Tashkent, Uzbekistan — Podrobno.uz. Not long ago, underground pedestrian crossings were considered a sign of a developed city and efficient traffic management – they allowed separating vehicle and pedestrian flows, speeding up transport and reducing road conflicts. Today, many cities are reconsidering this approach and placing greater emphasis on pedestrian convenience and safety. Podrobno.uz analyzed where underground crossings are truly necessary and how relevant this approach is for Tashkent.
Their mass construction began during a period when the main criterion of urban efficiency was the ability to ensure fast and uninterrupted vehicle flow. Underground crossings were supposed to solve a simple task: remove pedestrians from the road level and free up space for transport. However, over time, the concept of a quality urban environment has changed – now not only the speed of cars matters, but also how convenient, safe, and accessible it is for people to walk. The WHO directly links urban street safety with speed reduction and recommends 30 km/h on streets where pedestrians and vehicles mix. The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) in its urban planning guide places the pedestrian network at the core of a quality urban environment: continuous, accessible, well-lit, and convenient for all ages and mobility levels.
Modern research shows that this logic poorly matches real human behavior. In one study of pedestrian preferences, underground and overhead crossings were rated lower than direct signalized crossings, and the average willingness to spend extra time for a more convenient direct crossing was about 2.4 minutes; moreover, people, especially women, the elderly, and those with limited mobility, are even less willing to choose overhead and underground crossings. Other studies record a similar picture: even when a crossing exists, people often choose the shortest path if the official route seems too long, complicated, or psychologically uncomfortable.
The most telling example is Paris. The city not only declares pedestrian priority but consistently expands the network of spaces where walking becomes the main mode of movement. In the "Paris, priorité piéton" program, Paris directly talks about developing a convenient, legible, and safe pedestrian network, as well as expanding pedestrian zones, greening streets, and reducing car dominance. In 2025, city residents supported the idea of making another 500 streets pedestrian-only in a referendum – this is not a technical detail but a political signal: in a large European city, the pedestrian has become not a remnant of the old street but its main user.
Tashkent is in a different phase: the city is not abandoning large transport infrastructure but is trying to simultaneously increase road capacity and improve people's mobility. It is here that tension arises between old and new logic. On one hand, new interchanges and crossings are being built, highways are being expanded, and the role of car traffic is strengthening. On the other hand, projects are emerging that show a shift towards prioritizing public transport and more direct urban walking.
In 2024, Tashkent allocated over 107 billion soums for the construction of 20 overhead pedestrian crossings. In 2025, new underground crossings were also planned in the regions of Uzbekistan. That is, the country as a whole continues to use the old model of separating flows, but recently another practice is developing alongside it – priority for buses, development of pedestrian and bicycle connections, and reconstruction of streets towards greater accessibility.
The article does not suggest that underground crossings should be removed everywhere. On high-speed highways, near large interchanges, next to railways, and where it is truly impossible to safely organize a ground-level crossing, they remain a rational solution. But in a modern city, this is already an exception, not a universal norm.
The problem begins where an underground crossing is built out of inertia, without analyzing the real pedestrian route and without answering the question of whether it is actually convenient for people to use. An underground crossing should not be seen as a symbol of progress in itself. It should be a response to a specific urban situation: road width, speed, traffic volume, availability of public transport, density of pedestrian routes, and the ability to ensure accessibility. Where all this can be solved at street level, the modern city increasingly chooses this path.
The discussion about underground crossings in Tashkent is not a debate about concrete, stairs, and tunnels. It is a debate about priorities. If a city is designed primarily as a system for car movement, an underground crossing seems like a natural tool. If the city is understood as a space of daily life where accessibility, safety, convenience, and continuity of the pedestrian route are important, then an underground crossing becomes not a rule but an exception.
It is in this sense that underground crossings are a very accurate indicator of urban philosophy. They show not only how a particular street is organized but also who is given priority on that street. The question here is not whether pedestrians should disappear underground. The question is what kind of city we consider the norm: a city where people yield to cars, or a city where the street works for people.
Source: podrobno.uz