In this guest post, Dr Zhengli Huang describes the results of the research “Enhanced connectivity or urban bypassing? Examining two Chinese transport infrastructure projects in Kenya”, funded by an International Fellowship from the Urban Studies Foundation and developed at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield, under the mentorship of Professor Tom Goodfellow.
I recently published an article on lucrative infrastructure in Urban Studies, supported by the Urban Studies Foundation, comparing two major infrastructure projects in Kenya: the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) and the Nairobi Expressway. The paper examines how different financing models—government-to-government (G2G) loans and public–private partnerships (PPP)—shape their spatial and social effects, focusing on Nairobi and the town of Voi. At first glance, both projects appear as archetypal infrastructure for connectivity: large-scale, linear systems designed to move people and goods more efficiently. Yet, as the research unfolded, it became increasingly clear that their effects were far more uneven and selective than the language of “connectivity” suggests. Bypassing—the production of selective linkages alongside exclusion—became a central concern.
In Nairobi, the expressway quite literally introduces a “second layer” of mobility: an elevated, tolled corridor connecting wealthier western suburbs to the airport and the eastern parts of the city. It offers speed and efficiency, but only to those who can afford it. In Voi, the SGR brought an influx of passengers, yet the station remains poorly integrated into the town: limited local transport connections, fragmented planning, and only short-lived economic gains. Construction booms quickly dissipated, and land value increases proved temporary.
These observations began during fieldwork in Kenya during the pandemic years. At the time, the SGR had already passed its peak of public attention, while the expressway was under construction and widely praised for its speed and efficiency. Both projects were built by the same contractor, yet the expressway was framed very differently: as a PPP, it was presented as both an innovative financing solution and a departure from the politically contentious narrative of Chinese state-led infrastructure. This raised a question that ultimately drove the paper: does a shift in financing model—from G2G loans to PPP—produce fundamentally different outcomes? Does it reduce risk, improve development impact, or address urban challenges such as congestion?
The answer, emerging through writing and revision, is more complicated. While PPPs may reduce concerns over sovereignty and debt dependency, they can intensify spatial inequality. The Nairobi Expressway, for instance, excludes the city’s dominant public transport system, the matatus, and does little to alleviate congestion in the city centre, as it primarily serves a different group of users. Both projects improve mobility in specific ways, but neither generates sustained, inclusive urban development.
What became clearer through the writing process is that financing does not simply enable infrastructure—it reorganises control, redistributes risk, and reshapes access. In the case of the expressway, the PPP model effectively transforms a public infrastructure into a revenue-generating asset under private control. This shifts its orientation from a collective urban service toward a commodified, selectively accessible corridor.
Reflecting on the writing process, one of the most important lessons was that paying attention to finance estranges infrastructure. What often appears as a neutral, technical intervention becomes visible as a set of political and economic relations. Infrastructure is no longer simply “there” as material form; it is actively produced, governed, and contested. This insight speaks to a broader tension I have encountered over a decade of research in China and Africa. On the one hand, those directly affected by infrastructure—particularly displaced or marginalised communities—often articulate experiences of loss and disruption. On the other hand, infrastructure continues to be narrated as inherently developmental and necessary, even by those adversely affected. Finance provides a lens to understand this contradiction: it reveals how visions of development are structured, whose interests they prioritise, and how trade-offs are distributed.
The process of writing and revising this article also opened up new questions that extend beyond individual projects. Focusing on discrete infrastructures proved insufficient to capture the wider dynamics at play. Increasingly, my attention has shifted toward the interfaces between infrastructures and cities—particularly in port contexts, where global logistics, urban space, and everyday life intersect. Infrastructure may be large-scale and capital-intensive, but its effects are deeply intimate. It shapes daily mobility, access to opportunities, and relations to land and livelihood. Understanding infrastructure, therefore, requires moving beyond its material presence to examine how it is financed, valued, and embedded in broader socio-spatial processes. The support of the Urban Studies Foundation made it possible to develop this line of inquiry. More importantly, the experience of publishing has reinforced a key lesson: writing is not simply a way of presenting research—it is a method through which the object of research itself is reconstituted.