There is relatively little literature on pre-Soviet urban planning, perhaps because the Soviet planners were relatively unconcerned with establishing past trends of urban development, instead being guided by the combination of communist ideology and the examples of Western cities whose industrial development they generally sought to emulate. However, I was able to find a study of the deveoplment of Odessa (in present-day Ukraine), including a period of significant growth from 1863 to 1892 (during which time the population tripled, see Skinner 281). On the whole, the priorities and goals of the municipal planners (at least during this late period) seem relatively similar to those who would undertake urban planning in the Soviet Union.
The growth of Odessa was largely as a result of its role as a port city, especially in light of its newly-constructed railroad connection; it therefore served as a hub of trade between the Russian Empire and other countries. In addition to this role in trade, a number of factories emerged during this period. This development was relatively unanticipated by municipal authorities, leading to somewhat haphazard contsturcion of buildings and streets. (Skinner 281–285)
The increase in industrial activity led to the development of suburbs outside the traditional urban area, as well as the constuction of many taller buildings within the urban center. Perhaps in response to the problems caused by the under-planning of factory development, the municipal government took a somewhat heavy-handed approach to the constuction occuring within the city, overseeing the design and planning of individual buildings. (Skinner 286–291)
The attention of the municipal government was soon turned towards the reconstruction of the port facilities, which had slowly fallen into disrepair. This marked a shift in focus towards infrastructure that would continue throughout the remainder of this period. Electification and water supply systems were next constructed by the municipal government (starting with the port itself), followed by infrastructure allowing for more efficient trade, such as grain elevators on the docks for loading ships. Among other things, this left the port itself in a relatively modern state; it would remain in that form at least through the 1970s. (Skinner 299–304)
But the efforts of the municipal government extended beyond the port itself, especially when state funding was available for infrastructure projects (which seems to have been relatively often). Transit systems were among the most successful such projects: paved streets improved transit, and a foreign entrepreneur was allowed to create a privately-run street-lighting company (with some subsidies from the municipal government). Sidewalks were put in to protect pedestrians from the increasing levels of (horse-drawn) vehicle traffic, and even a tram system was put in place (initially horse-drawn, then steam-powered). Originally the tram was meant to move goods between parts of the city, but it quickly became clear that it was most profitable to run it as a passenger service. (Skinner 305–327)
Nevertheless, some projects were far less successful, often due to a lack of available funding and a focus on profit-driven enterprises. The attempts by the municipal government to introduce a modern sewage system met with limited success, as in 1892, only 40% of homes were connected to the system, largely because there was no clear way to monetize the system to provide funding for its construction. This focus also caused shortcomings in the new tram system, which did not reach poorer parts of the city, even though these were often densely-packed residential neighborhoods that might have benefited the most from the introduction of transit services. (Skinner 317–328)
Accordingly, the transit planning in Imperial Russia, at least as indicated by the example of Odessa, seems to have varied less from Soviet planning in goals than it did in means. The goals still seem to have included attempts to “modernize” and Westernize the infrastructure, and the focus was still somewhat large-scale and in terms of systems rather than a focus on individual facilities. However, the use of foreign-run enterprises and the for-profit nature of many of these municipal systems is a stark difference from the state-run, centrally-planned, command-economy infrastructure projects that were to exist under the Soviet system.