1

THIKA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

The Social/Community Component of the Analysis of the Thika Highway Improvement Project

May 2012

Source: http://www.kenyacarbazaar.com/blog/firms-cut-off-thika-road-face-relocation/

2

Executive Summary Transforming the road from Nairobi to Thika town into a super highway is one of Kenya’s first large-scale transportation infrastructure projects and is drawing mixed reactions. Funded by loans from the African Development Bank and the Chinese government, the project began in 2009 and was expected to be completed in July 2011. The perceptions and reactions of citizens who are seeing their lives transformed by the highway have not been part of most discussions about the highway, and little independent research has taken place on the impacts of the highway especially for non-motorists. The Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations (Kara) and the Center for Sustainable Urban Development (CSUD) at the Earth Institute at Columbia University have come together to examine emerging issues around the Thika Highway Improvement Project (THIP). Kara held a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) for residents and users of the highway, along with a stakeholder meeting and public forum. The FGDs, stakeholder meeting, and public forum provided a platform for the public to give their views on the project planning and implementation, the socio-economic impact on their lives and livelihoods, their involvement or otherwise in the project, and issues of local planning and land use in relation to the project as well as any other concerns. In addition, there was the opportunity for dialogue with the officials implementing the project. From this series of discussions, it is clear that many Kenyans welcome and appreciate the THIP and its anticipated benefits, but there are gaps in the project process and implementation. As this is the first superhighway being built in Kenya, it is important that lessons are drawn from the gaps so appropriate and necessary measures are taken to ensure that future projects live up to the expectations of all the key stakeholders, including the general public. In particular, this work has highlighted the need to harness users’ and residents’ knowledge base for the project including on how to safely access and use the superhighway and the land around it. It has also highlighted the urgent need for the government to provide more information on such transportation projects and to adopt more of a context-sensitive approach to road building that takes into account existing land uses, environment and the local economy. This means getting more input from users and those affected by the road prior to design and construction in line with international standards of Context Sensitive Design, especially safety.

Introduction The transformation of the road from Nairobi to Thika town into a super highway is one of Kenya’s first large-scale transportation infrastructure projects. Currently, it is drawing mixed reactions from the neighboring residents and users of the road. Funded by loans from the African Development Bank and the Chinese government, the project began in 2009 following the signing of an agreement between the Government of Kenya and three Chinese construction firms.1 It was expected to be completed in July 27, 2011.2 While it initially attracted excitement and praise,

1 Further information regarding the firm names, contract sums and other construction details have been posted at the Government of Kenya Ministry of Roads’ website http://www.roads.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=27 and are described in Appendix I. 2 The Government of Kenya Ministry of Roads’ website states July 27, 2011 as the completion date. This information was last accessed on their website (website link in previous footnote) on May 16, 2012.

3

some complaints have emerged. However, the perceptions and reactions of citizens who are seeing their lives transformed by the highway have not been part of most discussions about the highway, and little independent research has taken place on the impacts of the highway especially for non-motorists. To fill this gap, Kara and the Center for Sustainable Urban Development (CSUD) at the Earth Institute at Columbia University have come together to examine emerging issues around the Thika Highway Improvement Project (THIP). This work is part of a larger interdisciplinary research consortium with the University of Nairobi’s (UoN) Department of Geography and Environmental Studies and the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology’s (JKUAT) Highway, Geotechnical and Transportation Division.3By bringing in the voices and views of citizens impacted by the highway project alongside more technical studies, this collaborative effort complements the overall work of the research consortium, which also is examining the road designs, land use and environmental impacts of the Thika Highway Improvement Project. Within this larger examination of the Thika Highway project, Kara’s role was to hold six Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) for residents and users of the highway. Kara ‘divided’ the highway into six sections and held one FGD in each of the following areas:

1. Parklands/ Pangani area (August 3, 2011, Impala Hotel – Nairobi, 13 Participants); 2. Muthaiga, Utalii, Kasarani (August 10, 2011 at Sportsview Hotel –Kasarani, 24

Participants); 3. Githurai, Kahawa, Weomererie (August 17, 2011 at Sportsview Hotel –Kasarani, 20

Participants); 4. Kenyatta University/ Ruiru (August 24, 2011 at Digithu Hotel – Ruiru, 52 Participants); 5. Juja(September 1, 2011 at Senate Hotel – Juja, 50 Participants); and 6. Thika (September 7, 2011 at Coconut Grill Hotel – Thika, 33 Participants).4

The FGDs provided a platform for the public to give their views on the project planning and implementation, the socio-economic impact on their lives and livelihoods, their involvement or otherwise in the project, and issues of local planning and land use in relation to the project as well as any other concerns. On October 11, 2011, the FGDs were followed by a stakeholders’ forum at the Pan Afric Hotel in Nairobi. This forum presented the issues emerging from the FGDs to 28 invited participants, particularly from professional groups, and provided a platform for further discussion and development of recommendations for addressing the challenges. Professor Evaristus Irandu from the University of Nairobi’s Department of Geography and Environmental Studies and a member of the research consortium also presented his team’s preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment study.

3 The research consortium is organized by CSUD and is made possible with funding from the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations. 4 See Appendices VI, VII, and VIII for full information on the participants of the FGDs, stakeholder meeting and public forum.

4

In order to obtain views from a wider audience and hear from Government officers in charge of the Thika Highway Improvement Project, especially from the Ministry of Roads (which is responsible for coordinating the project), an open public forum was organized on October 25, 2011 at the Pan Afric Hotel. The event was advertised in the newspapers and through Kara’s networks. The salience of the issue was clear, as 152 participants showed up. At the forum, findings from the FGDs and stakeholders forum were presented and participants had an opportunity to raise any other issues they felt needed addressing. The forum was attended by the Director General of the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) (the Government agency responsible for the oversight of the THIP), Eng. Meshack Kidenda, and the Team Leader of the THIP project from the Ministry of Roads (the Government Agency responsible for coordinating activities undertaken by KeNHA), Eng. John Mwatu. The forum provided the government officers a valuable opportunity to hear directly from and engage with the public. The following report provides the methodology, findings and analysis of Kara’s work in collaboration with CSUD. The hope is that this will help improve both the process and outcomes of the ongoing and very important transportation infrastructure projects in the country in line with Kenya Vision 2030. We also hope it demonstrates the importance of more independent research, monitoring and citizens engagement with government in transportation projects. Background to the Thika Highway Improvement Project The Nairobi-Thika Corridor (also called the Thika Road) is in the northeast of the Nairobi Metropolitan Region (NMR) and extends from Nairobi City Center to Thika District. The trunk road currently serves as a main cargo route and an important metropolitan, regional and international transit link and is part of the classified international trunk road A2, which originates in Nairobi City Center and extends to Moyale, Ethiopia. The road also acts as a main artery for various satellite towns and economic hubs that lie along and near the corridor, including Ruaraka, Kasarani, Kiambu Town, Githurai, Ruiru, Juja and Thika. A great deal of economic activity occurs in this area, ranging from manufacturing and entrepreneurial ventures and real estate developments to coffee, tea, horticultural and flower farming. There is also a vibrant informal sector: the clearest example being Githurai where anything, from sneakers to coal to bananas, is for sale. Thika Road is one of the most traveled corridors in the NMR. Given the limited housing options within Nairobi proper, many prefer to live in more affordable accommodations in these peri-urban and smaller urban areas while continuing to access services and jobs in Nairobi. Thika Road is one of the main roads that allow people to access employment, education and other services in Nairobi’s central business district as well as in Westlands and Parklands. A 2006 traffic count revealed that Nairobi-Thika Road carries around 60,000 vehicles per day (JICA 2006).

The problems currently plaguing commuters, residents and business owners along Thika Road include heavy congestion, dilapidated infrastructure, poor air quality, and high accident and fatality rates and are illustrative of the broader urban transportation problems that characterize the entire metropolitan area. The average urban growth rate for Nairobi is approximately 4%. The comparable rate for the satellite towns like Ruiru has been estimated as even higher. Rapid urbanization coupled with inadequate transportation infrastructure, maintenance and transport policies have led to a significant gap in meeting the travel needs of public transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists. High rates of traffic and travel demand, both motorized and non-

5

motorized, paired with poor road conditions, have all but strangled mobility and urban access and reduced safety in the metropolitan area, which has very high rates of road accidents often involving pedestrians (UNEP 2009).

Policy and Process Behind Thika Road Upgrading Kenyans appear generally supportive of the needed upgrading of road infrastructure and view this as an important and modern measure designed to cope with the massive congestion and related problems. Anecdotal sources based on initial focus groups conducted by CSUD5 seem to suggest that many Kenyans are positive and hopeful about the upgrade, and many have expressed their excitement regarding the potential improvements that the road will bring. They echo the potential benefits listed by the GoK and the AfDB (ADF 2007). For example, the community groups interviewed in Ruiru in 2010believed that the construction project will result in faster travel times, increased economic and employment opportunities, better access to services, and increased development in their community. While the press has covered the project to some extent and blogs chronicle the progress (http://thikaroad.blogspot.com/,now located at http://www.thikaroadblog.net/) it is unclear whether the public, including the various stakeholders directly and indirectly impacted, have had sufficient opportunities to discuss the project, its design, implementation and actual impacts with the project architects and relevant government authorities in line with good practices of context sensitive road building.6 According to the Consulting Engineering Services (CES) Environmental and Social Impact Study (2007), five public meetings were held with 329 participants total, and some government officials were interviewed. These few examples of public consultation represent a small percentage of those affected daily by the construction, including commuters, businesses, landowners and other stakeholders. The Ministry of Roads has information on the expansion of Nairobi-Thika Road posted on their website with the basic infrastructure changes, financing details and contractors (see: http://www.roads.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=27and Appendix I). In addition to this information, there are a few documents available outlining the project details, most notably an appraisal report (ADF 2007), a feasibility study and design report (CES and APEC 2007) and environmental and social impact assessment reports7 (ADF 2007, and CES and APEC 2007). However, some of this information has been difficult for affected local governments and residents to obtain. Other documents like the Resettlement Action Plan for those displaced by the project seem inaccessible.

5 CSUD team members, Jennifer Graeff and Jennifer Schumacher-Kocik, conducted these focus group discussions and interviews in Ruiru (Murera and Githurai Ward) on July 19, 2010. 6 After decades of global experience in building transportation infrastructure, context sensitive design (CSD) or CSS (Context Sensitive Solutions) has emerged as the best way to build highways to ensure safety, maintain environmental integrity, aesthetics and historical meaning in a place. CSD marries cutting edge knowledge of design with participation of users (including non-motorists) so that engineers know how best to design a road for safety and mobility and for the broader benefit of all those who will use it or come into contact with it. It is a holistic approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. 7 In theory, the highway project is regulated by the National Environmental Management Agency, which also did an environmental assessment. This too has been difficult to obtain and as of April 12, 2012 was unavailable online.

6

Adding to the complexity of the situation is the large amount of money (i.e., over 25,000,000,000 KES awarded in contracts to three Chinese firms8) invested in the Nairobi-Thika Highway Improvement Project. With so much money at stake in this large infrastructure project, it raises larger questions about the priorities in transportation policy and who, in actuality, primarily benefits; will the project sufficiently balance the long-haul cargo transportation needs with the regional metropolitan transport and land-use problems? And will designs be adapted to address the needs of the urban centers like Nairobi, Ruiru and Thika that are being impacted by the highway upgrade9?

The following map (African Development Fund 2007) shows the Thika Highway Project location:

8 The three Chinese firms awarded contracts are: M/S Shengli Engineering Construction Group Co. Ltd., M/S Synohydro Corporation Ltd, and M/S China Wu Yi Company Ltd. 9 An important precedent has been set by the Ministry of Roads, which convened a task force to look at Mombasa Road, which is also undergoing an upgrade. Rather than demolish billions of Ksh. worth of property, the task force suggested modifying road plans to enhance the local road network, rather than merely expand the highway.

7

8

The Study Methodology Kara, being a membership organization, has member associations based along the Thika Highway. However, in order to generate interest from both formal and informal organizations along the highway, Kara placed an advertisement in the two mainstream newspapers (Daily Nation and Standard10) inviting residents associations and business organizations along the highway to submit their contact details to Kara. The information was vital in identifying the exact location of the associations in relation to the highway as well as the formal (registered) and ‘informal’ associations. Kara is keen on facilitating the formation and registration of residents associations and initiatives that already exist including ‘informal’ organizations. The advertisement also invited all residents associations regardless of different socio-economic levels to participate in the FGDs, thus enriching the discussions. The advertisements were in English; however, many of the residents associations include illiterate/semi-illiterate members and so they were invited to the forum by the leaders of the residents association. The FGDs were conducted in both English and Kiswahili to ensure participation by all who were in attendance. The response to the advertisement was overwhelming and the public interest in the THIP clearly evident. Business organizations and individual professionals also responded. Kara also received a number of letters in advance of the FGDs about the highway project.11 The main issues raised by the respondents focused mainly on the process of project design and implementation. The general sentiment was that public participation was not well thought out and was generally lacking. Others raised specific issues including the location of the footbridges, as well as placement and communication regarding signage, among other issues. Focus Group Discussions For the purpose of this study, the Thika Highway Corridor was divided into six sections and residents/business organizations categorized in their respective areas based on their location on the highway. The sections are: Parklands/ Pangani area; Muthaiga, Utalii, Kasarani; Githurai, Kahawa, Weomererie; Kenyatta University/ Ruiru; Juja; and Thika. The FGDs were specifically meant to:

1. Investigate the level of involvement of residents in decision making regarding the project; 2. Understand the socio-economic impact of the construction project on the residents and/or

users of the Thika Highway; and 3. Identify the prevalent expectations and perceptions of the residents and/or users of the

highway regarding the project.

In collaboration with CSUD, FGD questionnaires were developed focusing on key questions regarding many important issues on project awareness level, road design, land use, road safety, the larger transportation plan and system, economic impact, environmental impact, local planning and local authority involvement.12

10 See Appendix II. 11 See Appendix IV. 12 See Appendix V.

9

Participants at the FGDs were given the opportunity to air their views about all aspects of the project-both positive and negative- before being presented with the questionnaires to fill out. Stakeholders Meeting The information from the FGDs was then analyzed and summarized into the key issues raised by participants both through the discussions and the questionnaires. The stakeholders meeting involved some participants from the FGDs, professionals and other stakeholders who may not necessarily be residents along the highway corridor but have professional expertise and interest in the THIP. The stakeholders meeting was meant to review the findings from the FGDs and to corroborate as well as enrich the findings by providing additional information that may not have been raised at the FGDs. Public Forum In order to expand the community participating in the THIP dialogue, an open public forum followed. The forum included commuters, business and residents associations; individual professionals as well as senior Government representatives. Besides sharing the findings of the FGDs and stakeholders meeting with a wider audience and receiving further input, the public forum provided a platform for participants to directly engage Government officers responsible for the THIP and seek answers to some of the concerns they have been unable to present to the Government. The forum, which sparked very lively discussions, included brief presentations of the FGDs and stakeholders meeting findings followed by responses from the plenary. The Government officers were then given an opportunity to address the issues raised and also respond to further questions from the public. Findings Focus Group Discussions The turnout was generally good in most of the FGDs. The preliminary goal was to target at least 30 participants for each FGD meeting and in places like Juja and Ruiru there were more than 50 participants in attendance. In some cases, like the Parklands area, the attendance figures were slightly below the targeted numbers, but the discussions were of high quality. The table below shows the area, location, date, and number of participants for each FGD meeting:

Area Date Location Number of Participants

Parklands/ Pangani area August 3, 2011 Impala Hotel – Nairobi 13 Muthaiga, Utalii, Kasarani

August 10, 2011 Sportsview Hotel – Kasarani

24

Githurai, Kahawa, Weomererie

August 17, 2011 Sportsview Hotel – Kasarani

20

Kenyatta University/ Ruiru

August 24, 2011 Digithu Hotel – Ruiru 52

Juja September 1, 2011 Senate Hotel – Juja 50 Thika September 7, 2011 Coconut Grill Hotel –

Thika 33

10

Participants at the meetings were a mixture of professionals, business organizations, residents associations and even the political class in some instances.13A majority of the participants were from residents and business associations, who appeared to be the most affected (negatively) by the project. There were also individuals who did not belong to any organized association, but because they are users of the highway felt that they must voice their concerns. From the FGDs, the participants appeared to appreciate that there are long-term benefits that will be realized after the project is complete but their immediate concern was the impact the implementation is having on their daily routines, businesses, and communities. Although the majority of the discussion focused on the negative impacts of the THIP, some benefits were repeatedly mentioned at the meetings:

1. Reduced travel time from Thika to Nairobi as a result of reduced traffic jams along the highway. Given that Thika Road has always been known to be one of the most congested roads in Nairobi with traffic snarl ups throughout the day, there was relief that this experience will be a thing of the past when the highway is complete.

2. High property values along the highway caused by increased demand for property. This is mainly to the benefit of those in real estate businesses or property owners.

3. Enhanced access to facilities such as banks, supermarkets, social clubs among others, which are expected to set up branches along the highway due to improved infrastructure.

4. Improved efficiency in doing business, especially for those businesses that rely on traveling or moving goods between Nairobi and Thika.

Generally participants dwelt mainly on their misgivings about the project planning, design and implementation. All the FGDs raised the issue of the lack of proper communication about the project and minimal public participation. Residents and users of the highway also repeatedly voiced concern about the lack of ongoing communication with the contractors. The highway users and neighboring residents are unhappy with the fact that no one communicates to them in advance about road closures and diversions of the routes they normally use. “You can use a particular route going to work in the morning. On your way back, you find the route has been closed and you have to use a diversion that you are unfamiliar with. Someone should have the courtesy of communicating the closure/diversion of roads in advance to avoid the inconvenience we go through,” said Joseph Magut, a resident of Kasarani, who attended one of the FGDs.14Some business owners have also had access to their businesses closed off completely or customers are made to go long distances to reach their business premises, leading to loss of business and livelihoods. While some of the existing businesses have suffered temporary setbacks as a result of the project, hopes are high that they will be able to make up for the losses as soon as the construction is complete.

13 See Appendix VI for a list of FGD meeting participants 14 This also creates unsafe conditions and has led to some serious accidents. See the story of the lawyer Muturi Kigano in Nyambega Gisesa “Nightmare of navigating super highway” Daily Nation January 21 2012[http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Nightmare+of+navigating+super+highway+/-/1056/1311710/-/9jc76hz/-/index.html].

11

A majority of the FGD participants indicated that they have no information about the project period, cost, and how it is funded: 112 out of the 197 participants indicated that they have no idea about the project period and cost. Regarding the funding, a majority of the participants (147) thought that the project was funded by the Chinese government but did not know any details beyond that (for example, that the African Development Bank is also heavily involved funding the project and the GoK, in addition to being responsible for paying back these loans, has also committed funds to the project).

Another major concern involves how pedestrians are to cross from one side of the highway. Currently, it seems only 10 footbridges exist along the road between Nairobi and Thika, which translates roughly to one footbridge for every 4 to 5 kilometers. If you alight from a matatu in between the footbridges, you have to walk at least 2 kilometers to the nearest footbridge to cross to the other side of the highway. This means people are likely to try and run across the road, causing accidents, which are already happening. The situation is worse in the case of people with disabilities.

Residents around Safari Park area, for example, complained that they are experiencing challenges crossing the road. Most of the residents in this area live on the opposite side of Safari Park and have to cross the road every morning when going to work and in the evening when going back home. There are fears that the area will be a black spot for accidents in future. There were also complaints from residents of the Kahawa area of pedestrians being knocked down at an alarming rate, particularly around the Kahawa Barracks area. Soldiers from the barracks are being knocked down when crossing the road to or from the barracks and recently, a local newspaper featured a story about two children killed on their way to school in the area. The absence of a footbridge nearby is to blame for the accidents.15 In addition, the FGD in Thika was attended by representatives of the Thika School for the Blind who faulted the project for not making provisions for people with disabilities. They were particularly concerned about the minimal number of footbridges along the highway and raised fears that crossing the road will be a total nightmare for them. As this is the first super highway in Kenya, fears were emerging from the various forums that unless mechanisms are put in place to retrain motorists on how to use this super highway, there are bound to be a high rate of road accidents on the highway. The training should also be extended to cyclists and pedestrians. A majority of the participants (168) think that safety on the super highway will improve but only with road user training and proper signage in place. Missing signage was thus another concern.

At the same time, property owners along the highway are smiling all the way to the bank. The anticipated economic vibrancy has attracted the attention of investors in various sectors, resulting in increased property values. Land values for both residential and commercial properties have skyrocketed as people scramble to get a piece of land, or rental properties along the highway. All of the participants noted that they believe the THIP will increase the land and property values along the Thika Highway corridor.16However, there were concerns that the rental properties will 15 See Appendix IX for press clippings about fatal accidents along the Highway. 16 This was also in the newspapers-see Kennedy Senelwa. “Thika Road Land Soars Over Highway” Daily Nation March 20, 2010.

12

become too expensive for the current tenants, some of whom have occupied the properties for several years.

At the FGDs, some of the issues raised by participants representing organizations were location specific. In the Parklands FGDs, for instance, individuals living in the Kariok or area complained of their houses being demolished without warning. They owned their houses for more than thirty years and woke up one morning to find themselves homeless with no alternatives. The hawkers at the Ngara market also complained of being displaced and not being provided with alternative sites to conduct their trade. In the Githurai/Kasarani area, there were complaints from business owners along the Thika highway, particularly owners of petrol stations and pubs, who raised the issue of their businesses either being disrupted by the diversions or by their businesses being completely demolished. While they appreciated the long-term benefits of the project, they felt that they were not properly engaged and given time to get alternative premises. Business owners around the All Soaps area also complained about their businesses being destroyed and being left without any source of livelihood. In the Juja area, one key issue concerned the impact of the superhighway on other infrastructure. Sewage and water lines needed to be moved to accommodate the highway and it is not clear how they are being replaced. Another concern is that once the project is completed, the population in Juja area will increase very rapidly leading to construction of more commercial and residential properties. However, there appears to be no plan to ensure that the sewerage and water infrastructure will be upgraded to correspond to the anticipated increase in population. What the residents of Juja expected to see was a clear collaboration between the highway contractors and the agencies responsible for water and sewerage services. Now the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology and the estates near the University do not see how the sewer system will fit with the highway design and there is no provision for the sewer system to be put in place in future. This is of obvious concern to these residents. Again the concern is over what plans are in place to ensure that sewage and water infrastructure are able to measure up to the increase in population that will result from the THIP? It may not be part of the highway design but the residents are apprehensive that, if not addressed at this point, it may be a major issue in the future. Chart 1: Summarized Views from Thika Highway Project Focus Group Discussions Category Views Road Safety • Frequent accidents particularly on the densely populated parts of the highway

such as the Githurai area. • Inadequate signage on the roads, especially for the diversions, thus causing a

safety risk as some motorists find themselves on the wrong side of the road. • Lack of knowledge both by the motorists and pedestrians on how to use the

highway that will lead to accidents. • Lack of adequate provision for Non-Motorized Transport (NMT), hence

increasing the chances of accidents. • People with disabilities such as the blind and disabled were not taken into

http://www.nation.co.ke/business/news/Thika%20Road%20land%20soars%20over%20highway%20/-/1006/883626/-/jttu9b/-/index.html.

13

consideration in the design and implementation of the project. It will be difficult for the disabled to cross from one side of the highway to the other since they have challenges in using the footbridges and can also not cross the highway without risking being knocked down by the speeding motorists.

• Crossing the highway is posing a challenge as the footbridges are spread wide apart and pedestrians are tempted to cross the highway without using the footbridges. Due to the high speed of vehicles on the highway, it is likely that there will be increased incidences of pedestrians being knocked down.

• There are no provisions for cars that break down or run out of fuel while on the highway and need to pull aside to fix the problem. This is bound to lead to accidents as vehicles at high speeds can easily hit the stationary vehicle.

Health • Workers hired by the contractors do not have clinically approved devices to protect them from inhaling chemicals and dust while carrying out their duties. This may result in immediate and long-term health complications.

• Drainage of liquid waste from the construction of the highway is done through tunnels that may spill into the water sources that the residents use.

• There is a lot of noise pollution from the construction site and this may lead to hearing impairment particularly for residents living near the highway.

• Dust emanating from the project site may lead to respiratory complications for the residents and users of the highway.

• There were concerns that the contractors dug certain parts of the murram road and left open holes. During the rainy seasons, stagnant water is found in the dug holes and this has become a breeding ground for mosquitoes hence leading to incidences of malaria17.

Information • The general feeling is that there is minimal information relayed to the local residents and users of the highway regarding the project. Information about the design, land use, time frame, cost, and project partners is not easily accessible.

• Communication during the implementation of the project such as when and where the diversions will be made is not effectively provided to local residents and users of the highway.

Socio-economic Impact

• Property value along the highway is skyrocketing as people scramble for a piece of land on Thika highway. This is benefitting property owners and not renters.

• Given the rent increases, some tenants who are unable to pay the high prices have been forced to move out.

• There has been a loss of businesses due to the demolition of premises on the road reserve and also due to the diversions.

• The construction trucks are very heavy and their movement during the construction has led to weakening of some of the buildings near the highway.

• The construction of the highway has not taken into consideration the proper storm water drainage, culverts and feeder roads. Proper drainage systems

17 There was also mention of other safety concerns regarding large holes from the construction work, which caused the drowning of several children. See Appendix IX for newspaper clippings.

14

should be established to avoid water draining into the estates and damaging property.

Stakeholders Meeting Findings Both the stakeholders meeting and the public forum were follow up steps to build on the information gathered from the FGDs, enrich the findings, and identify a way forward regarding the challenges raised during the FGDs. The primary purpose of the stakeholders meeting was to present the FGD findings and capture views from professionals and others who may not have been part of the FGDs. With this in mind, Kara invited KeNHA, private companies dealing with planning issues, safety regulators, and engineers along with other stakeholders (based on those who responded to the newspaper advert). Overall the stakeholders meeting was not as well-attended as hoped, but some of the individuals invited to the stakeholders meeting who were unable to attend did participate in the public forum.18 In addition, Kara was particularly keen to listen to the other participants in the THIP research consortium and learn from their own respective work. Prof. Evaristus Irandu, Associate Professor at the University of Nairobi’s Geography and Environmental Studies Department attended the stakeholders meeting and presented his preliminary findings on the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Professor Irandu confirmed some of the issues that had been raised by FGDs participants such as poor air quality resulting from the dust and chemicals on the road and large pits that were dug out and left open.19

Participants then gave their views on the issues raised at the FGDs and brought up some other points. For instance, one of the participants from Geospatial Systems Ltd noted that there should have been billboards on various sections of the highway providing basic details about the highway and what the project will look like at the end of the project. Overall, the stakeholders meeting by and large corroborated the issues revealed by the FGDs and exposed the fact that even professionals were not properly involved in the planning and design of the project.

Public Forum Findings The Public Forum held after the stakeholders meeting was led by a panel including Eng. John Mwatu, team leader of the Thika Superhighway project at the Ministry of Roads, Eng. Meshack Kidenda, Director General of Kenya National Highways Authority, and Professor Irandu, University of Nairobi, and moderated by Mr. Stephen Mutoro, Kara CEO. Kara had also invited the Kenya Police Traffic Commandant who confirmed participation but had to cancel last minute due to emergency security issues he had to personally address. The presence of Eng. Kidenda, and Eng. Mwatu, was important as they were able to listen first hand to some of the challenges the users and residents of the highway have been grappling with since the commencement of the project.

18 For a full list of participants from the stakeholders meeting and the public forum, see Appendices VII and VIII. 19 Professor Irandu, together with John Malii, is preparing a report on environmental impacts of the Thika Highway Improvement Project titled “A scoping study report on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for Thika Highway Improvement Project).

15

Participants raised several issues regarding the THIP and Eng. Kidenda and Eng. Mwatu responded to some of the issues raised. While the full forum is available online,20 below is the summary of deliberations of the road users and local residents regarding the THIP:

Safety and Health • There are fears of an increasing rate of accidents on the highway resulting from inadequate

information and skills on the usage of the highway both by the motorists and pedestrians21. KeNHA stated that safety has to be a personal responsibility and all users must ensure that they take precaution while using the superhighway, and emphasized this point by saying, “safety starts with me” and noting that people need to learn how to use the road.22KeNHA also said that they had made an effort on Thika Highway to include separated lanes for non-motorized transport, service roads and throughways.

• Concerns were also raised about the inadequate number of footbridges along the highway and the fact that when designing the highway no consideration was given to disabled people such as those using wheelchairs. The Ministry of Roads (MoR) and KeNHA acknowledged the situation and noted that all of the pedestrian crossings were already planned and will be added at the end of the project since it was easier to get the road built first. Attention was called by the MoR to the footpaths on Uhuru Highway as an example of past performance in delivering footpaths/footbridges. The MoR stated that the footbridges will have ramps so that they are handicapped accessible and that they will be provided every two kilometers or so. It was also noted, in response to concerns about how livestock could safely cross the road, that the animals could use the ramps as well.

• Strong concerns were voiced about the lack of signage on the road. It was noted that in China, where the contractors come from there are signs but on Thika Highway there are only rocks to indicate diversions and the like. These are very difficult to see, especially at night. KeNHA and the MoR stated that they have concerns about vandalism of signage and other materials on the highway. Plans are underway to introduce signage made from materials that are less valuable to reduce vandalism. They indicated that signs and streetlights, in addition to the pedestrian footbridges, would be added at the end of the project.

• There were also concerns about the gaping holes left by contractors after digging the areas surrounding the highway to get soil for construction. Such caves have become a breeding ground for mosquitoes and a risk to users of the roads especially at night.

Water Drainage, Road and Property Damage • Regarding proper drainage of water on and around the highway, MoR assured the audience

that drainage structures between Nairobi and Thika would be functioning and that there would be no water on the road. A problem identified by MoR was that unchecked water flow in Juja and in other places sometimes takes place on private property and that this is therefore a planning issue, rather than a problem made by the road. The MoR said that it has been recommended that the government acquire land to alleviate such issues. This was a statement

20 See http://csud.ei.columbia.edu/?id=news#ThikaVideo for the full forum. 21 A lengthy discussion with pictures demonstrating the inappropriate use of the service roads and exits can be found here http://www.thikaroadblog.net/blog/ignorance-law-no-defence and http://www.thikaroadblog.net/blog/superhighway-magazine-march-2012. 22 It is important to note here that road safety experts such as Dr. Dinesh Mohan argue that safety is not linked to personal responsibility but rather linked to systems and design (World Health Organization 2001).

16

by Eng. John Matu of Ministry of Roads though he did not clarify who had made these recommendations.

• The MoR acknowledged that the use of heavy equipment by the contractors and that the contractors damaged the roads and that they will repair this damage. There was no mention of the weakening of the buildings near the highway caused by the heavy machinery. Participants also raised the issue of compensation for the loss of business for those whose properties have been demolished, or access roads to their property have been blocked or diverted. The MoR and KeNHA categorically stated that the Government has no provision for compensation of loss of business. This issue was raised at some of the FGDs and also at the public forum where the KeNHA DG stated that there are no plans for compensation for the loss of business.

Agricultural Production and Food Security • Another concern was around the digging out of land near the highway. Acres of agricultural

land had been razed and never filled. KeNHA informed the forum that the contractors are under contractual obligation to restore all the areas tampered with to their original state23.

• Some concern was raised about the loss of agricultural land lost to the highway.24The issue of food security was also brought up in a question about how livestock can safely cross the road.

Involvement of the Public and Kenyan Experts • Regarding public participation in the planning and implementation processes, the MoR and

KeNHA stated that they have been inviting the public through the press to public consultation meetings but the turnout is always poor. It was, however, agreed that other means of mobilizing public participation should be explored including working with organizations like Kara to ensure that future public participations are a success25.

• Issues of technological transfer were raised and suggestions made that local engineers should work closely with the foreign contractors so that they are able to provide technical assistance on the highway maintenance after the contractors have completed the assignment and left the country. It was confirmed that the MoR Engineers are working closely with the contractors and will be able to take over responsibility for highway maintenance after project completion. The private sector will be contracted to maintain the highway [see news coverage of this item in Appendix IX].

Costs • Concerns were also raised about the cost variations that have resulted in the project cost

increasing by 35%. This was attributed by MoR and KeNHA to the depreciating value of the shilling and increased cost of construction materials.

23 There was no mention of any penalties to date, so perhaps the penalties are to be levied later or post-construction. 24 Another issue is the loss of the agricultural land around Thika highway as landowners subdivide their land into small pieces in order to take advantage of the prevailing high land prices. The effect is that the agricultural activities are being reduced and the sizes of land cannot allow for gainful agricultural practices. 25Soon after the Public Forum KeNHA sent a letter to Kara asking for assistance with communicating the project to the public. They also hosted an open house in a tent they had set up for this purpose on the Highway near Safari Park. See the next footnote for more details.

17

Other • An engineer in the audience emphatically pointed out that in order to design well-functioning

junctions, it is necessary to have the proper data. He was concerned, saying that the last traffic data collected in Nairobi was in 2007 and that it was inadequate for proper junction design. He offered to work pro-bono on designing proper junctions and asked that the traffic simulations be posted online so that he might analyze them and rectify any errors prior to construction. KeNHA thanked the engineer but indicated that it was too late as the consultants had already been procured and they were proceeding with their work.

• There were several remarks made about the involvement of the Chinese in the THIP. For example, a question about storm water run-off near Kenyatta began was phrased, “Are we going to keep paying money to the Chinese…if there is no provision for storm water?” Another participant noted that in China, there are excellent signs in their country and that on the THIP, there are none. KeNHA’s response to the anti-Chinese sentiment was that there had been an international competition and that the Chinese had won (see answers to the storm water and sign issues above).

The Way Forward To ensure that future projects improve and are more in line with citizen expectations and international standards in design especially as regards to safety, some important lessons can be drawn from the shortcomings of the THIP. In particular, this work has highlighted the need to harness users’ and residents’ knowledge base about the actual project and how to safely access and use the superhighway and the land around it. It has also highlighted the urgent need for the government to provide more information on such transportation projects and to adopt more of a context-sensitive approach to road building that takes into account existing land uses, environment and the local economy. This means getting more input from users and those affected by the road prior to design and construction in line with international standards of Context Sensitive Design, especially safety.

18

Box 1: “Context Sensitive Project”26

At a broader level, the research consortium’s work to document the various engineering, environmental, social and economic successes and weaknesses of the THIP project has uncovered important problems with major road construction projects of this nature. However, documenting and analyzing the project work is not enough; engaging the media on this project is also important to continue to encourage more discussion and understanding. Kara and CSUD can organize media sessions to specifically talk about diverse issues regarding the project in order to generate interest and thereby enhance coverage of various issues about the project. Print media and FM radio talk shows reach wide constituencies and are effective tools to inform the public, but this alone is not enough and more consistent follow up must take place. The Government, particularly KeNHA, appreciates the need to collaborate with citizens’ structures such as Kara on initiatives of this magnitude. However, it is important to understand there are important steps, such as widely publicizing the location of KeNHA’s offices and providing an office or individual tasked with communicating with the public regularly on these issues. The Government can learn from these public outreach efforts and consider expanding its own use of the media to include using local radio stations and SMS messaging to reach a broader group of people and spread information, as well as conducting follow up before and after public events. It is also important for the GoK to recognize that public meetings need to be announced with enough time for adequate participation and accessible to a wide range of public participants. This is a good opportunity for Kara and CSUD to actively engage the Government particularly on the issue of informing, educating, and maintaining an open dialogue with the public27. 26 The complete US FHA manual can be found online at: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/designGuide&sid=about. 27 Several weeks after the Public Forum, on November 25, 2011, KeNHA held a public meeting near the Safari Park Hotel along Thika Road which a Kara member attended. The meeting was generally well attended with members of the public filling up the tent that was erected on a section of the highway next to the Safari Park hotel. Officials from KeNHA displayed an architectural impression of how the highway would like when complete. The officials were at hand to respond to various enquiries from members of the public regarding various aspects of the highway. There

• Satisfies its purpose and needs as agreed to by a wide range of constituents

• Safe for users of all ages and abilities and for the surrounding community

• Harmony with community and preserves environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic and built and natural resources of the area (land-use)

• Well managed and involves effective and efficient use of resources

• Designed and built with the least possible disruption to the community

• Seen as having added value to the community

(United States Federal Highway Administration)

19

Summary of Recommendations

1. A series of awareness-creation initiatives and public events to educate citizens on highways and transportation plans and policy more generally.

2. More engagement by professionals to make government officials and practicing

engineers more aware of the need for context sensitive road-building and of their responsibilities in designing safe roads.

3. In line with the Kenya Open Data Initiative, more open access to all information from the

GoK on issues surrounding the THIP and other transportation projects. This includes Environmental and Social Impact Assessments, Traffic Data, Road Designs, Resettlement Action Plans and Project Updates to avoid unforeseen closures and diversions and create better independent monitoring mechanisms.

4. More materials such as brochures and booklets with simplified information about the

usage of the highway might also be published and disseminated by the GoK in partnerships with civil society organisations like Kara.

5. More careful research on transportation infrastructure policy, projects and processes by

universities in support of improving how the GoK and citizens develop and use such infrastructure in future.

6. More effort should be made to address the issues raised by citizens as regards to Thika

Highway and to mitigate possible negative impacts. This may involve some re-designing. Conclusion While the majority of Kenyans welcome and appreciate the THIP and its anticipated benefits, it is clear that there are gaps in the project process and implementation. As this is the first superhighway being built in Kenya, it is important that lessons are drawn from the gaps so appropriate and necessary measures are taken to ensure that future projects live up to the expectations of all the key stakeholders, including the general public. Moreover, fundamental

was also good media presence to cover the event. KeNHA’s effort to reach out to the public with information regarding the highway is important, but there is concern that it is very late in the construction and some of the issues of concern to the public regarding the design aspect of the project may not be addressed at this stage. There was an emphasis on road safety and the need for users of the highway to acquaint themselves with the usage of the superhighway. Officials of KeNHA took time to explain to participants how to use the highway and how to interpret some of the unfamiliar road signs along the highway. The mix of participants was balanced and included business people, residents along the superhighway, motorists (even some matatu drivers and conductors took time to attend briefly), experts, and Government officials among others. The level of interest in understanding more about the project is an indication that more needs to be done to disseminate information to the public and KeNHA should consider organizing a series of such meetings on several sections of the highway to ensure that as many people as possible can be reached with information about the project. The presence of media also points to media interest though there was not much media coverage of the meeting. Perhaps a more strategic KeNHA engagement with the media will go a long way in enhancing media interest and coverage of issues regarding the project.

20

issues concerning the design and implementation processes have not been adequately addressed or planned for at this advanced stage of construction, so work must be done to continue to bring these issues to light and work to have the road design adjusted especially with regards to critical ongoing concerns about safety. Specifically, structured stakeholder involvement and participation at the very initial stages of project planning must be taken into consideration along with continued lines of communication throughout the project cycle. Organized civil society organizations, such as Kara, and local universities, such as the UoN and JKUAT, obviously have a role to play in the whole process and the Government might therefore embrace partnership with such institutions while undertaking initiatives such as the THIP. There is also need for public sensitization on the importance of being proactive and participating in various service delivery processes such as the THIP. While it is easy to blame the Government for failure to accord the public an opportunity to participate in various processes, that blame must be shared as there is no evidence of members of the public going out of their way to seek to understand the Government projects and participate in the same. What this work has shown, however, is that once proper venues are provided people will come out and discuss critical issues and provide valuable feedback on transportation issues, an area that is generally neglected by civil society. The Kara/CSUD initiative has succeeded in bringing to the fore some of the grave concerns harbored by the public. As a result of the findings of the FGDs and the public forum organized by Kara, KeNHA has taken the first steps in rolling out a public awareness and road safety campaign on the THIP. This is encouraging but much more must be done by the government, civil society and citizens to address the myriad of concerns and very real problems around the highway now nearing completion and ensure the future highway projects unfold in line with the principles of the Constitution and context-sensitive road design.

About Kara Since its inception eleven years ago, the Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations (Kara) has been at the forefront of advocating for acceptable standards of public service delivery as well as access to the services provided by the Government. Over the years Kara has carved a niche as the apex body representing the voice and pro-active action of residents associations on taxpayers and consumers rights countrywide, and accelerated access to public service delivery. Kara promotes structured public participation in service delivery processes by encouraging and facilitating formation of residents associations countrywide. Over the years membership to the Alliance has grown with more Kenyan citizens recognizing and appreciating the role of residents associations in achieving better public service delivery. The Alliance is also keen on advocacy, especially on good governance and social accountability. To achieve its goals, the Alliance is continually investing in forging working and sustainable partnerships with Government, private sector, development partners, institutions of higher learning and wider civil society.

21

About CSUD Founded in 2004, CSUD is one of eight Centers of Excellence focused on sustainable transportation and is part of this global network of centers. For the last six years, CSUD has worked in Nairobi, seeking out partnerships with Nairobi-based think tanks and researchers to deepen its understanding of how to facilitate sustainable urban development, with a key focus on land use, transport and planning institutions within the Nairobi Metropolitan Region (NMR). CSUD’s collaborative efforts take a strategic policy network approach.28 This involves undertaking action research to build networks while at the same time conducting cutting edge research into pressing issues around urbanization. We then use this research and the networks formed to inform policy and practice (Klopp, Sclar and Ngau 2011, Klopp 2011). This approach has been central to numerous projects, including our effort at collaborative planning focused in the Municipality of Ruiru and our involvement in the Nairobi Metropolitan Region spatial concept competition.29

Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone for their valuable contribution to this work including current and former staff at CSUD (Jacqueline Klopp, Jennifer Schumacher-Kocik, Nicole Volavka-Close, Jennifer Graeff, Elizabeth Marcello, and Jenniffer Feliz) as well as those at Kara (Stephen Mutoro, Henry Ochieng, Nancy Kariuki, Sarah Kanini and Paula Murambi) and all of the participants at the Focus Group Discussions, Stakeholder Meeting and Public Forum, especially Professor Evaristus Irandu, Eng. Meshack Kidenda and Eng. John Mwatu. This work was generously supported by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.

28“Policy networks” describes the stakeholder networks embedded in the decision-making apparatus that underpins the notion of governance. Policy networks are comprised of the actors who have an identified interest in a policy decision. These actors are arrayed across various units of government (legislatures, municipal councils, and bureaucracies), the private sector, civil society, etc. 29 This effort involves planning advice for Ruiru to better position itself to tap the benefits of its location within the metropolitan region while avoiding the negative consequences; improving urban governance to create an environment conducive to investors with improved service delivery to its residents. CSUD also participated in an international competition on development of the NMR spatial concept plan.

22

References and Recommended Further Reading African Development Fund (2007).Nairobi-Thika Highway Improvement Project: Appraisal Report. Available at: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/KE-2007-087-EN-ADF-BD-WP-REV.1-KENYA-AR-REV.1-NAIROBI-THIKA-HIGHWAY-PROJECT.PDF.

Consulting Engineering Services (CES) (India) Private Limited and APEC Limited (2007). Feasibility study, detailed engineering design, tender administration and construction supervision of Nairobi-Thika Road (A2): Phase 1 and 2 environmental and social impact assessment study report. Final Report.

Japan International Corporation Agency (2006).The Study on master plan for urban transport in the Nairobi Metropolitan Area in the Republic of Kenya- Final Report. Tokyo: Katahira& Engineers International.

Klopp, J. Towards a Political Economy of Transportation Policy and Practice in Nairobi. Urban Forum (17 June 2011), 1-21.

Klopp, J., Ngau, P. & Sclar, E. University/City Partnerships: Creating Policy Networks for Urban Transformation in Nairobi. Special Issue on International Perspectives on Community-University Partnerships in Metropolitan Universities, (November 2011), 22(2), 131-142.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Transport Unit, Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics. (September 2009). “Share the Road: Minimum Standards for Safe, Sustainable and Accessible Transport” Final Draft Report: Climate XL-Africa(www.unep.org/transport/.../PDF/ClimateXL_NMTNairobiReport.pdf).

23

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Information on Thika Road-from the Ministry of Roads-Republic of Kenya website (accessed May 2012 at http://www.roads.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=27) 1. Expansion of Nairobi – Thika Road (A2) Nairobi – Thika Road is part of international trunk road connecting Nairobi City with Ethiopia to the north and is located in Nairobi and Central Provinces of Kenya. It starts in Nairobi on Uhuru Highway at three points namely Haile Selassie Avenue, University Way and Museum Hill Roundabout and converges at Pangani Roundabout on Thika Road. It then proceeds to Thika via Muthaiga, GSU, Kasarani, Githurai Roundabouts, Kenyatta University, Ruiru Town, Juja Town and ends at the bridge near Blue Post Hotel. The total project length is 50.4 km. The traffic flow along Nairobi – Thika Road has been marred by traffic jams, hence the need for expansion of the road. The road is being improved from the current 4 (four) lanes up to 8 (eight) lanes including provision of cycle tracks and footpaths. From the Design, the traffic capacity of the Nairobi – Thika will be increased by expanding the roads as follows;

• Juja – Thika: 2 lanes dual carriageway including service roads, cycle tracks and footpaths.

• Kasarani – Juja: 3 lanes dual carriageway including service roads, cycle tracks and footpaths.

• Muthaiga – Kasarani : 4 lanes dual carriage way including service roads, cycle tracks and footpaths.

• Pangani – Muthaiga: 4 lanes dual carriageway including cycle tracks and footpaths. • Museum Hill – Pangani : 3 lanes dual carriageway • Ring Road Ngara – Kariokor – Pangani : 2 lane carriageway

The contracts for the works have been awarded as follows Lot No. (km) Contractor Contract Sum (Kshs.) LOT 1: City Arterial Connectors

12.4 M/S China Wu Yi Company Ltd.

8,030,386,596.64

LOT 2: Muthaiga – Kenyatta University

14.1 M/S Synohydro Corporation Ltd.

8,690,568,489.73

LOT 3: Kenyatta University - Thika

23.9 M/S Shengli Engineering Construction Group Co. Ltd.

9,441,732,008.29

The construction will include the improvement of all intersections through interchanges, overpasses and underpasses.

24

The Proposed improvements include:

• Four lane flyovers at Globe Cinema, Museum Hill and Limuru Junction • Six lane flyovers at Muthaiga, Survey of Kenya, Kahawa Sukari, Kasarani, Githurai,

Kimbo, Ruiru Bypass Junction, Gatundu and Mangu. • An underpass at Pangani.

The works for the three project lots commenced on 28th January 2009 with periods of 30 months. The whole project completion date is 27th July 2011.

25

Appendix II: Announcement for Focus Group Discussions

26

Appendix III: Announcements for Public Forum

27

Appendix IV: Letters to Kara

28

29

30

31

Appendix V: Focus Group Discussion Questionnaires

KARA/CSUD Thika Highway Focus Group Discussion Questionnaire

Target Audience: Residents associations, business organizations, users and any other stakeholders in the Thika Highway Construction Project.

Topic: Impact of Thika highway improvement project on residents

Purpose of FDG

The FDG seek to gauge public opinion on the Thika Highway improvement project, its impact on residents and extent to which residents were informed of project and involved in its planning.

Objectives of the FGDs

Investigate the level of involvement of residents in decision making regarding the project. Understand the socio economic impact of the construction project on the residents and/or users of the

Thika Highway. Identify the prevalent expectations and perceptions of the residents and/or users of the highway

regarding the project.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION QUESTIONS

PROJECT AREA:……………………………………………

(Please note that your information will not be given to outside entities. It is for internal use only.)

A. Name (Optional): ___________________________________________

B. Age Group: 5-10 11-13 14-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-55 over 55

C. Marital Status

D. Highest level of education

E. Where do you currently reside?

F. How long have you been living there?

G. What is your current occupation?

H. Comments/concerns on Thika Highway Improvement project

I. Suggested Mitigation measures

32

J. May we contact you about your input at a later date? If so, please provide your e-mail address or number

Project Awareness

1. When did you first become aware of the Thika Highway Improvement Project? Yes No

2. How did you become aware of it? (Newspaper, a local organization or authority, word of mouth, etc.)

3. Are you aware of any time frame for the project? If so, what is your understanding of the timing and how did you learn about it (for example have you heard/do you know whether the project is on schedule for completion, ahead of schedule, or behind schedule)? Yes No

4. Are you aware of the costs of the project?

Yes No

5. Are you aware of how the project is being funded?

Yes No

6. Prior to the Improvement Project, what was your primary use of the highway? a) Commute to work/school b) Transport good and/or services c) Others (Please specify)

7. How do you think your use will change with the new highway and do you think you are being adequately prepared for the changes that will occur (higher speeds etc.)?

Project Design

1. Are you aware of specific design plans for Thika Highway? Yes No

2. Are you aware of any information sessions (formal or otherwise) or distributed materials that explain how to use the new road, once completed, including public transport access points, Non-Motorized Transport options, secondary access roads and interchanges? If so, what groups are holding these sessions or distributing this information and what information did you learn? Yes No

33

3. Do you know which office to contact if you are having a problem with the construction? If so, who? How responsive are they? Yes No

4. How is your mobility being impacted during the highway construction?

5. How do you think your mobility will be impacted after construction is complete?

6. If your access to the highway is being impacted by construction or the new design, how were you made aware of the changes?

7. What was your primary mode of transportation on the highway prior to the start of construction - private car, matatu, bus, walk, bike?

8. What is your primary mode of transportation on the highway currently?

9. Do you think your primary mode of transport will change or remain the same post-construction? If it will change, how so?

Land Use and Road Safety:

1. Do you know of actions taken to address important/critical land uses on the highway? If actions are temporary, do you know if they will be permanent once road construction is complete? If actions have not been taken, do you know if they will be?

Yes No

2. Have you experienced any impacts (negative or positive) that have affected your business or home during the construction? If so, what are they? Yes No

3. Are you aware of any impacts (negative or positive) that have affected neighboring/local business or home during the construction? Yes No

4. How is safety on the highway (from the perspective of pedestrians, NMT users, matatus and drivers)? If it is a concern, do you have ideas about how it might be improved?

34

5. Do you think safety will improve or worsen after the highway is complete? (Please explain)

6. Has the level of accidents on the highway increased or decreased since the commencement of the project?

Nairobi Metropolitan Transportation Plan and System

1. What are the problems that you think this highway improvement project seeks to address?

2. Do you think this project will address them, both in the short and the long term? Yes No

3. Are you aware of a Nairobi Metropolitan Transportation plan? If so, how did you learn about it and have you accessed it? Yes No

4. What is your understanding of the vision (either from the Nairobi Metro Transport plan or from other information if you have not read it) for transportation in the Nairobi Metro Area? How do you think this project fits into this vision?

5. How does the project fit into your own vision of a Nairobi area transport system?

Economic & Environmental Impact

1. How do you think this project impacts your personal finances?

2. How do you think this project impacts the value of your land/home/business?

3. How do you think this project impacts the local and regional economy?

4. Do you think the highway will have any negative impacts on the environment? Yes No

35

5. Would you be interested in seeing the Environment Impact Study? Do you think it was adequately

shared? Yes No

Local Planning and Local Authority Involvement

1. Has your local authority been involved in planning for this project? Yes No

2. Has your local authority been involved in carrying out this project?

Yes No

3. Has your local authority (or another entity) helped make provisions for those displaced by this

project? Yes No

What is your overall perception of the project?

36

Appendix VI :Focus Group Discussion Participants

List of Participants for Focus Group Discussions held on Wednesday, August 3, 2011, Impala Hotel, Nairobi Name Organization Anthony Waititu Stage media Ent. Edmond Murage Uvumbuzi Kenya Erastus Wahome Mosaic Publishing Company Eric Kimani Geospatial Systems Ltd John Watundu First Licentiate Judy Wambugu Safety Instructors & Planners Peter Murima Motorist Association of Kenya Reuben Gathara Procurement Consultant Richard Mumo Geospatial Systems Ltd Simiyu W. Ronald U.o.N Stanley Irura Motorist Association of Kenya Stephen Jamwa MENEC (Health, Environment & Sustainable

Livelihood Platform) T. H. Ndorongo Geospatial Systems Ltd Zadock Akwiri Resident old Racecourse Estate - Kariokor

List of Participants for Focus Group Discussions held on Wednesday, August, 10, 2011, Sportsview Hotel, Kasarani Name Organization Cliff Omari Green Valley Dennis Adala Machio Youth In Business Eng. Kariuki Muchemi MIREMA 1ST AVENUE Eunice Kendi Kenya News Agency Fredrick Osodo STAJEL Agencies Jackson C. Masika Freight Logistics Jacqueline Njomo Total Thika Road James Ibara Ngari Chomazone Restaurant John Okwaroh Anyuola UMAGARA W. John S. Wanyoike Githurai Developers John Watundu First Licentiate Joseph Waweru Youth Inter Community Network Josephat Kageni Ndauga Kiandutu Residents Joshua Gitau Ngoingwa Residents Welfare Kenneth Odira Resident Kasarani Nyabuti David Green Valley Pastor Fredrick Simiyu Pentecostal Church

37

Peter K. Mbugua Clayworks Welfare Peter Mugambi Muchee Consonland Welfare Association Protus T. Omondi Youth in Business R.M. Kimuu Gichocho Construction Solomon K. Mbungu Kiandutu Residents Theresa Kasema Kenya News Agency William Osodo Resident Kasarani Wycliffe C. Wanalo Youth in Business List of Participants for Focus Group Discussions held on Wednesday, August 17, 2011, Sportsview Hotel, Kasarani Name Organization Andrew Kamande Witenthie Residents W. Group Anthony Kinyanjui Witenthie Residents W. Group Barrack Ondiek KAMENU Youth S.H.G. Benson Njoroge River Nile Vision S.H.G. Esther Wambui Irungu River Nile Vision S.H.G. George Kanyara Investor Githara Stephen Security Hilda W. Kinyanjui Witethie SHG Jane N. Kimani Githurai Jean C. Kiama BENDOR Welfare Group - Thika Jessee I. Hinga Ngewa Associates - Thika John K. Macharia Witethie SHG Josedas K. Muthama Human Rights & Information Forum Josphine Mwai Criminology Student Kihato Kihunyuro Investor (Membly Park) Monicah Mwaura Githurai Monicah Wanjiku Githurai Peter M. Gikonyo Businessman Peter M. Kiratu Witenthie Residents W. Group Peter W. Nyagi KAMUTHI GREEN Waiganjo Livingstone SUKARI Welfare Association List of Participants for Focus Group Discussions held on Wednesday, August 24, 2011, Digithu Hotel, Ruiru Name Organization Alex Wanjohi Mwangi LASDAP rep. Murera ward Ann Wanjiku Njogu LASDAP rep. Biashara Ward Antony Kiritu Medivet Products Ltd Beth Gabriel Monitoring Team,Gatongora Ward Charles Nderitu Mermbley Park Welfare

38

Christopher Kombi Municipality Ruiru Ciira Kiiyukia Ruiru Sports Club Cllr. G.M.Kaarah Mayor Ruiru Cllr. Joseph Kinyanjui Municipal Council Ruiru Cllr. Joseph Mutuga Biashara Ward Cllr. Samuel Karanja Municipal Council Ruiru Dorcas Njoroge Postbank Eric Kimani Mumbi Geospatial Systems Ltd Fiona Wanjiku Njira - igiri youth group Francis Ndungu Gatongora LASDAP Rep. Gigichuru Kamau LASDAP (LATIF) Henry Njuguna GRASIAH INVESTMENTS Isaac Kirimi KCB James Wahome Membley Welfare Janet Njeri Kahawa Sukari Monitoring John K. Kamau Municipal Council Ruiru John Mwangi JOMARAG Environmental Joseph N Njoroge CBO FORT JESUS Julius N. Muguro Gitothur S.H. Group L. A. Khayadi Lawrence Njau Kibue Githurai 45 Sector Z Group Marion Njeri Boro Inter Compuera Ltd Mary Gicheru Githothua LASDAP Rep. Monica Arthur Macharia Cllr Kahawa Sukari Mrs. Kiragu National Bank of K Ltd - Ruiru MureithiNewton Mwendia Njira - igiri youth group Patricia Nthenya Muthoka LASDAP rep. Murera ward Patrick Marete Municipal Council Ruiru Patrick Mgotho LASDAP rep. Paul Koranga Peter Kimuhu Chairman Kahawa Market Peter Maina Ruiru Youth Leader Peter Wandem Equity Bank Ruiru Prof. M. Wa- Gachanja VERSITVVILLE RES ASS Richard Ochieng Bonyo Progeny International Roman Kariuki Focus Rose Njeri Samson Ndungu Ruiru District Disability CBO Samuel M. Nganga Family Bank Stephen Kibuchi LASDAP rep Githurai Stephen Kinungi CBO FORT JESUS

39

Stephen Nganga Ruiru Market Committee Stephen Njogu Muchiri Njira - igiri youth group Veronica Mathenge Monitoring Ruiru Victor Ndereba Municipal Council Ruiru Vincent Muiruri Yes Youth Van - Central Vincent Sagwe Isana Logistics Willie Kamau Ruiru Juja Water & Sewarage

List of Participants for Focus Group Discussions held on Thursday, September 1, 2011, Senate Hotel, Juja Name Organization A.K. Muiru JUCWA Andrew Kigathi Angela K. Mwirigi JKUAT - UCCD Angela Mwirigi JKUAT Beatrice Kakoi JKUAT Benson Gakere Top Choice Ltd Bernard Muturi Juja Gachororo Bernard Thuku Caleb Toroitich JKUAT, Landscape Arch Charles Karaya Resident Juja Chege Thuku JCDC – CBO Rep Dr. Leonard Gitu KREENLEODELCONSULT Francis .N. Kianyai Muigai INN IDP Francis Gatimu Muigai INN IDP Gabriel Kimaru Workshop George K. Kabage Loyal Millers Gideon Gichuki AMANI Gladys Mburu TYLID Grace Gichuhi Humfrey Mbogo NICSHAM James Kinyanjui Fountain of Life Church James Maina James Njuguna Jujafarm - CBO Jane Wambui John Muigai – IM Jeniffer Nyakio Jenipher Onsando Youth Officer Juja Joakim Ndishu Generation Welfare John Chege JUCWA John Kariuki MIM John Kariuki Macharia Ndiikoma Merchants John M. Muturi Giggat House

40

John Njuguna Kariuki Kagenyo Muingai Inn IDP Martha Nduta TYLIDGRP Mary Thuku Moses Kamau Welder Ms. Dorcas Ringa JUCWA Muiga Rugara JUCWA -JKUAT Nahashon Karanja Onesmus Kakoi JKUAT Paul Nduati Generation Jipange Paul Thiongo Kamau Gachororo Peter M. Karanja Sunrise Street W. Group Peter Ngumba SENATE Hotel Prof. P.G. Ngunjiri JKUAT, Diretor, UCCD Samuel Muigai Karanja Thriller Bar Samuel Kariuki Mbugua Juja Ward Samuel Ndungu AMANI Sylvia Kathambi TYLID GROUP T. G. Ndorongo Geospatial Systems - Planners Waiganjo Livingstone

List of Participants for Focus Group Discussion held on Wednesday, September 7, 2011, Coconut Grill Hotel, Thika Name Organization A. K. Muiru Juja University City Welfare Association Antony Maina Network Media Beatrice M. Imbwaga Teacher Cpl Richard Dollar Traffic Douglas Gakere Juja Elizabeth Wanjiru JORDAN Eng. Gathanki Kamau Chamber of Commerce Eric Muranguri Student Esther Wambui JORDAN George n. Mwangi Hon Kabogos Office Gladys Mburu TYLID Harrison Maina Business Thika James Kamau Resident Juja John C. Kibe Bob Mak Printers John Musau Teacher Jonathan Makokha Thika Sch F/T Blind Joseph Kimata Clman Kuraiha Pry Josephe M. Njoroge Thika Falls SACCO

41

Jostine Gacheche JORDAN Kariuki R. Ngugi Thika Falls SACCO Kinuthia Wamwangi Happy Valley Educational Services Ltd Lydiah Wangui JORDAN Milka Mwangi Teacher Muiga Rugara Juja University City Welfare Association Nancy Mugambi Teacher Nicholas Karimi Business Patrick Wainaina Jungle Nuts Pauline Mumbi JORDAN Peter Ndutire Municipal Council Ruiru Rael Muthakye JORDAN Samuel Waithaka Business Serah W. Kimani Teacher Shadrack Mustindu Juja Simon Kariuki Teacher

42

Appendix VII: Stakeholder Meeting Participants

List of Participants for Stakeholders’ Meeting held on Thursday, October 11, 2011, Panafric Hotel, Nairobi Name Organization AK Muiru Juja residents Association Angela Mwirigi JKUAT Ann Wanjiku Njogu Ruiru Municipal Council Chege Thiku Juja residents Association Dorcas Ringa Juja residents Association Doreen K. Kirima Uniconsult Engineers Eng. J. M. Muthumbi Xenolon Consulting Eng. Kariuki Muchemi Mirema 1st Avenue Erastus Wahome Mosaic publishing . Co Eric Kimani Geospatial Systems Ltd Eunice Kendi KNA Gacheru Martin Syokimau Estate Lobby Group George Karanja Jackson C. Masika KIFA James Njuguna Juja residents Association James Osondo Syokimau Estate Lobby Group Jean Kiama Bendor Estate Welfare Group John Gatundo First Liccentiate John Mwangi Josedas Muthama HRIF Mary Jullie Karimi UON Muige Rugasa Juja residents Association Nancy Wahito Ndungu Students Ndiritu SK Lecturer Prof. Evaristus Irandu UoN Reuben w Gathara Consultant/ Lecturer Simitu W. Rowland UON Theresa Kasema KNA Waaiganjo Livingstone Juja residents Association

43

Appendix VIII: Public Forum Participants

List of Participants for Public Forum held on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, Panafric Hotel, Nairobi

Name Organization A. Muriuki CBO A. Kwamboka MYWO A.K. Muiru JUCWA Akick Kwach ARCHWAY Allan Odhiambo Business Daily Ann Wanjiku Njogu Monitoring RMC Annie Njanja BusinessPost Magazine Anthony Kabaki B.L.M Antony Muhetia KBC TV Bernard M. Waiharo Bonface Nyamai B.L.M Brian Ngugi The People Burugu J. N. CLEAD International Calleb Ajwang Acher RICL-Thika Charles S. Wambura Chege Thuku Juja Residence Clara Ouko KeNHA Clement Arua AFI Cliff Ahawo KNA Cllr Isaac Kirika Ruiru Municipal Cllr Joseph Mutunga Ruiru Municipal Cllr Karanja N.C Ruiru Cllr Moses Wahome Ruiru Municipal Daniel Omondi NASA David Gichuru Business Post Dennis Lufuta Kenya News Agency Doreen K. Kirima UNICONSULT Eng. Duncan Mulwa H.U.H Edmond Murage Uvumbuzi Kenya Edwin Billy Entrepreneur Eng. Matu APEC Eng. Muchiri Motorsport Eng. F. W. Ngokonyo IEK Eng. J. M. Muthumbi Xenolon Consulting Eng. Kithimba Kithimba Associates

44

Erastus Wahome MoSAic Jathstry Co. Erick Asava CCEO Esther Kangethe KNA Esther Kebaya KeNHA Evans Olendo Unattached/freelance journalist Feisal Mahmoud KURA Francis G. Wathigo Private School Franklin Kinyua UON Fredrick Simiyu Airseal G. Kiambi Ndegwa Individual Geoffrey Lelmett KASS FM Geoffrey Ngaru Muiruri Thika Youths Group George Karanja Githurai (NPI-SHAP) George Munya Gachera Motors Gerishon Kamindu Beer distributor Gerishon Ndungu The Star Gibson G. Kamau LATIF (Ruiru) Gilbert Mwambi Juja B.A Grace Mwangi ISK Grace Wandera Vision 2030 Hadija Kipoin Resident Hannah Ngendo Kamuthi Henry Amolo Scenario Architects Henry D. Mien KURA Henry Gila TBT Henry Irungu Hema ya Kakiba Henry Musalia NCCK Hezekiah Onyango TLA Irene Muchoki Panafcon L td Isaacs Ndong’a Prime Time J. Ndungu CBO J.K. Muthama Jacob Mbao DPOA James Kaesa The People James Rarama Ridgeville guest Jane W. Kariuki Kamuthi Jeremy Bundi U.O.N/EACC Joan Muthoni EXPLORER John Mbaru K.Y.E.B.L.M John Mwangi RICL-Thika John Ngirachu Daily Nation

45

John Nyaga kamuthi John Omuya Masosa Joshua Gitau FHOK Josphat Kitema Julie K. Maranya Juliken International Julius Kimani Stesuki Enterprise Justus Lavi Global Exam Limited Kamau Mukai JPS Kenneth M. Murerwa Mathare Residence Association Kenneth Mwaura T.E.R. Kevin Mugo UON Lawrence Kibue Githurai 45 Lazarus Momanyi E.PCK Leonard Mbidhi Environmental Rangers Luke Githinji E.A. Builder Magazine M’Barihe K. N. Consultant Maina Christopher Bunge La Mwanachi Martin Gacheru Syokimau Merab Akinyi TSC Michael Bangue Resident Michael Opondo Dialogue Africa Michael Wahome KURA Micheal Onyura Business/resident Mike Muriuki Liberty Life Mohamed Aslam Macare Resident Morris Omollo CBDE Moses Ndekei Neighbourhood Mr. Jitendra Gosrani Fuel Max Muranga road Mr. Moses jaokoo UNITAR Muema K. Anthony PAYS MV Muiga Rugara Juja Division Residents Association Mukanda KH. Daniel UON Mukesh Patel BACE Nasra Wahito Peace Ndonga Ndonye Lily Nicholas Bundusi Bunge La Mwananchi Nicholas Karanja Nichonja Oliver Eshitemi Lurambi Social Forum Onyango Jonah The Standard Pastor John Ragui Jomarang E.A Patrick K. The Standard

46

Patrick ngugi Mugutha Ruiru Paul Warui USIU Peninah Mwangi Resident Peter Banret Peter Gathua K.A.A Peter Kimuhu Kahawa Wedani Peter Muiruri Standard Newspaper Peter Ngugi kamuthi Peter Ngugi Muiga Phelix Otieno Scenario Architects Phweas David British Council Prof E.M. Irandu U.O.N Protas Murunga NORKEN Ramadhan Rasadb The Star Richard Bonyo Progeny International Ltd Robert Kigunda Kasarani Rose Oloo KENHA Rueben Gathara Lecturer Ruth Mutegi KBC TV Sammy N. Akirr Kahawa Sukari Residents Association Samuel K. Wambugu Kenya Accidents Samuel Miuga Resident Samuel Njogu Student Kenya Poly Silas M. Kingi Quality Motor Cow Stephen Manda Somogeomaps Steve Mbogo Media Sylvester Maina Mado Dev Org Thomas Karinga Timothy Muiruri NCBDA Victor Wafula Ghetto Radio Waiganjo Livingstone Kahawa Sukari Residents Assocition William Alivanda B.L.M William Ruto MASCOT ENG Wyclif Onyimbo NUDP Yosia Vida CCEO Zaphastian Nyamweya

47

Appendix IX: Press Clippings

48

49

50

51

52