| Site | Land ownership and availability |
| Capacity | Current design figure |
| Cost | Estimate and sanctioned amount separately |
| Financing | NDMC / concession / other |
| Procurement | Proposed model and status |
| O&M | Operator and service standards |
| Outcome | Search time, violations and congestion after implementation |
The objective should be straightforward:
less street disorder, safer pedestrian access and more predictable access to the market—not simply a larger parking number.
Saturday’s Traffic Panchayat creates an opportunity to restart that work.
Its value will depend on whether this round produces a delivery sequence rather than another list of familiar proposals.
