Multimodal transportation systems are at the core of managing a city’s complex movements and function as a link between its actors, institutions, and services with the goal to meet the challenges of population growth and changing travel behaviour.  London’s e-scooters have introduced a new mode of transport which provides a more flexible, faster way of travelling. However, the implementation of this non-conventional mode of transport has also sparked discussions amongst researchers and planners emphasising how this challenges conventional transport.  In collaboration with students at the Ardhi University in Tanzania, LSE students explored London’s Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) transport hub, which recently introduced e-scooters into its network, and contrasted their experience with the Ardhi students’ analysis of the Ubungo Interchange (UI) in Dar es Salaam.  This blog will compare the transportation patterns in H&F and the UI, followed by a brief analysis on how the integration of new modes of transport will affect current multimodal transportation systems, mobility, and spatial accessibility in the respective areas.

While the two areas of interest exhibit different social, economic, cultural, and political characteristics, they reflect similar interests in increasing the development of multimodal transport systems.  Both areas function as major entrance points into London and Dar es Salaam respectively, carrying traffic to and from Reading, Bath and Bristol in the case of H&F, and the port and city in the case of UI.  Additionally, the two places reflect similarities in modes of transport, both being clusters consisting of pedestrian accessibility, private vehicles, motorcycles, municipal buses, lorries, bicycles, and long-distance coaches – reflecting the challenge for both places to coordinate and increase connectivity between the different modes.  However, H&F and UI differ in two key ways: namely (1) the modes of micro mobility; and (2) the physical space infrastructure creating the basis for further development in transport systems.  These factors are, of course, also interconnected with each other, and embedded in their respective contexts.  In H&F, the new “micro-mobile” mode of transport being introduced is the “e-scooter” – a so-called product-service system designed to be “competitive, satisfy customer needs and have a lower environmental impact than traditional business models” (Moreau, et. al., 2020).  The main challenge in H&F will be to implement the e-scooters into a system that may not have the capacity to support this new mode of transport.

In terms of infrastructure, the students observe that UI’s hub clearly delineates the spaces designated for the various types of transport, whereas H&F is more physically constrained.  Therefore, the modes of transport in H&F mix more frequently, whether by design or unintentionally forced to mix when the infrastructure is inadequate (e.g. cyclists creeping onto the pavement).  Consequently, a visitor to London may be easily overwhelmed and unsure of the spatial layout and rules of transport.  In terms of cost, the students note that both transport systems offer student discounts, yet London’s system is not as affordable.  This is primarily due to the congestion charge that is enforced in central London, and the e-scooters are seen as a novelty mode of transport that carries a certain premium.  A 15 minute trip on an e-scooter is likely to cost between £3.25-£3.40.  Additionally, the e-scooters are age restricted modes, thereby excluding teenagers from accessing more affordable, convenient transit.

Overall, the students observe many similarities between the two cities, and there are overlapping issues with respect to successfully implementing multimodal urban transportation systems.  As planners, it is our responsibility to contextualise these urban sustainability matters so that the solutions are appropriate for the communities they aim to serve.  In the case of London and Dar es Salaam, they may have similar problems, but the planning solutions for each city may look slightly different.  Most importantly, planners need to understand the physical boundaries of the space.  We see that H&F is more constrained in its infrastructure potential, while UI benefits from more space and possibilities of expansion.  For these reasons, London’s solutions may be more about tweaking the existing infrastructure rather than adding more modes, such as the e-scooters; whereas Dar es Salaam’s solutions may be less about the physical infrastructure and more about prioritising and encouraging sustainable modes of transport.  In both cities, the tension between mobility and accessibility is always present, and planners must navigate these two needs when implementing micro mobility projects and striving for sustainable urban transformation.