Roads are the lifelines of a city. They determine how easily people move to work, how businesses reach customers, and how neighbourhoods connect to the wider urban economy.

Kigali’s decision to revise its cost-sharing model for neighbourhood road construction therefore carries significant implications for the future of urban mobility and community participation.

Under the new arrangement, residents and the City of Kigali will each contribute 50 per cent of the cost of neighbourhood road projects, replacing the previous model where residents contributed 30 per cent and the city covered 70 per cent. The rationale is clear: demand for neighbourhood roads has grown sharply, and spreading public funds more evenly could allow more communities to benefit.

This approach is not unique to Kigali. Similar community cost-sharing models have been used successfully in cities such as Nairobi and Addis Ababa, where residents contribute toward local road paving or drainage works while authorities provide technical supervision and partial funding.

In some Indian cities, neighbourhood associations have also co-financed street upgrades with municipalities, accelerating development in areas where residents are willing and able to contribute.

Such examples show that shared responsibility can work when communities feel ownership of projects and when local governments provide strong oversight. In wealthier neighbourhoods, where property values are higher and residents may see road upgrades as an investment in their assets, the 50-50 model may even be considered fair.

However, Kigali’s neighbourhoods vary widely in income levels, and this is where the model may face its biggest test. For many households, contributing hundreds of thousands or even over a million francs to a road project is a major financial burden.

In lower-income communities, raising half of the construction cost could prove difficult, potentially slowing projects in areas that need better roads the most.

This risk suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach may not always deliver equitable outcomes. A more flexible system could improve the model’s effectiveness.

For instance, the city might consider differentiated cost-sharing arrangements based on neighbourhood income levels, with higher public support for lower-income areas and greater community contributions in wealthier districts.

Another option would be phased contributions, allowing communities to participate gradually rather than meeting the full 50 per cent upfront.

Equally important is ensuring transparency and reliability in project delivery. Past experiences where contractors abandoned works after residents had already contributed funds highlight the need for stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms.

Ultimately, Kigali’s revised model reflects a pragmatic attempt to stretch limited resources while expanding road infrastructure. With thoughtful adjustments that recognise the diversity of neighbourhoods, the programme could evolve into a powerful example of inclusive, community-driven urban development rather than an unintended barrier for the most vulnerable areas.